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 East Pasco Hearing Aid Center is owned and operated by Arvina Hines whose license as a Hearing Aid Specialist was revoked circa 1981.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 Raymond J. Black's license was revoked January 26, 1981.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 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 The Respondent Martin K. Donaldson is licensed to fit and sell hearing aids in Florida, and operates a hearing aid business in Pinellas Park, Florida under the corporate name, West Coast Hearing Aid Services, Inc. The Respondent employed Sanders Glass from 1978 until June, 1980, to fit and sell hearing aids. During his employment, Glass sold more hearing aids than any other employee of Respondent. He averaged approximately ten sales per month and was second only to the Respondent in the number of sales. Evidence of the sales record was posted by the Respondent on a chart in his office where all employees could see and compare their monthly sales totals. Glass took the State Qualifying Examination for hearing aid fitters and sellers twice while registered as a trainee. He failed the examination in March, 1979 and September, 1979. The Department notified both the Respondent and Glass by letters dated March 23, 1979 and September 20, 1979, that due to Glass' failure, he could no longer fit or sell heading aids after September 30, 1979. However, the Respondent permitted Glass to continue as an employee after September 30, 1979. On June 9, 1980, Glass fitted a hearing aid for Sarah Funk of Clearwater, Florida. This hearing aid was delivered by Carl Henzel, an employee of the Respondent, on or about June 30, 1980. Henzel and Robert Nason worked for the Respondent contemporaneously with Glass. Nason, a trainee, worked from March, 1979, until April 7, 1980. Henzel was a licensed hearing aid dispenser who worked for the Respondent from September, 1979 until August, 1980. Both worked with Glass in the Respondent's office and observed him fitting hearing aids after October 1, 1979. The Respondent knew of Glass' failures on the qualifying examinations but kept him on to fit and sell hearing aids until he could secure another position. From October 1, 1979 through June 9, 1980, Glass' duties under the Respondent were the same as Henzel's and Nason's and included the fitting and selling of hearing aids. Both Nason and Henzel subsequently left the employ of Respondent and have sought counsel to secure commissions allegedly due them for selling hearing aids while in the employ of the Respondent. Nason, the complaining party in this case, remained in Respondent's employ until April 7, 1980, because he needed the Respondent's sponsorship to obtain his license. The complaint which was filed against the Respondent by Nason was part of an effort to secure disputed commissions and avoid a non-competition agreement which was signed with the Respondent and which the Respondent through counsel had indicated he intended to enforce. No evidence was presented that any consumer had complained concerning Glass' activities while in the employ of the Respondent or suffered any injury as a result of Glass' or the Respondent's actions.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is REC0MMENDED: That a final order be entered suspending the certificate of registration of Respondent Martin K. Donaldson for a period of ninety days and imposing a $500 administrative fine. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert P. Daniti, Esquire Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 308 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George L. Waas, Esquire SLEPIN SLEPIN LAMBERT & WAAS 1114 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner, Caroline T. Davis, is entitled to licensure as a hearing aid specialist by virtue of a passing grade on the September, 1989, examination.
Findings Of Fact Caroline T. Davis was an applicant for licensure as a hearing aid specialist and took the September, 1989, examination. Ms. Davis received an overall score of 71%. A score of 75% is required to pass the examination. As a result of sanctions imposed for failure to produce, Ms. Davis was awarded 2 points. (See Order Imposing Sanctions entered July 24, 1990.) As a result, Ms. Davis has a score of 73% and needs only 2 points to pass the examination. While she challenged numerous portions of the examination, at the hearing Ms. Davis raised specific challenges only to the scoring on Procedures 7-9, 11, and 13 of the earmold impressions portion of the practical examination. Procedure 7 relates to the examination of the ear after removal of the impression. The candidate instructions given prior to the examination advise the candidate to "[d]emonstrate all procedures followed prior, during, and after making an impression." The tape of the examination makes it clear that Ms. Davis stated that she would go back and examine the ear after removing the earmold. However, Ms. Davis did not demonstrate the activity of examining the ear after removing the impression. Ms. Davis did not satisfy the requirements for credit on Procedure 7. Procedure 8 relates to the execution of a correct order form. The instructions required the candidate to fill out an order form for an earmold. Ms. Davis incorrectly filled out the order form for an in-the-ear hearing aid. While the rest of the form was correctly executed, the one error is sufficient to deny credit for a correct answer on Procedure 8. Procedure 9 relates to an explanation by the candidate of how to put on a hearing aid. Ms. Davis did not perform this task. She simply stated that she would explain or demonstrate the way to put on a hearing aid. She did not satisfy the requirements for credit on Procedure 9. Procedure 11 requires the candidate to give the functions of at least three parts of a hearing aid. The candidate instructions advise the candidate to tell the client "the function of the parts of the hearing aid that are important for client use." Ms. Davis explained the functions of two parts: the battery and its proper insertion and the volume control. She named three other parts, but she failed to explain the functions of these parts. Procedure 11 requires more than the simple naming of parts of a hearing aid. Again Ms. Davis failed to perform the required tasks for credit on Procedure 11. Procedure 13 requires the candidate to tell the client about the warranty on the hearing aid. Ms. Davis did state that she would tell the client about the warranty, but she did not do so during the examination. She argues that she should not have to state the warranty information because that would be provided in a written form to the client when the aid is delivered. The candidate instructions make it clear that the candidate is to select one of the aids provided at the examination, is to use that aid in performing various procedures, and is to perform the procedures as if that aid were being delivered to the client. The candidate is required to state the warranty information as to the hearing aid he selected. The very terms of the examination require that the candidate tell about the warranty information, not state that she would do so in a real situation. Ms. Davis did not tell about the warranty and is not entitled to credit for Procedure 13.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the examination challenge of Caroline T. Davis to the September, 1989, examination for licensure as a hearing aid specialist. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Caroline T. Davis Proposed findings of fact 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, and 16 are unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 3, 6-10, 15, and 17-21 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 11-13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation Proposed findings of fact 1 and 4-9 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 2, 3, and 10 are unnecessary or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: See Next Page Caroline T. Davis 2401 West 15th Street Panama City, FL 32401 Vytas J. Urba Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 LouElla Cook Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 484.051(2), 484.056(1)(g), 484.056(1)(h), 484.056(1)(k), 484.053(1)(f), 484.053(3), 455.624(1)(j), and 484.0512(l), Florida Statutes,1 and Rule 64B6-6.010, Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Stephens is and has been, at least since March 1999, a licensed Hearing Aid Specialist. His license number is AS 0002599. On April 26, 1999, O.G. purchased a pair of hearing aids from Stephens. The total price of the hearing aids was $3200. O.G. paid $1600 using his Visa credit card on April 26. The hearing aids were delivered by Stephens to O.G. on May 14, 1999, at which time O.G. paid the remaining $1600 by Visa credit card. O.G. was not happy with the hearing aids and returned to Stephens' place of business, Hearing World, sometime in June 1999. Stephens convinced O.G. to try a different pair of hearing aids instead of getting a refund. O.G. agreed, and Stephens ordered a new pair of hearing aids, which Stephens delivered on June 30, 1999. O.G. was not happy with the second pair of hearing aids and again returned them to Hearing World. Stephens persuaded O.G. to try another set of hearings aids. By letter dated July 26, 1999, Stephens advised as follows: This letter is to confirm that: When you receive your remade instruments on or before August 15, 1999, you will have 30 days to try them without penalty. Should you decide that you wish to return them for a refund you may do so and receive a full refund of your investment. Further, should you need an extension of the trial it will be granted based on your request before the original trial expires. O.G. agreed to Stephens' proposition. The third set was delivered on August 14, 1999. The third set of hearing aids was also unacceptable to O.G. Stephens ordered a fourth pair and delivered them to O.G. on October 1, 1999. O.G. was not satisfied with the fourth pair and asked for a refund. On November 19, 1999, O.G. received a letter from Stephens stating: We are in receipt of your request for cancellation. I do accept this letter as your notice. We are very sorry that we were not able to satisfy your hearing needs. We are having a very difficult time financially at this time and will not be able to refund your money as timely as you would like. However, we do owe you a refund and will take care of it as soon as we are financially able to do so. The refund time is running about 8 weeks. O.G. did receive $300 from Stephens as part of the refund. Stephens made no further payments to O.G. On February 15, 1999, Joseph Wright (Wright) applied to the Department for admittance to the hearing aid specialist training program and was approved for the training program period March 12, 1999, through September 11, 1999. The notice from the Department to Wright advising him that he was approved for the training program stated: "A trainee may continue to function as a trainee until receipt of the examination grade results." Stephens was Wright's sponsor. As part of the training program, Stephens taught Wright, using text books and hands-on training. Stephens showed Wright how to make molds and do fittings. As Wright progressed, he was allowed to make the molds and do fittings by himself. Wright would show the molds to Stephens after Wright completed them. If Wright had trouble fitting a client, Stephens would come and assist Wright. Generally Stephens was in the office when Wright did fittings. After completing the six-month training program, Wright took the Hearing Aid Specialist Examination in September 1999. Wright did not pass the examination. On October 29, 1999, the Department mailed Wright the notice that he had not passed the examination. The evidence did not establish when Wright received the notification that he had failed the examination. Nor did the evidence establish when Stephens became aware that Wright had failed the examination. At least by April 14, 2000, Wright was aware that he had failed the examination because on that date he again applied with the Department to enter the hearing aid specialist program under Stephens' sponsorship. Stephens was also aware by April 14, 2000, that Wright had failed the examination because Wright's application included a signed statement from Stephens dated April 14, 2000, indicating that he would be Wright's sponsor. The Department admitted Wright to the training program for the period April 22, 2000, through October 21, 2000. The dates for his examination were January 19 and 20, 2001. In February 2000, J.F. received an advertisement from Hearing World, advertising free hearing examinations. On March 2, 2000, J.F. went to Hearing World for the free examination. He did not see Stephens and was helped by Wright. J.F. signed a written purchase agreement to purchase two hearing aids from Hearing World for $5,700. Wright performed the examination, made the molds for the hearing aids, and signed the purchase agreement on behalf of Hearing World. J.F. gave Wright a check for $5,700 on March 2, 2000, as payment in full for the hearing aids. On March 23, 2000, Wright delivered the hearing aids to J.F. and signed the purchase agreement as having delivered the hearing aids. Stephens was not physically present in the room with Wright and J.F. at the time the delivery was made. The purchase agreement did not contain the signature and license number of Stephens. The written purchase agreement provided: The purchaser agrees to wear the hearing aid(s) for a period of 30 days from the date of delivery. In the event that the purchaser decides to return the hearing aid(s), they must be returned to the specialist of record in new working order, on or before the 30th day of possession. Upon receipt of the hearing aid(s) Hearing World will refund the purchase price, less mold and dispensing fees (mold fee $150 for one aid, $200 for a set. In addition, a 5% of the purchase price-dispensing fee may be retained). J.F. tried wearing the hearing aids but experienced vertigo when using them. He talked to Wright on April 3 and explained the problem he was having with the hearing aids and indicating he wanted to return the hearing aids for a refund. Wright explained to J.F. that only Stephens had the authority to make a refund. J.F. met with Stephens on April 12, 2000. Stephens explained that he had a cash flow problem and could not make a full refund at that time. It was agreed that J.F. would return one of the hearing aids and try to wear the other one. On April 14, 2000, J.F. returned to Hearing World and explained to Stephens that the use of one hearing aid did not solve the vertigo problem that he was experiencing. J.F. returned the other hearing aid and asked for a complete refund. Stephens told J.F. that he did not have the funds to make a full refund and gave J.F. $100. Stephens made no further payments to J.F. for the refund on the hearing aids. Stephens filed a petition for bankruptcy on September 27, 2000. A Discharge of Debtor was entered on January 8, 2001, in In Re: Stephens, Donald Lane, Case No. 00-14949-8W7, United States Bankruptcy Court Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. J.F. and O.G. were listed as creditors holding unsecured nonpriority claims.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: In Case No. 03-0404PL, finding that Donald Stephens violated Subsections 484.0512(1) and 484.056(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; Subsection 484.051(2), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; and Subsection 484.056(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and Rule 64B6-6.010, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in Count IV of the Administrative Complaint. In Case No. 03-0404PL, dismissing Count III of the Administrative Complaint. In Case No. 03-0404PL, issuing a reprimand and imposing administrative fines of $1,000 for the violations set forth in Count I, $500 for the violations set forth in Count II, and $500 for the violations set forth in Count IV. In Case No. 03-0405PL dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 25th day of June, 2003.
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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Kent A. Broy, committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed with by Petitioner, the Department of Health, on April 11, 2003, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving hearing aid specialists licensed to practice in Florida. Respondent, Kent A. Broy, is, and was at the times material to this matter, a hearing aid specialist licensed to practice in Florida, having been issued license number AS2169 on April 13, 1989.5 The Administrative Complaint. On April 11, 2003, an Administrative Complaint, DOH Case No. AS 2001-19941, was filed with the Department against Mr. Broy. Mr. Broy disputed the issues of fact alleged in the Administrative Complaint and requested a formal administrative Hearing by a Request for Formal Hearing filed with the Department on Mr. Broy's behalf by counsel. The remaining four counts of the Administrative Complaint, Counts I, II, III, and V, allege violations of subsections of Section 484.056(1), Florida Statutes: Section 484.056(1)(g) (Count I); (j) (Count II); (w) (Count III); and (m) (Count V). All four counts include the following introductory sentence: "Petitioner realleges and incorporates herein by reference the facts alleged in paragraphs 1-16 [of the Administrative Complaint]." Paragraphs 1 through 6 are general allegations which were admitted by Mr. Broy. Patient G.H. Patient G.H., who was 88 years of age at the time, visited a business known as Audibel Hearing Care Center (hereinafter referred to as "Audibel")6 and located at 1620 North U.S. Highway 1, Jupiter, Florida, on October 24, 2001, a Tuesday. G.H. was accompanied by his wife, J.H. G.H. went to Audibel to determine whether he needed hearing aids. Mr. Broy, who G.H. assumed was a licensed hearing aid specialist, assisted G.H.7 As alleged in the Administrative Complaint, G.H. agreed to purchase a pair of "in the ear" hearing aids for $6,810.00. Mr. Broy attempted to make molds of the G.H.'s ear canals so that the hearing aids G.H. had agreed to purchase could be ordered. Molding material was placed in G.H.'s ear, but when it was removed it was found to be covered with wax. Mr. Broy attempted to remove the wax from G.H.'s ear with some type of instrument. This caused pain in G.H.'s ear, so the effort was discontinued. Mr. Broy then gave G.H. some oil to use to attempt to soften the wax, and he scheduled G.H. to return the next week. In furtherance of the sale and purchase of the hearing aids, G.H. signed a Purchase Agreement. The Agreement states that G.H. was purchasing 2 "Merc CIC Dig" hearing aides at $4,200.00 each ($8,400.00 total) less a 20% discount, leaving a discounted price of $6,720.00 plus a $90.00 administration fee. The Purchase Agreement includes, in part, the following regarding return of the hearing aids: Return Policy - . . . . Purchaser may return the hearing aid(s), so long as the hearing aid(s) is returned to the seller within the 30 day trial period in good working condition. A return claim form may be obtained from the distributor at the location checked on the face of this agreement. A request for return must be submitted in writing, within 30 days. . . . . The distributor identified on the face of the Purchase Agreement was Audibel. The Purchase Agreement did not identify the guarantor for the refund. No hearings aids, however, were delivered to G.H. at the time he signed the Purchase Agreement or anytime subsequent thereto. G.H. paid the full purchase price, charging the full price to a credit card. Shortly after executing the Purchase Agreement, G.H. decided that he did not want the hearing aids8 and he returned to Audibel. He told Mr. Broy that he no longer wanted the hearing aids.9 G.H., not receiving satisfaction from Mr. Broy, ultimately challenged the amount he paid for the hearing aids with his credit card company. He was refunded the $6,810.00 charge. On January 9, 2002, Mr. Broy charged $630.00 to G.H.'s credit card. That amount has not been refunded. During the investigation of this matter, Neil Bailes, an investigator for the Agency for Health Care Administration, who had never met or spoken to Mr. Broy in person, spoke to someone whom he believed was Mr. Broy. The individual he spoke with told him that records relating to G.H.'s purchase and subsequent return of hearing aids were in G.H.'s possession, and, therefore, he could not provide those records.10
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Hearing Aid Specialist dismissing the April 11, 2003, Administrative Complaint against Kent A. Broy. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 5th day of February, 2004.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the administrative complaint dated May 16, 2003, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Leeds has been a licensed hearing aid specialist practicing in Coconut Creek, Florida. In 1997, Leeds, then age 77, contracted with patient M. M. to dispense and deliver patient M. M. a hearing aid. The hearing aid failed to perform in a satisfactory manner. The failure occurred because Leeds failed to discharge his professional duties in accordance with minimum performance standards for persons providing hearing aid services in Florida. In particular, Leeds failed to take an appropriate patient history; failed to conduct a physical examination which conformed to the minimum standards and procedures called for by the statutes and rules regulating persons licensed to dispense hearing aids; and failed to create and maintain an adequate patient record. By way of defense, Leeds testified that he performed certain tests which were not reflected in his patient records. This testimony was not credible. Even if Leeds had performed the tests he claimed to have performed, his failure to document them is, standing alone, a serious departure from minimal professional standards. Respondent has been reprimanded by the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists on three prior occasions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's license to dispense hearing aids. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 5th day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialist Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Diane L. Guillemette, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Barry L. Halpern, Esquire Law Offices of Barry L. Halpern 2650 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since February 15, 1993, a Florida-licensed hearing aid specialist. He holds license number AS2453. For the past seven years, Respondent has owned Advanced Hearing Center, Inc. (Advanced Hearing), a hearing aid business located in North Palm Beach, Florida. W. J. is a hearing impaired hearing aid wearer. He and his wife of 32 years, F. J., reside in Florida (on Singer Island in Palm Beach County) part of the year (generally, January through the middle of April) and in New Jersey the remainder of the year. In late March of 1997, toward the end of their stay in Florida that year, W. J. contacted Respondent by telephone at Advanced Hearing to inquire about getting the hearing aid for his left ear repaired. W. J. had not had any previous dealings with Respondent. He had learned that Respondent was a hearing aid specialist upon reading the advertisement for Advanced Hearing in the Yellow Pages, and was "impressed" that Respondent had a Ph.D. During their telephone conversation, Respondent invited W. J. to visit Advanced Hearing with his wife. He told W. J. that, during the visit, he would look at the hearing aid that needed repair and, in addition, give W. J. a free hearing test. W. J., accompanied by his wife, visited Advanced Hearing on Tuesday, April 1, 1997. While waiting to see Respondent, W. J. was asked to read written "testimonials" from satisfied patients of Respondent's. W. J. and his wife were subsequently escorted to Respondent's office, where they remained for the duration of the visit. While in Respondent's office, W. J. filled out a medical history form. The information that W. J. provided on the form indicated that he did not have any significant medical problems warranting referral to a medical doctor. Respondent then used a video otoscope to examine W. J.'s ear canals. The ear canals were "normal looking" and, although there was some wax buildup, the eardrums were visible. As he performed the otoscope examination, Respondent explained to the J.s what he saw. He told them about the wax buildup and cautioned that the lack of adequate "cerumen management" could lead to "abnormalities or infections or a fungus c[ould] grow," conditions which would require medical attention. Inasmuch as W. J. had not reported any recent history of infection and the otoscope examination had not revealed any observable abnormality, Respondent proceeded to test W. J.'s hearing. He performed pure tone audiometric testing by air and by bone and recorded the results of such testing. Respondent's office, where the testing was done, was a "certified testing room," within the meaning of Section 484.0501(6), Florida Statutes. The air and bone tests revealed no significant difference or "gap" between W. J.'s air conduction hearing and his bone conduction hearing. After the testing, Respondent informed the J.s that he was unable to repair W. J.'s old hearing aid (for his left ear), and he suggested that they purchase new, "upgrade[d]" hearing aids for W. J. if they could afford to do so. Respondent recommended the Starkey Sequel Circuit, the "pinnacle product" of "one of the largest [hearing aid] manufacturers in the world" (Starkey), because he believed that it would help alleviate the "problems with distortion and loud noise" that W. J. had reported that he was experiencing. Respondent informed the J.s that he could sell them this Starkey product at a "great price." The J.s told Respondent that they were reluctant to purchase new hearing aids in Florida because they were planning on returning to their residence in New Jersey shortly, and that, in any event, they were interested in Siemens Music, not Starkey Sequel Circuit, hearing aids. Respondent replied that the Starkey Sequel Circuit was comparable to the Siemens Music and that any Starkey dealer would be able to service Starkey Sequel Circuit hearing aids purchased from his business. After considering Respondent's comments and discussing the matter with his wife, W. J. signed a written agreement to purchase Starkey Sequel Circuit hearing aids from Advanced Hearing for $3,800.00. W. J. paid the full purchase price, by credit card, before leaving. On the credit card receipt that W. J. received were written the words, "no refunds." The "purchase agreement" that W. J. signed had a "guarantee date" of "2 yrs." and contained the following provisions: Within a period of one year after delivery patient may have these instruments serviced at Advanced Hearing Center, Inc. without any cost under the terms of the guarantee issued by the manufacturer. As the degree of satisfaction is dependent upon user, motivation, diligent adherence to instructions, and proper use of this prosthesis, all warranties are confined to those issued by the manufacturer. Examination, test, and other representations are non-medical and for the sole purpose of fitting hearing aids. I hereby acknowledge that I have been provided information concerning the advantages of telecoils, "t" coils, or "t" switches; which included the increased access to telephones and assistive listening systems. I have been provided in writing with the terms and conditions of the 30-day trial period and money back guarantee; with notice of my right to cancel the purchase within 30 days of receipt of the hearing aid(s) for a valid reason based on a failure to achieve a specific measured performance such as sound improvements or improved word discrimination. It shall be the responsibility of the person selling the hearing aid(s) to maintain the audiometric documentation necessary to establish the measured improvement. If the hearing aid must be repaired, or adjusted during the 30- day[] trial period, the running of the 30- day trial period is suspended one day for each 24 hour period that the hearing aid is not in the purchaser's possession. A repaired, remade, or adjusted hearing aid must be claimed by the purchaser within three working days after notification of availability. In the event of cancellation within the 30-day trial period, the seller may retain a charge not to exceed $150.00 on a monaural fitting (one hearing aid) and $200.00 on a binaural fitting (two hearing aids) for earmolds and services provided to fit the hearing aids. In addition, the purchaser may be charged a cancellation fee not to exceed 5% of the total purchase price. If the hearing system improves word discrimination, which the seller has the right to test and document, no refund will be issued. If a problem arises you should return immediately to the office listed above. In the event a complaint concerning a hearing aid and/or guarantee cannot be reconciled, you may contact the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0783. Telephone Number (904) 488-6602. I understand that this purchase agreement comprises the entire agreement and no other agreement of any kind, verbal understanding or promise whatsoever will be recognized or be binding upon Advanced Hearing Center, Inc. THE USE OF A HEARING AID WILL NOT RESTORE NORMAL HEARING, NOR WILL IT PREVENT FURTHER HEARING LOSS. After the "purchase agreement" was signed, Respondent made earmolds to send to Starkey. The earmolds, along with a manufacturer's order form that Respondent had completed, were subsequently sent to Starkey. On the order form, Respondent provided information concerning the results of the air conduction testing, but not of the bone conduction testing, he had performed on W. J. The J.s left Advanced Hearing following their April 1, 1997, visit without taking a copy of the signed "purchase agreement" with them. At their request, Respondent mailed them a copy of the "purchase agreement," which they received sometime on or about Saturday, April 5, 1997, along with the following cover letter, dated April 1, 1997: Thank you both for coming to Advanced Hearing Center and mutually deciding to purchase your new hearing system. I am confident that the Starkey Sequels will improve your hearing, especially since it minimizes distortion of louder sounds as we thoroughly discussed. Your custom order is being processed and we will notify you when it comes in to set an appointment for the fitting and pick up of your new instruments. Also enclosed please find another copy of the purchase agreement. It was not long after the J.s had left Advanced Hearing on April 1, 1997, that they started having second thoughts about the purchase they had made. The next morning (April 2, 1997), they telephoned Respondent and advised him of their "doubts" and concerns regarding the purchase. Respondent "talked it out" with them, and, at the end of the conversation, the J.s expressed their willingness to "accept the delivery" of the hearing aids. W. J., again accompanied by his wife, returned to Advanced Hearing on Tuesday, April 8, 1997, to be fitted with the new hearing aids. He had not seen a medical doctor since his last visit to Advanced Hearing. When Respondent first fitted W. J. with the new hearing aids, W. J. told Respondent that he heard a whistling noise. Respondent thereupon removed the hearing aids and, using a "metal probe," took wax out of both of W. J.'s ears. He then again fitted W. J. with the new hearing aids. This time W. J. did not hear any whistling noise or other feedback. Respondent proceeded to test and measure W. J.'s hearing. The audiometric test results, which were reduced to writing and placed in the patient file Respondent maintained on W. J., revealed that, with the new hearing aids, W. J. enjoyed a significant improvement in hearing. Following the testing, the J.s accepted delivery of new hearing aids. Respondent provided the J.s with a copy of the "purchase agreement" that W. J. had signed during his previous visit to Advanced Hearing, on which Respondent had added the serial numbers of the new hearing aids and the date of delivery (April 8, 1997). W. J. left Advanced Hearing on April 8, 1997, wearing the new hearing aids. Sometime after leaving Advanced Hearing, W. J. began hearing the same whistling noises that he had heard when Respondent had first fitted him. After returning to New Jersey on April 9, 1997, the J.s brought the new hearing aids to a New Jersey audiologist to be serviced. The New Jersey audiologist told the J.s that to correct the whistling problem new earmolds would have to be made. She further advised the J.s that she "would have to charge [them] a considerable amount of money" to make these earmolds. Respondent was not furnished a signed written request from W. J. requesting that Respondent release to the New Jersey audiologist the records in the file Respondent maintained on W. J. Accordingly, Respondent never sent the New Jersey audiologist these records. On May 1, 1997, the J.s shipped the new hearing aids back to Respondent, along with a letter (dated that same day, May 1, 1997), in which they demanded a "full refund" based upon their claim that the hearing aids neither fit nor worked properly. On May 5, 1997, Respondent refused delivery of the package containing the hearing aids and the letter. Thereafter, on or about May 6, 1997, W. J. filed a complaint against Respondent with Petitioner. The J.s re-sent to Respondent the May 1, 1997, letter requesting a "full refund." The letter was delivered to Respondent on May 9, 1997. Respondent refused to provide the refund that the J.s had demanded because he believed that, inasmuch as he had the audiometric documentation necessary to establish that the hearing aids significantly improved W. J.'s hearing, the J.s did not have a "valid reason," under the existing law, to void their purchase of the hearing aids. Respondent did agree, however, to pay for a qualified person in New Jersey to make earmolds for W. J. so that the problem with the hearing aids could be corrected. He also offered to take the hearing aids back and exchange them for Siemens Music hearing aids. Neither of these offers, though, was acceptable to the J.s. Unsuccessful in their efforts to obtain a refund from Respondent, the J.s sought redress from their credit card company. The credit card company sent the J.s the following letter, dated May 30, 1997: This is in reference to the billing error from ADVANCED HEARING CTR in the amount(s) of $3,800.00. Based on the information you have provided, we have removed the item(s) from dispute and issued a credit to your current account. Please be advised that the merchant has the opportunity for rebuttal. If this occurs, we may need to contact you for further information if deemed necessary to support your case. However, if the merchant can provide documentation that proves the charge(s) to be valid, we will have no alternative but to place the charge(s) back on your account. If this is necessary, we will send you a written explanation. . . . Respondent, on behalf of Advanced Hearing, took advantage of the "opportunity for rebuttal" provided by the credit card company. The matter was finally resolved in October of 1997, with the credit card company siding with the J.s. The end result of the dispute resolution process was that the J.s were made whole and $3,800.00 was "charged back" to Advanced Hearing's account. In early December of 1997, Respondent discovered that there were several files missing from his office. He suspected a disgruntled former employee whom he had recently terminated. (The employee's personnel file was among the missing files.) Respondent contacted the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, which investigated the matter. The deputy that conducted the investigation found no signs of forced entry. No arrests were made as a result of the investigation. Following the completion of the investigation, Respondent found that there were other files, including W. J.'s patient file, that were missing. Respondent made an effort to recreate the documentation that was in W. J.'s file. He contacted Starkey and obtained, over the telephone, the test result information that he had included on the manufacturer's order form he had sent to Starkey. He recorded this information on an Audiometric Case History and Tests form that he uses in his practice. On the form, he wrote that this was "partial information obtained from manufacturer." In January of 1998, Respondent's secretary inadvertently charged the J.s' credit card account $3,800.00. The mistake was subsequently rectified. Sometime in 1998, the J.s mailed to Respondent the hearing aids they had purchased from Advanced Hearing the year before. This time Respondent accepted delivery. The hearing aids were "not in working order" when they were received by Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 29th day of May, 2001.
