The Issue The issue presented in this case is whether Respondent, Gary Segretario, committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Gary Segretario, is and at all times material hereto was a licensed hearing aid specialist in the state of Florida, holding license number AS2321. Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Hearing Aid Specialists, is the state agency charged with the authority and duty to regulate the practice of hearing aid dispensing within the state of Florida. In June 1997, purportedly in response to increasing misconduct by various hearing aid specialists, the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists issued an emergency rule amending Rule 61G-9-6.010, Florida Administrative Code, and changing the justification for the purchaser's refund from a measured improvement in the purchaser's hearing to failure of the purchaser to obtain satisfaction from the hearing aid. In 1999, the Florida Legislature created Section 484.0512(3), Florida Statutes, and added a 30-day refund provision into the Statute when the purchaser has a valid reason as defined by the Board's Rule. On April 24, 1998, in response to a telephone solicitation, patient D.V. presented to Hearing Care 2000 in Daytona, Florida, for the purpose of a hearing examination. On that date, patient D.V. was tested by Respondent and his assistant Eric Collins, a licensed hearing aid specialist trainee. Following the testing, Respondent recommended and patient D.V. agreed to purchase a hearing aid for his left ear. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that Respondent advised patient D.V. that he would lose his hearing if he did not purchase a hearing aid. The contract provided for a 30-day refund of the hearing aid purchase. On or about April 29, 1998, Respondent received the hearing aid from the manufacturer and contacted patient D.V. An appointment for delivery of the hearing aid was scheduled for May 1, 1998. After patient D.V. missed the appointment, another appointment was scheduled for May 15, 1998. On May 15, 1998, Respondent presented the hearing aid to D.V. At the time of delivery, patient D.V. complained of feedback and Respondent immediately placed a vent plug in the hearing aid. Patient D.V. departed Respondent's office with the hearing aid in his possession on May 15, 1998. On or about May 19, 1998, patient D.V. returned to Respondent's office complaining of feedback. To cure the problem, Respondent forwarded the hearing aid to the manufacturer for a soft coat finish. Three days later on May 22, 1998, patient D.V. returned for the hearing aid, was again tested, scored 100 percent without feedback, and took possession of the aid. To ensure satisfaction, a follow-up appointment was scheduled for May 29, 1998; however, patient D.V. failed to appear. On June 29, 1998, patient D.V. entered Respondent's office and demanded a refund. Upon being denied, patient D.V. physically attacked trainee Collins, threw the hearing aid at the receptionist, and eventually departed. The evidence deduced at Hearing indicates that patient D.V. physically maintained possession of the hearing aid from May 15, 1998, through May 19, 1998, and May 22, 1998, through June 29, 1998, a total of 43 days, before requesting a refund. The following day, on June 30, 1998, Respondent's wife, Barbara Segretario, advised patient D.V. via letter that he was no longer permitted within the Daytona office. Shortly thereafter, patient D.V. contacted his credit card company and disputed the hearing aid charge apparently alleging that he never signed the credit card slip. Cathy Gionfriddo, an employee at Hearing Care 2000, forwarded a copy of patient D.V.'s signed credit card slip and signed contract to the credit card company for signature comparison. Following the lengthy dispute process, the credit card company ruled in favor of Hearing Care 2000. Thereafter, patient D.V. filed a small claims action against Respondent, wherein the small claims judge ruled in favor of patient D.V. and awarded him a $450.00 judgment. Patient D.V. received the money in April 2000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Hearing Aid Specialist issue a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 11th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Post Office Box 326 Lloyd, Florida 32337 E. Raymond Shope, II, Esquire 1404 Goodlette Road, North Naples, Florida 34102 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Reginald Dixon, Esquire Bureau of Practitioner Regulation Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed as a Hearing Aid Specialist having been issued license number 0000804. During the period 1985-1986 the license of T. Ray Black was displayed on the wall at East Pasco Hearing Aid Center in Zephyrhills, Florida, but Respondent never worked at this address. East Pasco Hearing Aid Center is owned and operated by Arvina Hines whose license as a Hearing Aid Specialist was revoked circa 1981. Ms. Hines hired people to work at East Pasco Hearing Aid Center and trained them in selling and fitting hearing aids. Pamela Strife worked at the East Pasco Hearing Aid Center from 1981 until 1986 and never met Respondent nor did she ever see him at the center. She did see Raymond J. Black and Cynthia Sue Bennett, the father and sister of Respondent, working at the center. Raymond J. Black's license was revoked January 26, 1981. Arvina Hines submitted an application for training program for Hearing Aid Specialist on April 21, 1986. (Exhibit 5), in which Respondent signed the sponsor affidavit as the sponsor of Ms. Hines. He did not provide any supervision to Hines. Sheila Louise Thomas submitted as application February 25, 1985, for a training program as a Hearing Aid Specialist (Exhibit 4), on which Respondent signed as sponsor. Ms. Thomas was trained by Ms. Hines. Thomas does not recall completing the application for training, but identified her signature thereon. She has never met Respondent. Peggy Goodman worked at East Pasco Hearing Aid Center for three weeks in 1985. During the time she was employed she never saw Respondent at the center.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a hearing aid specialist in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues herein, the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists has been the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of hearing aid specialists and the regulation of the hearing aid provider profession in Florida. The Respondent has been a licensed hearing aid specialist in this state, holding license number AS 00010006. Stanley I. Williamson is an 84-year-old blind and arthritic retiree who has worn hearing aids since the early 1980's. He has known Mr. Conley since that time and has purchased his hearing aids from the Respondent both when the Respondent was working for other suppliers and when he went into business for himself. In the summer of 1997, Mr. Williamson went to the Respondent to get the wax cleaned out of his hearing aids. Mr. Williamson did not feel he needed new aids at the time. However, on June 6, 1997 Respondent Mr. Conley called him and tried to sell him some new aids. Mr. Williamson told the respondent he didn't want new aids because his were working well, but Mr. Conley suggested he bring them in anyway. Mr. Williamson went to the Respondent's office and tried the new ones the Respondent showed him but decided he did not want them because he felt they did not work properly. Nonetheless, on that same day, June 6, 1997, Mr. Williamson took them, signed a contract for the new aids, and gave the Respondent a check for $1,095. At that time, the Respondent told Mr. Williamson he could bring the aids back within 30 days if they were not acceptable. The Argosy hearing aids Mr. Williamson got from the Respondent on June 6 did not work properly, and when Mr. Williamson complained, the Respondent agreed to get him another pair. Mr. Williamson picked up this second pair of aids at the Respondent's office, Conley's Hearing Aid Center in Clearwater on June 20, 1997. At that time Mr. Williamson signed a second contract and gave the Respondent a second check for $1,095. On June 24, 1997, the Respondent had Mr. Williamson, who was still not satisfied with the performance of the Argosy aids, sign a third contract with his company under which the Respondent agreed to provide a pair of 3M Single Pro hearing aids for a total price of $3,390. The Respondent gave Mr. Williamson credit for the two prior payments of $1,095 each, and Mr. Williamson gave the Respondent an additional check for $1,200. According to Mr. Williamson, the 3M aids, which the Respondent delivered on July 8, 1997, also did not work to his satisfaction, so after just a few days, on July 10, 1997, he exchanged them for a different pair of 3M aids, Dual Pro. The sales receipt for the aids that the Respondent gave to Mr. Williamson on July 10, 1997 did not contain the buyer's signature, nor did it list the serial numbers for the hearing aids provided. Mr. Williamson thought he was getting the top of the hearing aid line but in fact, the Dual Pro aid was the middle line. According to a pamphlet he saw later, the top of the line is called Multi Pro; the middle, Dual Pro; and the bottom, Single Pro. Though a new contract was signed reflecting the Dual Pro aids, there was no additional charge. The Respondent guaranteed all hearing aids sold to Mr. Williamson to be acceptable or, if returned within 30 days of purchase, a full refund would be given. The Dual Pro aids also did not work to Mr. Williamson's satisfaction, and he returned them to the Respondent on or about August 4, 1997, an act witnessed by the Respondent's associate, Michelle Pfister. None of the hearing aid sets was kept by Mr. Williamson for more than 30 days. Mr. Williamson contends that when he returned the second pair of Argosy aids and received the 3M Single Pro aids in exchange, he asked Mr. Conley for a refund. At that time, Mr. Conley said he didn't have the money. When Mr. Conley delivered the Single Pro aids, and again when he delivered the Dual Pro aids, Mr. Williamson asked for a refund instead. Each time the Respondent claimed he didn't have the money. On October 4, 1997, Mr. Williamson wrote to Conley's Hearing Aid Center, the Respondent's business, and threatened recoupment action if the Respondent did not return the money he had paid for the aids he had returned. The hearing aids Mr. Williamson purchased were all returned to the Respondent, but no refund was ever made. According to Ms. Pfister, the returned hearing aids were subsequently sent back to the manufacturer for credit. The credit was not to her account with the manufacturer, however, and she does not know who received it. Ms. Pfister, also a licensed hearing aid specialist since 1998, bought Conley's Hearing Aid Center from the Respondent on July 27, 1997. At the time of the purchase, Ms. Pfister was not employed by the Respondent, but she had worked for the Respondent on and off since 1995. On June 26, 1997, the Respondent signed a form to sponsor Ms. Pfister as a hearing aid specialist trainee and served as her sponsor until she passed the examination and was licensed on June 23, 1998. Respondent continued to work on the premises after the sale until Ms. Pfister was licensed. When Ms. Pfister took over the business, the sales contract called for all hearing aids on site to be sold to her as inventory, She also received a statement from the Respondent that there were no unresolved issues with clients, and she did not assume any liabilities incurred by the business prior to her take over. When she assumed active management of the practice, Ms. Pfister received all of the Respondent's patient files. Katherine Sadilek is a 93-year-old retiree who purchased a pair of pre-owned 3-M Model 8200 hearing aids from the Respondent on April 8, 1997 for $1,800. The aids were paid for in full on April 9, 1997. The receipt for this sale that the Respondent gave to Ms. Sadilek did not contain the serial numbers of the aids, nor did it describe any of the terms and conditions of the sale or a guarantee. Ms. Sadilek returned the aids to the Respondent exactly 30 days after the purchase date because she was not satisfied with them. The Respondent did not refund her money but agreed to try to re-sell them for her. He offered her $100.00 for them, which she refused. The Respondent retained the aids and never returned them to Ms. Sadilek or paid her for them. A review of the documentation relating to the sales to both clients show them to be devoid of any information showing any improvement to the clients' hearing as a result of the hearing aids sold to them by the Respondent. A showing of improvement is required to form the basis for non-refund of amounts paid for hearing aids. The Respondent filed for bankruptcy in December 1998. The Respondent was licensed as a hearing aid specialist in Indiana in 1970 and in Florida in 1978. He has practiced in Florida for almost 20 years without any complaints being filed against him except those in issue here. The Respondent attributes most of his problems to his marriage dissolution in 1979, the settlement relating to which caused his financial problems and his bankruptcy. He claims he offered to make periodic payments to Mr. Williamson but Mr. Williamson refused that offer. The Respondent is 61 years old and presently receiving worker's compensation. Though he is not presently in the hearing aid business, he hopes to be in the future and needs to keep his license to earn a living.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists enter a final order suspending the Respondent's license for a period of six months and thereafter placing it under probation for a period of three years under such terms and conditions as may be deemed appropriate by the Board. It is also recommended that the Board impose an administrative fine of $3,000, and assess appropriate costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Donald Conley 3377 Southwest Villa Place Palm City, Florida 34990 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way 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 posed for decision herein are whether the license to dispense hearing aids issued to the Respondent should be suspended or revoked, or whether the Respondent should be otherwise disciplined for reasons which will be set forth hereinafter in detail as contained in the Administrative Complaint issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on or about May 7, 1979.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its Administrative Complaint filed on or about May 7, 1979, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department), Petitioner, alleged that Ralph F. Heller, Respondent, violated certain provisions of the Florida Hearing Aid Law, Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, and regulations promulgated thereto, and that he violated the terms and conditions of a Stipulation and Final Order entered in a previous administrative proceeding before this Division, Case No. 78-1222, involving the same parties. During the final hearing herein, Respondent admitted that he was the Respondent in Case No. 78-1222 and that copies of that Final Order and Stipulation were properly received and admitted without objection (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1). The Stipulation incorporated into the Final Order in Case No. 78-1222 provided in pertinent part that Respondent admitted that he had been or is currently in violation of Chapter 468, Part III, Florida Statutes, and that he (Respondent) would be suspended from the fitting and selling of hearing aids in the State of Florida for a period of forty-five (45) days commencing twenty (20) days after the entry of the Final Order by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and that Respondent would be on a period of supervision and/or probation by the Department for a period of two (2) years beginning at the end of the forty-five (45) day suspension period during which time Respondent was to furnish to the Department copies of all contracts for hearing aids sold by him in the State and audiograms performed on any person, whether a hearing aid is sold or not, and that contracts were to comply with the provisions of Chapter 468, Part III, Florida Statutes. Such reports were to be submitted monthly commencing on the tenth day of the month succeeding the commencement of the probation and supervision period. That Stipulation provided further that Respondent's failure to comply with the requirements imposed during the period of supervision and probation would be grounds for cancellation of his license to sell and fit hearing aids in the State. The Final Order was adopted by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on November 27, 1978. Respondent's testimony reflects that he performed an audiogram and sold a hearing aid on January 17, 1979, to a Beatrice K. Patterson of Dunnellon, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2.) Respondent also performed a hearing test on Mrs. Alfred E. Hull, Sr., on or about February 18, 1979, in his office. Respondent did not report the results of these audiograms and/or hearing tests to the Department, nor did he report the sale of the hearing aid to Mrs. Patterson to the Department. In this regard, Respondent attempted to defend his actions on the basis that the Hull test was not reported because it was not a complete hearing test and that the Patterson test and sale were not reported because prior to the reporting time the Department had independently learned of the Patterson transaction and that the sale to Mrs. Patterson had been rescinded. During the month of August, 1979, Respondent performed an audiogram and sold a hearing aid to a Mr. A. J. Bullinger, of Dunnellon, Florida, and rescinded the sale after Mr. Bullinger developed an ear infection from certain foreign material left in his ear during the fitting. Respondent voluntarily paid Mr. Bullinger's medical expenses incidental to the ear infection and although he (Respondent) claimed that the test and sale were reported to the Department, an examination of the reports submitted to the Department and Mr. Gray's testimony show that this was untrue. Mr. Ralph Gray, Director of the Hearing Aid Licensure Program, testified during the hearing and indicated that he received some of the required monthly reports from Respondent on audiograms and sales of hearing aids. Pursuant to the parties' agreement during the hearing, these reports were not introduced into evidence en masse although the evidence reveals that the Respondent failed to file reports for the months of November and December, 1979. Additionally, an examination of the report submitted by the Respondent for the month of August, 1979, reveals that Respondent failed to report the hearing examination and sale to Mr. A. J. Bullinger. As to these events, Respondent's defense is that he instructed his secretary to file such reports with the Department although when questioned by the undersigned, Respondent was evasive and was unable to recall the secretary to whom he gave such instruction. During the hearing, Respondent also evidenced a policy of not reporting to the Department those hearing tests and audiograms conducted by himself which did not result in a sale. The Department's Administrative Complaint also alleged that the Respondent violated specified sections of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, in connection with the sale of a hearing aid to Mr. Alfred E. Hull, Sr., on or about June 24, 1977. Mr. Hull has died since the inception of these proceedings; however, the transaction was testified to by the Respondent and by Mrs. Alfred E. Hull, Sr. An examination of the contract of sale introduced into evidence fails to indicate whether the hearing aids were new, used or reconditioned although the Respendent represented that the hearing aids were new when sold to Mr. Hull. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3 and the testimony of Respondent and Mrs. Hull.) The deposition of Ellery L. Childers, taken pursuant to notice at a distance of more than one hundred (100) miles from the place of hearing, was introduced into evidence by the Department. Mr. Childers has a background in the manufacturer's history of sale and warranty of the Hull hearing aids. Some of this information is also recited in a letter-affidavit of Mr. George A. Shymanik, Sales Manager of Beltone Electronics Corporation, which letter was introduced into evidence without objection. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5.) The evidence reveals that a certain Beltone Rondo hearing aid, Serial No. 95898, was sold in April, 1975, to one Lloyd Jennings, a Beltone dealer in Meridian, Mississippi, and was subsequently registered for warranty to a Lucille Wortham of Louisville, Mississippi. The contract of sale between Respondent and Mr. Hull, dated June 24, 1977, recites the sale of the same Beltone hearing aid to Mr. Hull. Evidence also reveals that the Beltone company did not use the same serial number on more than one instrument. (Deposition of Ellery L. Childers.) 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, forwith REVOKE the license of Respondent, Ralph F. Heller, to fit and sell hearing aids within the State of Florida. ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. James E. Bradwell, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Rules 21JJ-7.007(2), (3) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, are invalid pursuant to Sections 120.54(2) and 120.56, Florida Statutes (1987)?
Findings Of Fact Section 484.0401, Florida Statutes (1987), provides the following: The Legislature recognizes that the dispensing of hearing aids requires particularized knowledge and skill to ensure that the interests of the hearing-impaired public will be adequately served and safely protected. It recognizes that a poorly selected or fitted hearing aid not only will give little satisfaction but may interfere with hearing ability and, therefore, deems it necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to regulate the dispensing of hearing aids in this state. Restrictions on the fitting and selling of hearing aids shall be imposed only to the extent necessary to *protect the public from physical and economic harm*, and restrictions shall not be imposed in a manner which will unreasonably affect the competitive market. [Emphasis added]. The Legislature amended Section 484.0401, Florida Statutes (1987), during the 1986 Session to provide for the protection of the public against economic harm and to include the public welfare within the scope of the protection of Chapter 484, Florida Statutes. Section 484.044, Florida Statutes (1987), authorizes the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), to adopt rules it deems necessary to carry out the provisions of Chapter 484, Florida Statutes. On April 24, 1987, the Board caused to be published Rule 21JJ-7.007, Florida Administrative Code, in Volume 13, Number 17, Florida Administrative Weekly. On May 20, 1987, a public hearing was held to allow comments concerning the challenged rule. Following this meeting and a meeting before the Board on July 10 and 11, 1987, a Notice of Change, changing the challenged rules was published in the July 24, 1987, edition of the Volume 13, Number 30, Florida Administrative Weekly. Rule 21JJ-7.007, Florida Administrative Code, was filed with the Department of State on July 23, 1987. Volume 13, Number 31, Florida Administrative Weekly. It was effective August 12, 1987. Rule 21JJ-7.007(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: Fraudulent, False, Deceptive or Misleading Advertising. An advertisement or advertising is fraudulent, false, deceptive or misleading, if it: (2) Conveys the impression that the licensee or trainee possesses qualifications, skills, or other attributes which are false, other than a simple listing of earned professional achievements and degrees. Rule 21JJ-7.007(3) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provide the following: Fraudulent, False, Deceptive or Misleading Advertising. An advertisement or advertising is fraudulent, false, deceptive or misleading, if it: Is misleading or deceptive because its content or the context in which it is presented makes only a partial disclosure of relevant facts. Specifically, it is misleading and deceptive to advertise a discounted price, without identifying the specific product or service against which the discounted price applies, and without specifying the usual price for the product or service identified. Advertising is an extremely important part of the hearing aid business. It is the principal manner in which hearing aid licensees attract clients. Advertising may assist consumers in making an educated decision about hearing aid products and services. It is common for licensed hearing aid specialists and businesses employing licensed hearing aid specialists to include information such as the following in advertisements: The length of service in a particular community or in the hearing aid profession. Such advertisements can be an indication of the stability of a hearing aid business; Statements such as the following: "trust your hearing to the professionals", "ethical professional practice", "ask the expert" and "factory- trained"; Other types of training, such as factory training; and Educational experiences, including research and teaching experiences. The type of information listed in finding of fact 10 may be beneficial to the public and is not necessarily false, deceptive or misleading. Advertisements used by licensed hearing aid specialists do not include every bit of information about a product. For example, the following type of information may be included in an advertisement: One of the smallest hearing aids, designed for nerve deafness to 40 db. Model E-50 complete with one year warranty. This type of advertisement is not false, deceptive or misleading. It does not, however, contain all the relevant facts concerning the product advertised. Additional relevant information concerning the product may be voluminous, technical and of no use to a consumer. To include all information which may be relevant could require a very large advertisement which would be expensive. Advertisements used by licensed hearing aid specialists commonly indicate a reduction of a certain dollar amount or a percentage reduction for individual hearing aids, lines of hearing aids or all products carried by a specialist. Such advertisements do not necessarily list the specific product or service to which a discount applies or the price for each product or service before the discount. Where discounts apply to several products or services, to list each product and the price before discount would require a large advertisement which would be expensive. As of May 15, 1987, there were 1,016 licensed hearing aid specialists in the State of Florida. Two hundred and forty-four of the total number of licensed hearing aid specialists were on inactive status. Of the 772 active licensed specialists, 670 were members of the Petitioner as of December 4, 1987, or approximately 88 percent of all active licensed practitioners. The Petitioner has an ethics committee and a grievance committee which are active in reviewing advertising used by hearing aid specialists. Members of the Petitioner are subject to discipline, including expulsion from the Petitioner, for improper advertising. The following Summary of Estimate of Economic Impact of the Rule was published by the Department: The implementation of this proposal will have minimal impact upon the Board or the Department other than the costs involved in promulgation. There should be no adverse economic impact or benefit to current licensees or potential applicants as a direct result of the proposed rules. The Board feels the rule is imperative to clarify statutory provisions within Section 484.056(1)(f), F.S., by delineating for the activities which constitute fraudulent, false, deceptive or misleading advertising. It is therefore impossible to determine exactly what impact the proposed rule will have upon current or potential licensees. It is not foreseeable that the proposal will place an economic impact upon competition among current licensees, the open market for employment, or upon entities falling within the definition of "small entities" as defined in Section 288.703(1), F.S.
Findings Of Fact prior to the regulation of hearing aid dispensers in Florida in 1967, the National Hearing Aid Society and its Florida chapter, the Florida Hearing Aid Society, were voluntary nonprofit organizations established to provide information to, and establish certain standards for, its members. In 1951 the National Hearing Aid Society inaugurated the title Certified Hearing Aid Audiologist and established certain criteria for certification. These included two years experience dispensing hearing aids, a letter from a doctor of medicine that he had observed a fitting that had been done by the ,applicant, credit reference, complete the National Hearing Aid Society's certified exam or its equivalent, and submit a fee to the National Hearing Aid Society. Subsequent to 1967, passing of the Florida exam for licensure as a hearing aid specialist was deemed equivalent to the National Hearing Aid Society's exam. The term Certified Hearing Aid Audiologist was patented by the National Bearing Aid Society in 1970. Those hearing aid dispensers certified by the National Hearing Aid Society (NHAS) were authorized by NHAS to advertise and hold themselves out at CHAA's. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977) defines audiology as: A branch of science dealing with hearing; specif. therapy of individuals having impaired hearing. Audiologists are licensed in Florida pursuant to Section 468.139 et seq. Florida Statutes (1979) which requires formal education and training before the applicant for licensure becomes qualified to take the examination which must be passed before certification is granted. Most audiologists are designated as clinical audiologists apparently because their testing and diagnosing of clients occurs in a clinic equipped with machines designed to test and diagnose hearing difficulties. Many audiologists dispense and fit hearing aids as do some otologists. The latter are exempted from hearing aid regulation by Section 468.137(2) , Florida Statutes. The average person is unaware that a CHAA does not have equal (and some people believe greater) qualifications respecting hearing disorders than does an audiologist. Few people know there is any difference between the two. Even one of Petitioner's witnesses acknowledged that a lot of physicians are confused about the term certified hearing aid audiologist. Accordingly, holding oneself out as a CHAA tends to mislead the general public when one so holding himself out is not, in fact, a qualified audiologist.
Findings Of Fact Raymond J. Black is registered to fit and sell hearing aids in Florida and at all times here relevant he was so registered. He has been a registrant for several years, has been a dealer since 1976 and operates two offices, one in Tampa, Florida, and the second in Zephyrhills, Florida. Mr. Black spends most of his time in the Tampa office. Arvena Hines is the office manager in the Zephyrhills office and has managed that office for Respondent since about 1973. She has qualified for, taken and failed the examination for registration as a hearing aid specialist in Florida three times. Following her second failure her application for a third examination was initially disapproved, but after judicial proceedings were instituted she was authorized to retake the examination after again completing the trainee program. As office manager Ms. Hines was the supervisor of all other employees at the Zephyrhills office including hearing aid specialists and trainees. She received thirty-five percent of the profits on all hearing aids and hearing aid supplies sold in the Zephyrhills office. Other employees authorized to sell hearing aids received approximately fifteen to twenty-five percent commission on the sale of hearing aids depending on where the sale was made. In 1977 Arvena Hines pleaded nolo contendere in the County Court in and for Pasco County to the charge of fitting and selling a hearing aid without being licensed or registered to do so. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and she was placed on probation for six months. (Exhibit 16) In 1977 Respondent Black pleaded nolo contendere in the County Court in and for Pasco County to a charge of employing Arvena lines, an unregistered person, for the purpose of fitting and selling hearing aids. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was placed on probation for six months. (Exhibit 14) In 1977 Respondent's registration was suspended for ninety days by Petitioner upon a stipulation of settlement in the revocation proceedings that had been referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. In August 1979 Edward J. Greenough went into Respondent's Zephyrhills office accompanied by his wife for the purpose of having his hearing checked. He was waited on by Frances Wilkes who at the time was a trainee, Class III. Ms. Wilkes tested Greenough's hearing and then said Ms. Hines had to check the results because "she (Wilkes) didn't have her license. Although Ms. Wilkes testified that Ms. Hines conducted no tests or performed any services connected with selling or fitting a hearing aid on Greenough, the testimony of Mrs. Greenough that Ms. Hines repeated the testing procedure that had been done lay Ms. Wilkes, prepared the ear molds and subsequently fitted the hearing aid on Mr. Greenough, is the more credible. In October 1978 Margaret Lamb, an octogenarian, visited the Zephyrhills hearing aid office to see why her hearing aid was not "giving me success." Ms. Hines took an ear mold for her but a man conducted the audio test. Although Ms. Lamb exhibited some of the frailties of age her recollection of events was clear including the "terrific noise" that almost took her head off during the hearing test. That error left her somewhat confused and anxious to get out of the office. Robert Ayer visited the Zephyrhills hearing aid office of Respondent in December 1978 to have checked a hearing aid he had dropped. Ms. Hines waited on him, suggested he get a new "all in the ear" hearing aid, gave him a hearing test, and made an ear mold. When asked for a down payment on the hearing aid Ms. Hines said he needed, Ayer stated he had not expected to purchase a hearing aid that day and was unprepared to make a deposit. When Ayer returned to Zephyrhills after the new year he went to the hearing aid office, was told his hearing aid was in, and paid Ms. Hines $250. Exhibit 10 is the receipt for this payment. Jim Spear, a licensed hearing aid specialist who was working for Respondent at this time signed the audiogram (Exhibit 19) and testified that he conducted the hearing aid test done on Ayer December 11, 1978. Spear also denied ever seeing Hines sell or fit hearing aids or do any work in connection therewith. For several reasons Mr. Ayer's testimony is more credible than the conflicting testimony. Apart from the demeanor of the witnesses and personal reasons of the registrants for denying unlawful acts were committed by Ms. Hines in their presence and to their knowledge, Mr. Ayer is the precise and meticulous type of individual who keeps a diary of his daily activities, even in retirement. These diaries were in his possession at the hearing, and were shown to and perused by Respondent's attorney at the latter's request. No conflicts or omissions between the diary entries and Ayer's testimony were presented. Mrs. Maidee Carr's deposition was admitted as Exhibit 15. Mrs. Carr is a nonagenarian who was sold a hearing aid by Ms. Hines around December 1978 or January 1979. The audiogram was taken by a man (Jim Spear signed Exhibit 17, the audiogram taken on Mrs. Carr January 22, 1979), but Ms. Hines took the ear mold and Mrs. Carr gave Ms. Hines a check in full payment when the hearing aid was delivered to Mrs. Carr's home by Ms. Hines who then put the hearing aid in Mrs. Carr's ear. In January 1980 Douglas Yacinich, who had worked as a hearing aid salesman in Iowa for several years, visited Respondent with the view of employment when he moved to Florida. Respondent sponsored Yacinich's application for Trainee Temporary Certificate of Registration which was submitted January 28, 1980. Yacinich then returned to Iowa to settle his affairs. This application to enter the trainee program was approved in a letter dated March 26, 1980 (Exhibit 6). The application was approved effective March 24, 1980 (Exhibit 5), and Yacinich was issued a Certificate of Registration (Exhibit 23). At this time Yacinich was in Iowa and, according to his testimony, he moved to Florida around May 1980. Respondent submitted Exhibit 7 notifying Petitioner that Yacinich entered into the training program March 24, 1980, completed Stage I on April 24, 1980, and completed Stage II on June 24, 1980. Yacinich left Respondent's employ "around June or July" 1980 and has made no further effort to become registered as a hearing aid specialist. Yacinich set up an appointment with Mr. Chastain, a hearing aid user, and on May 9, 1980, did an audiogram on him (Exhibit 21). He also sold Chastain a used hearing aid the same day but it was not delivered until later. Mrs. Chastain gave Yacinich a check for part payment of the hearing aid on May 9, 1980, when the invoice for the hearing aid was prepared (Exhibit 12). This invoice does not contain the serial number of the hearing aid subsequently delivered to Chastain. When the final fitting of his hearing aid was made on June 2, 1980, Respondent accompanied Yacinich to Chastain's home and was present when the hearing aid was fitted by Yacinich. The testimony is conflicting whether Respondent was in the yard or in the room with Yacinich when the hearing aid was placed in Chastain's ear; However, it is clear that when Yacinich delivered the hearing aid to Chastain, Respondent was present. Respondent attributed the preferring of the charges against him, which are contained in the Administrative Complaint and Amended Administrative Complaint, to the animosity of Ralph Gray, the Administrator of the Hearing Aid Licensing Program in HRS, and to his belief that Gray has a vendetta against him. No evidence to support these beliefs was submitted other than Respondent's opinion. Respondent denied that he was aware that Ms. Hines ever took ear impressions in the Zephyrhills office on any of the complaining witnesses or that she ever performed any of those functions in dispensing hearing aids which require certification. Respondent acknowledged that Ms. Hines is manager of the Zephyrhills office and that she receives thirty-five percent of the funds coming into the office, and that salesmen are paid a commission of about twenty-five percent on the hearing aids they sell depending upon where the hearing aid is sold. Ms. Wilkes who does little work outside the office received a commission of around fifteen percent for those hearing aids she sold. Respondent testified that his belief that no audiograms were taken nor hearing aids sold by Ms. Hines was based upon the fact that the audiograms were signed by someone other than Ms. Hines and the word of these people that they conducted the tests. No evidence was presented to show the commissions paid to the various salesmen for the hearing aids dispensed to those witnesses who testified in these proceedings. Respondent allowed Yacinich to work unsupervised in the selling and dispensing of hearing aids before he had actually worked fur Respondent for thirty days. This determination is reached from the evidence that Yacinich was probably well qualified by his previous experience in Iowa, by Respondent's testimony that he considered Yacinich to have been in his employ since January 28, 1980, when Yacinich's application was submitted, and by Yacinich's testimony that he did not actually relocate to Florida until May or June.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Craig Louis Schuette, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints in these cases, and if so what is the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding Respondent has been a licensed hearing aid specialist in the state of Florida, having been issued license No. AS 2553 on June 9, 1994. Case No. 02-0520 On November 5, 1998, hearing impaired patient R.G., a resident of New York and part-time resident of Florida, visited Audiometric Hearing Center (Audiometric), a hearing aid establishment located on Fifth Avenue, North, in St. Petersburg, Florida. R.G. visited Audiometric after being contacted by postcard and telephone about a free hearing test offer. While at the Center on November 5, 1998, R.G. received a hearing test and signed an agreement to purchase a pair of hearing aids for $3,500.00. Respondent signed the sales receipt on behalf of Audiometric as the selling agent. R.G. paid the entire purchase price to Audiometric on November 5, 1998, by charging the entire amount on his Visa credit card. On November 20, 1998, R.G. returned to Audiometric to be fitted with the new hearing aids. At that time, R.G. noticed that the hearing aids he had purchased, as described in his contract, were a different model and smaller than the devices with which he was being fitted. Respondent persuaded R.G. to test the hearing aids, and R.G. took possession of the devices on that date. Twelve days later, on December 2, 1998, upon being dissatisfied with the hearing aids, R.G. returned to Audiometric with the devices and requested a refund. Audiometric accepted the hearing aids back and R.G. was advised for the first time that he would receive a refund within 90 to 120 days. Although R.G. was promised a refund of $3,125.00, on December 2, 1998, he never received it. R.G. made numerous attempts to obtain a refund but never received one. During an investigation of this matter by the Agency for Health Care Administration, Respondent did not accept responsibility for the refund. While Respondent agreed to assist the patient and provide a free refitting, he maintained that Audiometric was responsible for any and all refunds. Case No. 02-0522 Hearing impaired patient E.T., a resident of Canada who also resided in Florida part of the year, visited the Audiometric Hearing Center, a hearing aid establishment located on Walsingham Road, in Largo, Florida, on February 6, 1998. E.T. went to Audiometric for a free hearing test after being called and offered one by a telephone solicitor. E.T. received a hearing test on that date. On February 6, 1998, E.T. purchased a hearing aid for her right ear at Audiometric for $1,980.00. Respondent signed the sales agreement on behalf of Audiometric as the selling agent. He told E.T. she needed a hearing aid and showed E.T. three hearing aids. E.T. paid the entire purchase price on February 6, 1998, by charging it on her Visa credit card. On February 13, 1998, the patient accepted delivery of the hearing aid at Audiometric from someone other than Respondent. Upon experiencing an itching problem, E.T. returned the hearing aid to Audiometric on February 18, 1998, for a refund, stating that she was not satisfied with it. Someone at Audiometric, other than Respondent, accepted the returned hearing aid from E.T. and promised her a refund of $1,980.00. E.T. made numerous attempts to obtain the refund but never received any portion of it. In fact, she even filed a lawsuit and obtained a default judgment against Audiometric, but could not collect any of it. During an investigation of the matter by the Agency for Health Care Administration, Respondent denied responsibility for the matter, and indicated that Audiometric was culpable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists enter a final order: Dismissing DOAH Case No. 02-0521 (DOH Case No. 98- 19487). Finding Respondent guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaints in DOAH Case Nos. 02-0520 (DOH Case No. 99-03437) and 02-0522 (DOH Case No. 98-20376). Imposing a letter of reprimand. Imposing a total fine of $1,000.00. Assessing costs of the investigation and prosecution not to exceed $500.00, and ordering Respondent to pay as corrective action $3,125.00 to patient R.G. and $1,731.00 to patient E.T., with all monetary payments to be paid within 90 days of entry of a final order. As to the corrective action, the Respondent should be ordered to provide proof thereof to the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists, Department of Health Compliance Unit within 90 days of the date of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 26th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig Schuete 12300 Park Boulevard, Unit 220 Seminole, Florida 33772 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Post Office Box 326 Lloyd, Florida 32337
The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent's hearing aid specialist license for reasons alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding Respondent William D. Williston has been a licensed hearing aid specialist in Florida, having been issued license no. 1439 by the Florida Board of Hearing Aid Specialist, commencing April 1, 1983. At all times relevant to the inquiry Respondent operated a business known as the Sumter Hearing Center in Wildwood, Florida, from which hearing aids were sold and dispensed. At times relevant to the inquiry Respondent sponsored Darleen L. Sherman as a trainee at his business. Respondent also served as the designated hearing aid specialist to assist in the training of Ms. Sherman. Respondent served in the capacity of direct supervisor to Ms. Sherman in her attempt to learn the necessary skills to become a licensed hearing aid specialist. Respondent's initial sponsorship and supervision of Ms. Sherman's training, wherein Respondent had been designated to serve, was for the training period June 24, 1997 through December 23, 1997. Ms. Sherman completed that training program. Following the completion of her training she took the hearing aid specialist examination. She failed the written theory portion of the examination taken May 1, 1998 through May 3, 1998. Ms. Sherman and Respondent were made aware of those results by notice mailed to the candidate for licensure on June 4, 1998. On June 6, 1998, Ms. Sherman reapplied to participate in a training program sponsored and supervised by Respondent. This was a request to repeat the training. Ms. Sherman's application form submitted to Petitioner was accompanied by a form completed by Respondent as sponsor, also dated June 6, 1998. On June 8, 1998, a check was written by Ms. Sherman to Petitioner in the amount of $105 for the stated purpose of participation in the "second training program." On June 13, 1998, Ms. Sherman was officially registered for the repeat training program with Respondent serving as sponsor and a prospective examination date to gain her license as hearing aid specialist was provided. That date for examination was sometime in January 1999. The training program registration identified the repeat training program period as running from June 12, 1998 through December 11, 1998. Stage I to that training program was June 12, 1998 through July 11, 1998; Stage II July 12, 1998 through September 11, 1998, and Stage III September 12, 1998 through December 11, 1998. During the hiatus between being notified that Ms. Sherman had failed the May 1998 examination and the beginning date for the repeat training program, Ms. Sherman, with Respondent's knowledge, acted in behalf of Respondent's hearing aid specialist business in Wildwood, Florida. This took place on June 9, 1998, involving the patient C.D., outside Respondent's presence. On that date Ms. Sherman performed hearing aid testing on C.D. and sold C.D. new hearing aids manufactured by Rexton for a total price of $4,000. The first $2,000 to purchase was paid on that date. The sales receipt provided C.D. was signed by Ms. Sherman indicating that she was a hearing aid specialist, which she was not. C.D. also signed the receipt form. The receipt provided C.D. on June 9, 1998, indicated that the hearing aids were guaranteed by Rexton for a period of one year with a loss and damage provision available with a 25% deductible. C.D. was provided another document which he signed and dated June 9, 1998. That document was entitled "30-day trial agreement." By its terms it said: I agree to wear my new hearing aid for the full 30-day trial period, and will come in at least once a week for consultation and any adjustments that may be needed. If the hearing aids are returned to the laboratory for any modification, my trial period will resume upon refitting of the hearing aids. I realize that hearing aid fittings are individual in nature and that it is normal to expect adjustments to be made. It has taken a long time for my hearing loss to develop, and will take some time to once again begin to enjoy the sound of life. Respondent was aware of the use of this type form in his business and the type of sales receipt form utilized in the transaction with C.D. Contrary to Respondent's testimony it is not found that C.D. was provided a form with information entitled "30-day trial agreement terms and conditions" as of the purchase date June 9, 1998, or upon any other date. C.D. in his testimony disclaimed being presented the form "30-day trial agreement terms and conditions." His testimony is supported by his wife, V.D. Ms. Sherman does not recall whether the form "30-day trial agreement terms and conditions" was provided to C.D. The "30-day trial agreement terms and conditions" was used on occasion by Respondent and Ms. Sherman but not here. The form is similar to the notice requirements set forth in Section 484.0512, Florida Statutes, dealing with the statutory requirement for a 30-day trial period and money back guarantee, together with the opportunity to return the hearing aids or mail written notice of cancellation to the seller and Rule 64B-6.001, Florida Administrative Code, which further describes written notice requirements. On June 19, 1998, Ms. Sherman received from the factory the hearing aids purchased by C.D. They had the wrong circuitry. As a consequence Ms. Sherman returned the hearing aids for correction. On June 29, 1998, Ms. Sherman received the hearing aids a second time. On June 30, 1998, C.D. returned to Respondent's business and was provided the hearing aids and paid the $2,000 balance for the purchase. Respondent was in attendance on this occasion. No further documentation was provided C.D. concerning his purchase when he took delivery of the hearing aids. Shortly after receiving the hearing aids C.D. and his wife took a vacation in north Georgia. On July 14, 1998, C.D. wrote Ms. Sherman concerning the hearing aids in question. In that correspondence he said "Sorry, but these hearing aids just don't meet my needs. Please refund my $4,000." On that same date by registered delivery, return receipt requested, C.D. sent the hearing aids back to Respondent's Wildwood, Florida, business address. The hearing aids were received at that address on July 20, 1998. The hearing aids were eventually returned to the manufacturer for credit on Respondent's account with Rexton. This disposition occurred around August 10, 1998. On July 20, 1998, the same day that the hearing aids were received by Respondent's business, Ms. Sherman wrote C.D. at his Florida address in Lake Panasoffkee, Florida. In that correspondence she identified herself as being a hearing aid specialist and an office manager for Respondent's Sumter Hearing Centers, one of which was at the Wildwood, Florida, address. In this correspondence she stated: We are in receipt of your hearing aid. As we agreed when you purchased the hearing aid you would give the hearing aid a 30-day trial basis, therefore I would suggest that we delay canceling this order. My suggestion is again a 30-day trial basis effective upon your return. It is important that I know what kind of problems, 'not loud enough, too much background noise, whistling, fit uncomfortable or etc.' you are having so that I can make adjustments and have you try them again. I am confident that we can get you to hear better. Please contact me at 352-793-4422 regarding the above matter. On August 6, 1998, C.D. responded to the July 20, 1998 letter from Ms. Sherman by writing to her and saying: In reference to your letter of July 20th; be advised that I have purchased another hearing aid and I am happy with them [sic]. Please return the $4,000 I paid for the Rexton aids. In fact, C.D. had not purchased another hearing aid. He made this false statement as a further attempt to be reimbursed the purchase price for the Rexton hearing aids. C.D. made numerous attempts to obtain a refund for the hearing aids purchased, to no avail. Respondent was aware of these attempts. Among the efforts was contact by Randall M. Thornton, Esquire, C.D.'s attorney, who wrote to the Respondent's business address at Wildwood, Florida, and another business address in Bushnell, Florida, requesting a refund in the amount of $4,000. This correspondence from the attorney was dated October 9, 1998. Respondent's uncorroborated testimony that he refunded the $4,000 to C.D. is not credible.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which imposes an administrative fine of $2,000, assesses costs of investigation and prosecution, orders Respondent to refund $4,000 to C.D., and otherwise dismisses the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 24th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Mail Station 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William D. Williston 3131 Southwest College Road Suite 302 Ocala, Florida 34474 William D. Williston 1072 Southeast 155th Street Summerfield, Florida 34491 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
