The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy in violation of section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, or in the practice of a health profession, in violation of section 456.072(1)(v), Florida Statutes; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department, Board of Massage Therapy, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Li was a licensed massage therapist in the state of Florida, holding license number MA82765. Ms. Li's current address of record is 620 East Colonial Drive, Orlando, Florida 32803. Ms. Li's native language is Mandarin Chinese. She came to the United States from China in 2014, and her ability to communicate in English is limited. On November 16, 2016, Ms. Li was employed by Empire Day Spa (Empire), located in Lake Worth, Florida. On that day, Detective Avidon, as part of the City of Lake Worth Community Policing Street Crimes Unit, was participating in an ongoing investigation into possible prostitution. He entered Empire in an undercover capacity and was greeted by Ms. Li. Detective Avidon asked her how much it would be for a one-hour massage. Ms. Li advised him it cost $70. Detective Avidon asked Ms. Li if she would give him a "full service" massage, which, from his experience in investigating vice, he understood to be a phrase commonly used to refer to the performance of sexual acts during or after a massage. As he testified, Ms. Li took Detective Avidon into an enclosed hallway to the left of the counter, where she told him he would have to pay extra money. Ms. Li then led him to a massage room. Later in the massage room, Detective Avidon asked her, "how much?" Ms. Li came over to him, rubbed his upper thigh just below the genital area, gestured as if she were performing masturbation, and asked him, "you want?" As he testified, Detective Avidon, using a slang term for oral sex, then asked Ms. Li, "How much for a blow job?" Ms. Li answered, "You tell me." Detective Avidon then asked, "Sixty?" Ms. Li responded, "One hundred." Detective Avidon confirmed, "One hundred dollars?" Ms. Li said, "Yes." Detective Avidon told Ms. Li he needed to put his phone and wallet in his car and exited Empire. Detectives already on scene then entered Empire along with Detective Avidon. Ms. Li was positively identified by Detective Avidon, and she was placed into custody. Ms. Li was later formally identified using the Florida Driver's license in her possession. Detective Avidon shortly thereafter completed the probable cause affidavit, which later was introduced into evidence to supplement and explain his live testimony at hearing. Ms. Li's contrary testimony, to the effect that while she was in the massage room with Detective Avidon, she did not agree to engage in sexual activity, was not credible and is rejected. While it is accepted that Ms. Li's ability to communicate in English is limited, the credible testimony of Detective Avidon as to all the circumstances surrounding their communications makes it very clear that Ms. Li completely understood that she was agreeing to engage in sexual activity in exchange for payment. Ms. Li's actions on November 16, 2016, were outside the scope of practice of massage therapy. Ms. Li used the massage therapist-patient relationship to attempt to engage Detective Avidon in sexual activity. Ms. Li engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy. Ms. Li has never had any prior discipline imposed against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order finding Ms. Shufang Li in violation of sections 480.0485 and 456.072(1)(v), Florida Statutes, constituting grounds for discipline under section 480.046(1)(p); imposing a fine of $2,500; revoking her license to practice massage therapy; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Gennaro Cariglio, Jr., Esquire Law Office of Gennaro Cariglio, Jr. Penthouse 701 8101 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33138 (eServed) Lealand L. McCharen, Esquire Gerald C. Henley, II, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed) Nichole C. Geary, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed) Kama Monroe, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of chapter 480, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and; if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following factual findings are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of massage therapists pursuant to section 20.42 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 80938. During May 2016 Respondent worked at Massage Envy (“M.E.”) as a massage therapist. M.E. is a spa facility offering massage services. D.W. is a 46-year-old female with significant back issues. D.W. was in a boating accident as a child, and has had at least eight back surgeries in attempts to alleviate her back pain. Since 2012, D.W. has had numerous massages to help ease her back pain. She initially received massages through her chiropractor’s massage therapist. The chiropractor’s massage therapist was unable to continue, and D.W. started obtaining massages at M.E. D.W. obtained free massages from M.E. when she participated as a “mystery shopper”4/ for M.E. Following that experience, D.W. became a client of M.E. D.W. usually received full-body massages on a monthly basis,5/ except when she had the back surgeries. On May 27, 2016, D.W. contacted M.E. requesting a massage appointment. She was assigned Respondent as her regular masseuse was unavailable. D.W. arrived for the massage and met Respondent. The massage was scheduled for two hours. D.W. and Respondent discussed D.W.’s back pain. Respondent left the treatment room to allow D.W. time to completely disrobe and cover herself with the drape cloth or sheet. During the first half of the massage, D.W. was face down while Respondent stretched her out. She was comfortable with this part of the massage as she remained fully covered by the sheet. Approximately half way through the massage, Respondent briefly left the room, and D.W. turned over to be face up for the remainder of the massage. In the face-up position, Respondent began the next phase of the massage. While he was working on D.W.’s left leg, Respondent bumped her vagina. D.W. initially thought the touching was an accident; however, Respondent kept touching her clitoris. Respondent then put two to three fingers inside D.W.’s vagina. D.W. was “very scared,” and initially felt frozen in fear. After a few minutes Respondent asked if he needed to stop the massage. After a few seconds, D.W. was able to say, “It’s making me feel like I have to pee, please stop.” Respondent stopped. Respondent then asked if D.W. wanted to have her hands or feet massaged as there were a couple of minutes remaining in her appointment. D.W. did not want Respondent’s hands touching her hands; she indicated he could message her feet. Respondent finished the massage by working on D.W.’s feet. After the massage ended, D.W. dressed. D.W. went to the restroom, received a cup of water from Respondent and checked out at M.E.’s front desk. D.W. went to the parking lot, called the M.E. manager, and told the manager what happened. D.W. then went home. D.W. told her husband what had happened and the two of them returned to M.E. The Largo Police Department was called and a report was filed. While testifying about this very intimate type of contact, D.W.’s demeanor was distressed. She cried as if it were painful to recount. D.W. now is unable to use massage therapy to treat her back pain. Additionally, D.W. has trouble sleeping, and is unable to have sex because she considers what Respondent did to her was “foreplay.” Respondent denied that he engaged in any form of sexual activity with D.W. Respondent attempted to blame D.W.’s allegation as either a “counter-transference” or “transference” event. Respondent postulated that the counter-transference or transference is “where the client imposes a negative feeling or a negative association upon their therapist after something is awoken during massage.” Respondent agreed that D.W. had been getting massages for years, and that she would be accustomed to the massage experience. Respondent also agreed that there was nothing special about the massage he gave to D.W. Respondent’s testimony is not credited. Massage therapy training teaches that massage in the vicinity of the genital area is to be conducted very carefully. If a massage therapist properly draped a patient consistent with the requirements of rule 64B7-30.001, it would not be possible to inadvertently touch a client's genital area. The placement of a massage therapist's finger (or fingers) into the vagina of a massage client is outside the scope of the professional practice of massage therapy and is below the standard of care. There is no therapeutic value to massaging or penetrating the vagina, and there is no circumstance by which a massage therapist should touch a client’s vagina.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 480.0485 and rule 64B7-26.010; and imposing a fine of $2,500 and revoking his license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 2017.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy, in violation of section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43, and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Na Li was a licensed massage therapist in the state of Florida, holding license number MA71793. Between November 2013 and December 2013, Na Li was employed by A Golden Massage and Spa, located in Hallandale Beach, Florida, where she performed Swedish massages and deep tissue massages. During November and December 2013, M.B. assisted the Hallandale Police Department in a criminal investigation. On November 13, 2013, M.B., working in an undercover capacity with Detective R.S., went to A Golden Massage and Spa as a client seeking a massage. When M.B. and R.S. entered A Golden Massage and Spa, they were greeted by a woman who introduced herself as Cici. They told Cici that R.S. was M.B.’s boss, that he had just won some money in a casino, and that he was treating M.B. to a massage. R.S. paid for two massages and Cici led M.B. to a massage room and told him to disrobe. M.B disrobed and lay face down, covered by a towel. Na Li then came into the room and introduced herself as “Yumi.” She asked M.B. if he needed a massage in any particular place, to which he said “no.” Na Li put oil on her hands and began to massage M.B. from the neck down. Na Li was concentrating on M.B.’s lower back, and then removed the towel and began massaging M.B.'s buttocks and inner legs and thighs, occasionally touching M.B.'s testicles with the back of her hand. Each time Na Li touched M.B’s testicles, she would giggle. Na Li then asked M.B. to lie on his back. M.B. turned over, Na Li put a pillow behind M.B.’s head, and she covered his genitals with a towel. Na Li resumed massaging M.B., working his upper body, shoulders, and chest. Na Li then removed the towel and placed it to the side. Na Li began massaging M.B.’s upper thigh and again occasionally touched M.B.’s genitals with the back of her hand. She then indicated through gestures that M.B. should make a fist with his right hand and put it over his penis. When M.B. complied, she placed her own hand on top of M.B’s hand and began to move it in a circle and up and down. She was moving his hand, as M.B. testified, in a “masturbation way.” M.B. stopped Na Li and asked her “how much for her to do it.” Na Li giggled, and resumed massaging M.B. Then, a second time, she put his hand on his penis and her hand on top of his. Again, M.B. asked her how much. She replied “tip,” indicating that she would expect a better tip. M.B. did not agree to give a better tip, saying that his “boss” had his money. Na Li next began to massage M.B.’s arm, and worked down to his fingers. She then placed her face in M.B.’s left hand and tried to lick his middle finger. On December 4, 2013, M.B. again went to the A Golden Massage and Spa with R.S. as part of the continuing investigation. On this occasion, he paid for himself, and was again shown to a massage room. Na Li came into the room. M.B. and Na Li recognized each other, and Na Li giggled. She again asked M.B. if he needed a massage in any particular place; he again said no. She used oil and began to massage M.B., eventually removing the towel, massaging his thighs, and touching his testicles with the back of her hand. She began tickling M.B. and licking her lips while looking at M.B.’s penis. He asked her how much for her to “do it with her lips.” She giggled and continued tickling him, but gave no answer. When he again asked her how much, she said “no, no,” which M.B. interpreted as declining to engage in oral sex. M.B. did not ask that the draping covering his genitals be removed. He did not ask Na Li to touch his genitals or give her permission to do so on either November 13th or December 4th. Consistent with the testimony of Ms. Jennifer Mason, a licensed massage therapist and expert in massage therapy, there is no reason for draping to be removed during the course of a massage. If draping comes off by accident, it is usually put back on right away. There is no massage technique that requires the use of a massage therapist’s tongue or mouth. While massage of the buttocks and inner thigh of a male patient is sometimes appropriate, it should be done with careful draping and tucking of the drape to avoid inadvertent touching of the genitalia. There is never a reason for a massage therapist to touch a patient’s genitalia. Na Li’s actions on November 13 and December 4, 2013, were outside the scope of generally accepted treatment of massage therapy patients. Na Li’s contrary testimony, to the effect that she performed only standard massage techniques on M.B., was not credible and is rejected. Na Li used the massage therapist-patient relationship to attempt to induce M.B. to engage in sexual activity and to attempt to engage him in sexual activity. Na Li engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy. Na Li has never had any prior discipline imposed against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding Na Li in violation of section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, constituting grounds for discipline under section 480.046(1)(p), Florida Statutes; imposing a fine of $2,500.00; revoking her license to practice massage therapy; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristen M. Summers, Esquire Oaj S. Gilani, Esquire Brynna J. Ross, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Simon Patrick Dray, Esquire S. Patrick Dray, P.A. Penthouse I 40 Northwest Third Street Miami, Florida 33128 (eServed) Christy Robinson, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 (eServed) Daniel Hernandez, Interim General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed)
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 480.046(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with the duty to regulate the practice of massage therapy in Florida. At all time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed to practice massage therapy, holding license No. MA0020209. In September 1997, Respondent provided massage therapy treatment on three occasions to a client, M.J. The treatment was intended to be therapeutic for injuries suffered by M.J. in an automobile accident. The last of the massage therapy sessions occurred on September 19, 1997, at the home of M.J.'s mother. M.J. subsequently filed a formal complaint with the Duval County Sheriff's Office. The complaint alleged that Respondent touched M.J.'s breast and nipple inappropriately during the September 19, 1997, massage therapy session. On November 24, 1997, the State Attorney, in and for Duval County, Florida, filed an Information, charging Respondent with misdemeanor battery in violation of Section 784.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes. In a jury trial on April 15, 1998, Duval County Court Case No. 97-66371 MM, Respondent was convicted of simple battery, a criminal violation of Section 784.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The above-referenced criminal conviction arose directly out of Respondent's massage therapy session with M.J. on September 19, 1997. Respondent would not have been charged with and convicted of simple battery but for Respondent's massage therapy practice on M.J. Respondent had to pay a $200 fine and $115 in court costs as a result of his criminal conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order fining Respondent $500 and assessing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Stanley Michael Carroll 1535 San Juan Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32210 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy and failed to appropriately drape a client as alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint1 (AAC), and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent’s license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a massage therapist in Florida, having been issued license number MA 80545. In the time since Respondent was licensed, no prior disciplinary action has been taken against her license. Respondent was born in the Liaoning Province, North China, and came to the United States in 2005. Respondent is a U.S. citizen. Respondent attended a Beauty School for her massage education and her educational instruction at school was in English. Further, when she took the examination to become a Florida licensed massage therapist, the examination was in English, and no one helped her to translate the material. Respondent’s address of record is 9986 Red Eagle Drive, Orlando, Florida, 32826.4 At all times relevant to the AAC, Respondent practiced massage therapy, as defined in section 480.033(3), at Golden Asian Massage, LLC, doing business as The Wood Massage (Golden Asian). Golden Asian was located at 1218 Winter Garden Vineland Road, Suite 124, Winter Garden, Orange County, Florida. 4 On November 26, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, stipulating that Respondent’s address of record was in New York. At some point after the March 2016 investigation, Respondent moved out of Florida. Then, either before or after November 26, 2019, Respondent moved back to Florida, but failed to advise her counsel or DOH of her address change. Respondent’s counsel stated that he would ensure Respondent filed the appropriate change of address information with DOH. At the time of the investigation, the LEO had been trained at the police academy, had multiple courses in vice-related investigations, human trafficking investigations, and drug trafficking investigations, including prostitution activities. The LEO has participated in “well over a hundred” undercover prostitution operations. The LEO’s investigation assignments “as a whole” include “anything that would be vice-related, drug trafficking or human trafficking.” The MBI is a joint police task force for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, which includes Orange County and Osceola County. MBI routinely investigates vice, human trafficking crimes, and mid-level to upper-level narcotic organizations. Once the MBI receives a complaint about a massage parlor, an undercover investigation is initiated. An undercover investigation team usually consists of five law enforcement personnel: a supervisor-in-charge; the undercover agent (agent); and two to three additional support personnel. An agent goes into the establishment, posing as a customer. Once the agent is on the massage table, the agent waits for the massage therapist to initiate, either via conversation or through an overt act, a predisposition for sexual activity. In some instances, the massage therapist might glide their fingers in the inner thigh, or speak of some sexual activity. Once the massage therapist initiates an actual sex act, the agent then tries to stop the sex act, while engaging in conversation. On March 9, 2016, after receiving a tip or complaint about the establishment, the MBI conducted an undercover investigation of the Golden Asian. The LEO arrived at the Golden Asian, met Respondent at the counter, and in English, asked for a 30-minute massage. Respondent responded in English and told the LEO it would cost $50 for a 30-minute massage. The LEO agreed to the cost, and Respondent led the LEO to a massage room within the Golden Asian. The LEO got completely undressed and positioned himself on his stomach, face-down on the massage table. Upon entering the room, Respondent grabbed a towel and placed it on the LEO’s back midsection. The LEO described the area covered as “pretty much my buttocks to, like, my lower back,” but the towel was not tucked in. Using oil, Respondent massaged the LEO’s back, thighs, and neck. While the LEO was still on his stomach and roughly ten to 15 minutes through the massage, the towel fell off. The LEO did nothing to dislodge the towel while he was on his stomach. Roughly halfway through the 30-minute massage, Respondent “stopped massaging and it was more of a gliding motion from [the LEO’s] back to [the LEO’s] inner thighs.” With this action, the LEO determined that Respondent was predisposed to engage in sexual activity. Respondent directed the LEO to turn over, which he did. The LEO testified that after he turned over his genitals were exposed. Respondent put more oil on her hands and massaged the LEO’s chest to his thigh area. Respondent further testified that Respondent “would glide and touch [the LEO’s] penis and scrotum.” Respondent asked the LEO if he liked it when Respondent “tapped” the LEO’s penis. The LEO answered “yes” to Respondent’s question. The touching of the LEO’s penis and scrotum again provided the predisposition that sexual activity could be engaged. The LEO then asked Respondent for oral sex, i.e. a blow job. Respondent declined to perform oral sex. The two engaged in talking and hand gesturing regarding manual masturbation and its cost. The LEO testified Respondent raised her hand to indicate manual masturbation would be $40.00. Respondent testified that she said “no” and did not state a price. As provided below, Respondent’s testimony was not credible. The LEO told Respondent that $40.00 was too expensive for masturbation. He then grabbed the original towel that had draped him from between his legs, cleaned the oil, dressed, and left the massage establishment. Shortly thereafter, Respondent was arrested.5 5 The dismissal of Respondent’s criminal charges is not probative of whether she committed the regulatory violations. Respondent’s hearing testimony of how the towel fell off during the LEO’s massage differs from her deposition testimony. At hearing, Respondent testified that when the LEO flipped over, the towel fell off and she did not grab it fast enough. Respondent then added it took her “one minute, two minutes” to adjust the towel. Respondent admitted that she exposed the LEO’s genitals without his permission. However, during her deposition, Respondent blamed the type of oil massage that she was administering to the LEO for the towel falling off. Respondent claimed that her hand movement was “pretty hard. So with the movement, the towel shifting a little bit by little bit, and then [the towel] fell off completely.” Respondent also testified that she “saw it [the towel] dropped off, then [she] put it back right away.” In either instance, the LEO’s genitals were exposed without his consent. At the hearing, Respondent’s description of the towel used on the LEO changed from her deposition. During the hearing, Respondent testified the towel was “one to two feet wide . . . the length is about 1.5 meters [over four feet]. I’m not exactly sure.” However, in her deposition, Respondent provided that the towel was “more like a facial towel. It’s not a very big shower towel, but it’s more a facial towel size . . . one [foot] by two [foot].” Respondent’s testimony describing the LEO’s massage is not clear or credible and is rejected. The LEO’s testimony was credible, clear, convincing, and credited. Ms. Buhler is a licensed massage therapist and based on her education, training, and experience, she is accepted as an expert in massage therapy. “Draping” is covering the body while a massage therapist is working on it for the client’s comfort and privacy. Usually, a sheet is used for draping a client (if the room is too cold, a blanket could be added). As a massage therapist works on specific body areas, that body part is uncovered and the towel repositioned when the therapy to that area is completed. Ms. Buhler opined that the size of the towel (“1 [foot] x 2 [foot]” as described by Respondent in her deposition) is “very small,” and is an unusual drape size. Further, she opined that a “1 x 2 towel barely covers anything. It would be almost impossible not to either view something or potentially accidentally bump something with a drape of that size.” If any drape were displaced during a massage, the standard of care requires that the drape be put back in place immediately, not in one or two minutes. Ms. Buhler opined that “anytime a therapist attempts to, either for their own pleasure or for the pleasure of the client, to get any sort of sexual gratification, that is considered sexual misconduct.” A therapist has a choice when any type of sexual activity is suggested or offered. A therapist can redirect someone, state that the activity is not appropriate for the setting, threaten to terminate the massage, or in fact, terminate the massage by leaving the treatment room. Respondent provided that she continued to massage the LEO for one or two minutes after the request for oral sex. Although Respondent claimed she said “No,” she did not take any affirmative action to terminate the session or remove herself from the situation. Respondent’s actions on March 9, 2016, were outside the scope of generally accepted treatment of massage therapy patients. There is no evidence that Respondent has ever had any prior discipline imposed against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding Respondent, Mingli Li, in violation of sections 480.046(1)(i) and 480.0485, Florida Statutes, constituting grounds for discipline under section 480.046(1)(p), imposing a fine of $3,500.00; revoking her license to practice massage therapy; and assessing the cost of investigating and prosecuting the Department’s case against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Zachary Bell, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed) Michael S. Brown, Esquire Law Office of Michael S. Brown, PLLC 150 North Orange Avenue, Suite 407 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Christina Arzillo Shideler, Esquire Florida Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Chad Wayne Dunn, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Kama Monroe, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 (eServed) Louise Wilhite-St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issues to be resolved are whether Respondent committed the offenses charged in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of massage therapy practice pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Terrence Grywinski, is a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida and holds license number MA 6049. Respondent’s mailing address is 6419 Meandering Way, Lakewood Ranch, Florida 34202. Respondent, Terrence Grywinski Massage, is licensed as a massage establishment in the State of Florida and holds license number MM 18059. The establishment’s physical location is 1188 Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida 34236, and this location is the location where all appointments relevant to the facts in this case were scheduled and conducted. Respondent has been licensed to practice massage therapy in Florida since on or about July 9, 1985. The establishment was licensed as a massage establishment on or about March 20, 2006. Respondent is the sole owner and sole employee of the establishment, which conducts business as Advanced Craniosacral Therapy. No evidence was presented to indicate that either license has been previously disciplined by the Board. As a licensed massage therapist, Respondent is subject to the state of Florida laws and rules governing licensed massage therapists, and the establishment that he owns is likewise subject to the laws and rules governing massage establishments. Respondent does not practice traditional massage therapy and has not done so since approximately 1995. He was trained in a modality called craniosacral therapy (CST) in 1995, and has performed that modality exclusively since that time. According to Respondent, trauma of any kind, whether emotional or physical, causes a tremendous force of energy to come into the body, and the body tries to protect itself by “shortening” and isolating the energy. This isolation of the energy created by trauma is what creates areas of tension within the body. The theory behind CST is that the body will correct itself when it feels “safe.” CST works with the fascia connective tissue that attaches muscles to the bone, and encases a person’s organs, brain, and spinal cord. CST uses very gentle holds to create a safe space for the body, which will help the body slip into a corrective reorganizational healing mode. When a person undergoes CST, the fascia will start to release and the person will feel a “letting go” or release in the tissue. CST does not involve manipulation of the tissue, but rather, a series of holds that may last in any one place for five to ten minutes. The amount of pressure applied is “whatever pressure the body tells you it needs,” but generally no more than five grams of pressure. According to Faith Buhler, who testified by deposition as an expert for the Department, when there is a release, there is a different pulse in the body. Respondent trained in CST through the Upledger Institute, which was established by John Upledger. Respondent has received extensive continuing education in CST and the majority of his statutorily required continuing education deals with the performance of this modality. Typically, Respondent’s first-time clients make an appointment for CST and are given a code to enter the second floor of the building where Respondent’s office is located. He greets patients in a common waiting room and takes them to the one-room office where therapy takes place. The office contains two chairs, a massage table, a small side table where a “cupping” machine is stored, and a bookshelf. New clients are asked to fill out an intake sheet that requests some basic information about the client and his or her reason for seeking CST. Respondent uses the information on the intake sheet to speak with the client about his or her needs, and places it in a manila folder that he uses to take notes. The notes are on the manila folder itself, as opposed to paper contained in the folder. If additional space is needed for subsequent visits, he simply gets another manila folder and, hopefully, keeps the folders about a particular client together. Respondent admits he is not very organized, and maintaining his files is not his specialty. Most clients have three to six sessions with Respondent, so it is conceivable that for most clients, a single folder would be sufficient. After Respondent speaks with the client, the client lies down on a table during the therapy, fully clothed, facing up. Typically, Respondent is the only person in the room during CST sessions, and the sessions last approximately an hour and a half. He will assess a client by lifting each leg to compare length and will rotate the legs to assess range of motion through the hips. After assessing a client, Respondent goes through a series of gentle holds, generally using the same protocol each time, with some variation depending on the need of the client. He testified that he will tell clients what he is going to do and where he is going to place his hands, and advises clients that if at any time they feel uncomfortable with what he is doing or where he is placing his hands, the client should feel free to tell him. Respondent will review the notes he made from prior visits at the beginning of each session and will discuss any changes that have taken place since the last session. Many times, the notes that Respondent keeps will include sensitive personal information related by a client if that information may reveal a source of trauma. During the time period relevant to these proceedings, Respondent advertised his practice in an alternative medicine magazine called “Natural Awakenings.” M.M. is the managing editor of Natural Awakenings. As part of her job, she writes articles and conducts interviews of professionals who advertise in the magazine. M.M.’s supervisor, Janet Lindsay, assigned her the task of interviewing and writing an article about Respondent and his practice. M.M. was told that Respondent practiced CST. On May 1, 2017, M.M. emailed Respondent and told him that Natural Awakenings wanted to feature him in an article for the June issue, and sent him a series of questions to answer, along with her telephone number. Respondent did not immediately respond, so on May 8, 2017, M.M. emailed him again to make sure he received the first email. Respondent called M.M. the next day and suggested that M.M. come in and receive a CST treatment at no charge, so that she would have a better understanding of the modality when writing the article. M.M. accepted the offer and made an appointment to see Respondent on May 12, 2017. During this first session, M.M. interviewed Respondent for the article, filled out an intake sheet, and provided a medical history. Respondent asked her some questions, then directed her to remove her shoes and lie on the table, fully clothed. Respondent explained what he was doing and where he would place his hands as he performed the various holds. M.M.’s description of the first session is consistent with Respondent’s description of how he conducts all CST sessions. There is no allegation that any improper or unprofessional conduct took place at the May 12, 2017, session. At the end of the session, Respondent offered to continue providing free sessions to M.M. in exchange for M.M. writing additional articles for the magazine about his practice. M.M. agreed to the arrangement. She testified that these kinds of arrangements are not the norm, but that it was not the first time it had occurred. M.M. testified that she felt better after having the CST session, in that her chronic pain was better, her body less tense, and her breathing easier, especially when running. These benefits, however, were temporary. M.M. wrote an article about the first session, which she provided to Respondent for review and approval before it was published. Respondent appreciated the article, felt that it was well written, and benefited his practice. On May 18, 2017, M.M. provided the final copy of the article for publishing. There was no indication from the evidence presented that the parties’ interaction at the initial visit or the exchanges regarding the article in the week following the visit were anything but professional. M.M. saw Respondent for additional sessions on June 9, 2017; September 26, 2017; November 3, 2017; and November 30, 2017. M.M. did not find anything about these visits to be unprofessional or out of the ordinary, with the exception of the last visit on November 30, 2017. M.M. and Respondent’s accounts of the November 30, 2017, visit are not reconcilable. Respondent testified that the visit was much like previous visits, while M.M. contends the visit involved unwanted and inappropriate touching and inappropriate commentary about her body. Leading up to the final visit, M.M. testified that Respondent’s behavior seemed more familiar and personal than the behavior of a health care provider. She claimed that he started calling and emailing her late at night, and referred to her as his “muse.” She specifically indicated that one call came on a weekend, and she chose not to answer it because she was with her sister and did not want to interject work issues into her weekend. Phone records from the providers for both M.M. and Respondent’s phone numbers reveal only one call made from Respondent to M.M., and that call took place May 9, 2017, before her first appointment with him. The Department did not produce any of the emails M.M. claimed that Respondent made to her. Respondent produced most, but not all, of the emails between the two. He testified that he provided to the Department all of the emails he found at the time he responded to the complaint, and that any omissions were unintentional. It is noted that the subpoena issued to Respondent requests patient records, but does not request emails. The request for production issued by the Department to Respondent, which is on the docket for this case, does not specifically request emails, but instead requests documents to be used at hearing. None of the emails in evidence contain any improper statements. All of them involve either questions about Respondent’s practice, or review of the articles that M.M. wrote about his practice.2 2 During hearing, the Department showed Respondent a copy of an email he provided in response to the Department’s request for production. The email appears, from the portions read at hearing, to involve an article that Respondent wrote about his practice. The Department did not offer the email into evidence, but asked Respondent to read where the email apparently stated, “both of you are my angels.” Respondent responded by saying, “Yes, I said that, but I never called her an angel in any session. I was complimentary. Both Lindsay – or Janet Lindsay and Ms. M.M. were very helpful in my professional life, and I see nothing wrong with referring them to angels who are helping me in my profession. And if I said I never called anybody an angel, I couldn’t remember that email until you brought it up now.” Phone records between M.M. and Respondent do indicate that Respondent contacted M.M. either by email or by text, late on some evenings. However, up until March of 2018, well after the final appointment, these contacts were in response to emails sent by M.M. to Respondent. The telephone records reference emails sent by Respondent to M.M. on January 17 and 23, 2018, a few months after M.M.’s last visit. However, neither Respondent nor M.M. were asked about these emails by date, and the record contains no information regarding their contents. The weekend before the November 30, 2017, visit was Thanksgiving weekend, and M.M. and her husband had a lengthy car ride returning from Atlanta where they spent Thanksgiving. For whatever reason, M.M. had a panic attack during the car ride, and remained especially tense at her appointment with Respondent. She recalled that the discussion portion of the visit seemed shorter, and that Respondent used a pendulum to detect energy before commencing with the CST.3 He noticed that her chest area was more closed then usual and asked her if there was some reason why she had tightness there. M.M. testified that she explained to Respondent that she had always had body image issues, specifically with her chest. She stated that Respondent offered to address the tension with a modality called “cupping,” which would also make her breasts look “perkier.” Cupping is a modality that Respondent acknowledges using on occasion. He has cupping equipment that has a variety of cup sizes and is The Department also contends in its Proposed Recommended Order that “Grywinski has no explanation for why he did not provide the January 2018 emails.” However, the record does not reflect that the Department ever specifically asked Mr. Grywinski a question about those emails, either at hearing or in his deposition, so as to require an explanation about them. 3 The use of the pendulum is a technique that Respondent developed himself. It supposedly detects energy in the body, or an absence thereof, and he also used this technique in a prior session. made so that one can use one or two cups at a time, although he generally uses only one. The machine has tubing that attaches to both the machine and the cup(s), and the amount of pressure to create suction can be changed using a dial on the machine. M.M. testified that she was familiar with the concept of cupping, both from research she had performed for articles, and from the then-recent 2016 Olympics where there were stories about Michael Phelps using the technique. She agreed to the cupping, and she testified that Respondent directed her to completely disrobe. According to her testimony, Respondent remained in the room while she disrobed, and did not offer her a drape of any kind. There was no testimony about what Respondent was doing while M.M. disrobed: i.e., whether he turned his back, set up the equipment, or watched her. M.M. testified that she did as Respondent asked because she had seen a number of health care providers for a variety of reasons all of her life, and trusted them. M.M. stated that Respondent instructed her to lay face up on the table and rolled a cart with the cupping machine over to the table.4 According to her, Respondent explained that while “one breast was being suctioned, he was performing what he called lymphatic drainage on the other breast, which basically involved finger motions on my skin that were kind of applied in a – in a rhythmic upward motion with both hands. And the idea behind it was to stimulate blood flow and circulation in the lymph nodes of that region.” M.M. stated that after the cupping of the first breast was completed, Respondent moved the cup to the other breast and duplicated the process. He then explained that he would continue to perform lymphatic drainage on the remainder of her body, and began working his way down her body, performing the same circular motions, including her stomach, hips, and pelvis; down to her pubic area and groin, and eventually her genital area, 4 Respondent testified that there is not a rolling cart in the room, because the room is too small to accommodate one. According to him, the cupping machine sits on the table against the wall, but has lengthy tubing. which she testified could have been either accidental or purposeful contact. M.M. testified that he grazed her buttocks and called them “buns of steel,” as well as referring to himself as a “horny old man.” M.M. also testified that while performing the lymphatic drainage, he touched her genitals with his fingertips. Following the lymphatic drainage, Respondent told M.M. that the session was over, and she could dress. M.M. stated that he asked not to include the last portion of the visit in her article because he was afraid of losing his license. She redressed, with Respondent remaining in the room, and after doing so, they exchanged pleasantries and she left the office. Respondent emphatically denies M.M.’s allegations. He acknowledges that he performed cupping on M.M but denied that he performed it on her breasts. According to Respondent, he performed cupping on her abdomen to relieve constipation. His records for November 30 state in part, “sm + lg. intestines & ileocecal inflamed. – complained about constipation -- cup abdomen?” When M.M. was asked whether Respondent performed cupping of her abdomen for constipation, she could not remember if she mentioned constipation to Respondent, but it was possible, and did not remember if he cupped her abdomen. Respondent testified that he explained cupping to her and told her both about uses for cupping in China, which include cupping of the breast and of the face, but also explained it is used for different purposes in the United States. In his written response to the allegations that he provided to the Department during the investigation, he stated: Because of her interest in health, (she has her own health blog) and a possible future article, I demonstrated the cupping process for her and went into a lot of detail on how it worked and what it was used for in China and the protocols that cupping I had been trained in through Ace Cupping. With cupping, the therapist is able to bring new blood and enhance circulation and lymph flow and drainage in congested and tight muscles or area of the body. * * * I also shared that the Chinese used the machine to cup women’s breasts and they claimed that if a woman breast was cupped everyday for 30 days, it would enhance circulation and lymphatic drainage and that would bring about healthier breasts or uplift them. In no way was I suggesting that we cup her breasts and I did not do so. Respondent also indicated in the investigative response that M.M. seemed uncomfortable with the cupping procedure and that he cut it short. Although his response stated that she seemed uncomfortable with the cupping, it also stated that she did not state that she was uncomfortable with any procedure he employed throughout all of the craniosacral sessions, including the November 30 session. Respondent testified that he did not ask her to undress, but rather, asked her to raise her shirt to the bottom of her ribcage, and to lower her shorts to the top of her hips, so that only that strip of skin was exposed. He placed oil on her skin, used a cup approximately two inches in diameter, and moved the cup in the same direction as the digestive system in a circular motion. M.M., by contrast, testified that no oil was used. Respondent did not perform lymphatic drainage: while he is aware of the technique, he has not been trained in it. A review of his continuing education records do not reveal any classes in lymphatic drainage. Respondent further testified that only a small portion of skin was showing while he performed the cupping, and Respondent did not provide M.M. a drape (although it is unclear that one would be necessary), and did not leave the room while she readjusted her clothing once the procedure was finished. Respondent also denies that he asked M.M. not to include the final portion of the visit in her article because he was afraid he would lose his license. At the time of the visit, there was no article in process. M.M. had already produced two articles about Respondent’s practice, and although M.M. believed she wrote three, no third article was produced, and there are no emails or texts addressing a third article, like there were for the first and second ones M.M. wrote. M.M. claimed that the third article was supposed to be a question/answer column with Respondent and a local chiropractor, Eric Winder, who Respondent says he does not know. It does not appear from the investigative report that Eric Winder was interviewed, and he was not called as a witness at hearing. Respondent likewise denies telling M.M. that she has “buns of steel,” or referring to himself as a “horny old man.” There was no further contact between M.M. and Respondent for several months. The phone logs for AT&T indicate that there were three emails sent by Respondent to M.M. in January, but as noted previously, those emails are not in evidence. On March 11, 2018, Respondent reached out to M.M. by email, asking for permission to use an edited version of one of her articles in some advertising for his practice. M.M. responded by saying, “[y]es that’s fine. Feel free to use the edited version.” On April 14, 2018, Respondent emailed M.M. again, and stated, Dear [M.M.] Hope all is well with you. I want to thank you for allowing me to use your articles in my ads. Very effective and have brought me a number of new clients. I would like to send you a check for $200, a $100 each for the 2 articles in appreciation. Could you send me your address so I can send you the check. As my practice slows down for the summer, I should be able to get you back in for more sessions. With great appreciation, Terry To which M.M. replied, That’s kind of you to offer, but not necessary but appreciated. If you feel compelled to send a check (again, not necessary), you can mail it to [M.M.’s home address]. However, I will tell you that I’m unable to come in for sessions, as I recently moved to the other side of town, and the drive is no longer conducive with my weekly schedule. But you are free to continue to use the articles I’ve written about your practice in any capacity you choose. M.M. testified that she told a friend about the November 30 session about a week after it happened, and it was her friend’s reaction that alerted her that what happened was not appropriate. Notes from her therapist indicate that she stated that she did not tell anyone for several months.5 She did not tell her husband for approximately four months after the incident. Neither her husband nor the friend that M.M. stated she told about the incident testified at hearing. There are other date discrepancies in the therapist’s notes as compared to other events in this case. For example, the September 5, 2019, entry refers to hearing from the Sarasota Police Department regarding the incident, which is, as found below, prior to the time she even reported the incident to the Department of Health, who in turn contacted law enforcement. It may be that even if the dates for the sessions in the notes are incorrect, the inconsistencies are enough to raise concerns. This is especially so given that the subpoena sent to the therapist requests ALL patient records, and the ones provided only covered the time period from August 8, 5 M.M.’s therapist’s records were subpoenaed by the Department. Statements made for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment by a person seeking the diagnosis or treatment which describe medical history, past or present symptoms, pains, sensations, or the inceptions or general character of the cause or external source thereof, insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment, are an exception to the hearsay rule. § 90.803(4), Fla. Stat. While the statements attributed to M.M. in her therapists’ notes may not be hearsay, they are not considered in this case for the truth of the matter asserted, but simply to show that there are differing statements regarding when M.M. shared her story with others. 2019, through September 10, 2019, a period of time that is much shorter than M.M. testified that she saw her therapist.6 In April 2018, M.M. emailed her employer and told her about the incident. In the emails, she states in part that he “ended our session by asking me to omit this portion of the treatment from my article, as he could lose his license. I did not report the incident, and I wrote the article as he requested, highlighting the benefits of his practice.” As noted above, there was no article after the November 30 session. She also wrote in a follow-up email that “Over the next couple of months, he tried calling/texting me in a friendly way that suggested he viewed us as more than professional acquaintances.” The telephone records do not support M.M.’s statement. M.M.’s employer responded by terminating M.M.’s advertising with Natural Awakenings and providing M.M. with the contact information for an attorney. M.M. filed her complaint with the Department on September 11, 2019, nearly two years after the incident. She did not file a complaint with law enforcement, but upon receiving her complaint, the Department investigator notified the Sarasota Police Department on September 26, 2019. Ultimately, no criminal charges were filed, but the decision of the State Attorney’s Office has no bearing on whether or not there is a basis for discipline in this case. Both M.M. and Respondent had some inconsistencies in their stories. Respondent’s, in large part, appear to be based on the fact that his records for the sessions he had with M.M. were not together, and he did not find the records for the earlier session (i.e., his first manila folder) until after his deposition. As noted previously, clients typically have three to six sessions, so it was not unreasonable for Respondent to assume that he only had one folder for M.M., especially given that the records were requested two years after his 6 It may be that notes related to couple’s counseling were not provided because those notes were not just about M.M. but M.M. and her husband. That does not, however, address the inconsistencies in the timeframes reflected in the notes. last session with M.M. His counsel turned those records over to the Department, but not when requested in discovery, and some of those records were not admitted as a result.7 The Department takes issue with a statement Respondent made about M.M. telling him that she was sexually assaulted in college, stating that there is “no mention of sexual assault, or assault of any kind, in either set of Patient M.M.’s treatment notes.” (Petitioner’s Proposed Recommended Order at 15, ¶ 111). However, given that Petitioner successfully objected to some of Respondent’s records regarding M.M. being admitted into evidence, what is in evidence does not reflect all of the records regarding M.M.’s sessions with Respondent. There can be no finding that the records contain no mention of sexual assault when, as the result of Petitioner’s objections, not all of Respondent’s records are in evidence. The Department also finds Respondent’s records to be untrustworthy because their physical appearance is somewhat different. As noted previously, Respondent writes his notes on manila folders and writes from edge to edge. He testified that when he tried to copy the manila folders for the Department, some of the notes were cut off, so he rewrote what was on the notes and provided them to the Department. There are some minor differences in the notes and in a few places, he wrote the dates as 2019 as opposed to 2017. Given that the records were requested in 2019, such an error is not significant. While the copies of the records are not exact, the differences are extremely minor. Furthermore, the Department points to no statute or rule that requires a massage therapist to have patient records at all, much less one that dictates a format to which they must conform. Most importantly, the Department does not point to any discrepancy that 7 The Department also appears to question Respondent’s and Respondent’s counsel’s good faith regarding these records, stating that Respondent testified that he found the records two to three weeks before the hearing, and yet counsel for Respondent was able to use these records in questioning M.M. in her deposition June 22, 2021. A specific date for when Respondent gave the records to his attorney is not in the record. materially affects Respondent’s account of what happened on November 30, 2017. There are other concerns with M.M.’s account of the incident in addition to those issues listed with respect to the telephone records, discrepancies in dates, and references to an article that was not written. For example, M.M. testified that she has had a great deal of medical procedures performed on her, and she is accustomed to doing what medical professionals ask of her. Kacee Homer and Lisa Caller are character witnesses who testified on behalf of Respondent. Both are healthcare professionals who testified that when a patient is asked to disrobe, they generally do. Ms. Homer, a nurse, said that generally when a patient is asked to disrobe, she leaves the room while the patient is undressing, and if possible, the patient is draped. Here, M.M. testified that Respondent asked her to disrobe, and stood there while she did so. It seems odd that M.M., who writes articles about healthcare, and by her own admission has had several medical procedures in her life and is fairly knowledgeable regarding the medical field, would not at least ask for a drape, or wait for Respondent to leave the room before undressing. M.M.’s description of the cupping and lymphatic drainage also raises more questions than it answers. She testified that while the cup was placed on one breast, Respondent massaged the other with both hands. That means the cup had to remain in place based solely on the suction or pressure provided by the cupping machine. It seems that it would be difficult for the cupping machine to provide enough suction for the cup to remain in place on her breast without causing discomfort or pain, and possibly bruising, but there was no testimony that she found the experience physically painful or it left any discernible marks. Finally, the undersigned is troubled that M.M. would willingly give her home address to a man that she claimed sexually assaulted her. It does not seem plausible that she would so easily provide this type of information to Respondent when it could enable him to make further contact with her. After careful consideration of all of the evidence presented, the undersigned finds that there is not clear and convincing evidence to support a finding that Respondent asked M.M. to disrobe in front of him without providing a drape. There is not clear and convincing evidence that Respondent massaged M.M.’s breasts, buttocks, and groin area, and touched her vagina with his fingertips, all without a valid medical reason. Likewise, there is not clear and convincing evidence that Respondent told M.M. that she had “buns of steel” or that he was a “horny old man.” The evidence failed to establish that Respondent’s conduct toward M.M. constituted sexual activity outside the scope of practice, or an attempt to engage or induce M.M. to engage in such activity.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Dannie L. Hart, Esquire Andrew James Pietrylo, Esquire Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 For Respondent: Lance O. Leider, Esquire Amanda I. Forbes, Esquire The Health Law Firm Suite 1000 1101 Douglas Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaints against Terrence Grywinksi, L.M.T., and Terrence Grywinski Massage, be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of November, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of November, 2021. Dannie L. Hart, Esquire Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Amanda I. Forbes, Esquire The Health Law Firm Suite 1000 1101 Douglas Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Kama Monroe, JD, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health Bin C-06 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 Lance O. Leider, Esquire The Health Law Firm Suite 1000 1101 Douglas Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Andrew James Pietrylo, Esquire Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Louise St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399
