The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Hae Suk Bornholdt, committed the offense alleged in an Amended Administrative Complaint issued June 12, 2000, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed upon Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), is the state agency charged with the authority and duty to regulate the practice of massage therapy in the State of Florida. Chapters 20, 456, and 480, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Hae Suk Bornholdt, applied for licensure as a massage therapist in the State of Florida on December 1, 1999. Ms. Bornholdt's application for licensure was approved and she was licensed as a massage therapist in the State of Florida effective December 28, 1999. Respondent's license number is MA 30419. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Bornholdt was employed by Fame Limited, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Fame"). Fame is located at 4799 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida. Fame is a massage establishment. On December 2, 1999, an undercover policy investigation was begun of Fame in response to anonymous complaints of sexual activities between massage therapists and male clients of Fame. Robert F. Flechus, a detective with the Boca Raton Police Department, entered Fame posing as a client. Detective Flechus paid $80 for a massage. He was greeted by Ms. Bornholdt, who identified herself as "Tina." Ms. Bornholdt led Detective Flechus to a locker room where he undressed, left his clothes in a locker, and wrapped a towel around himself. Detective Flechus took a sauna and was then led by Ms. Bornholdt to a shower room where he showered. Ms. Bornholdt washed Detective Flechus, including his buttocks, with a sponge. After showering, Ms. Bornholdt led Detective Flechus into a room where she gave him a massage. During the massage, Ms. Bornholdt suggested that Detective Flechus masturbate while she massaged his stomach. When he refused, Ms. Bornholdt took Detective Flechus' hand and attempted to place it on his penis. Detective Flechus immediately pulled his hand away. Ms. Bornholdt then removed the towel that was partially covering Detective Flechus' genitalia and began to stroke his penis. Detective Flechus stopped Ms. Bornholdt and got up off the massage table. Ms. Bornholdt failed to properly drape Detective Flechus when she allowed his penis to be exposed to her during the shower and while he was on the massage table. Ms. Bornholdt was not licensed as a massage therapist on December 2, 1999. Ms. Bornholdt acted as a massage therapist with Detective Flechus and other clients prior to receiving her license on December 28, 1999. Detective Flechus' testimony in this matter was clear, consistent, and credible. Ms. Bornholdt's testimony on the other hand was inconsistent, unconvincing, and not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Massage Therapy finding that Hae Suk Bornholdt committed the offense alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued on June 12, 2000; it is further RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage revoke Ms. Bornholdt's license to practice massage therapy and assess the costs of investigating and prosecuting this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 16th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis G. King, Esquire Rudolph C. Campbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Lawrence K. Fagan, Esquire LaValle, Brown, Ronan & Soff 750 South Dixie Highway Boca Raton, Florida 33432 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 480.046(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed on his license to practice massage therapy.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, and since 1983, Respondent has been a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued License Number MA 0004592. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a massage therapist by Health Matters, located in Clearwater, Florida. Respondent has received training in several areas of massage technique including the following: postural integration; deep tisssue therapy combined with acupressure techniques; craniosacral massage; chi kung body movement awareness; myofascial release therapy; corrective body massage; and management of low back pain. Respondent specializes in postural integration massage and, typically, this is the kind of massage he performs. This type of massage involves deep tissue therapy combined with acupressure techniques. On August 28, 1995, the Complainant called Health Matters to schedule an appointment. When she telephoned the facility, the Complainant indicated that she wanted a relaxation massage. On August 30, 1995, the Complainant went to Health Matters for her scheduled appointment. When she arrived at the facility, the Complainant was asked to complete a medical history form. On the form, the Complainant indicated the areas of her body which were in pain. Also, on the employment portion of the form, Complainant noted that she was a massage therapist. As of August 30, 1995, the Complainant had worked as a massage therapist for about four months. After completing the form, the Complainant went to the room where the massage was to be given and met Respondent. Prior to this time, the Complainant had never been to Health Matters and did not know Respondent. At some point prior to Respondent's beginning the massage, the Complainant told Respondent that she was a licensed massage therapist. Prior to beginning the Complainant's massage, Respondent provided her with a clean towel with which to drape herself after she undressed herself. After instructing the Complainant on how to drape herself with the towel, Respondent left the room while the Complainant undressed and draped herself in preparation for the massage. Respondent returned to the room a few minutes later and knocked on the door. After the Complainant indicated that she was undressed and draped, the Respondent entered the room to begin the massage. Prior to performing Complainant's massage, Respondent informed her that he would be performing a postural integration massage. Although the Complainant was unfamiliar with this type of massage, at no time prior to, during or after the massage did she tell Respondent that she did not want him to perform a postural integration massage. Neither did the Complainant tell Respondent that she wanted a Swedish relaxation massage. During the postural integration massage, Respondent continuously spoke to the Complainant and explained the purpose of each of his postural integration massage movements. In explaining each of the steps, Respondent utilized and referred to a wall chart of the human anatomy displayed in the room. The massage lasted between thirty and forty minutes. During the course of the massage, the Complainant remained draped except for a ten minute period when Respondent was working in the Complainant's upper thoracic area. Prior to beginning to work on the thoracic area, Respondent explained to the Complainant what he would be doing and the purpose and effect of the procedures. Also, Respondent pointed out on the human anatomy wall chart, the muscle groups, tendons, and ligaments on which he would be working. Finally, Respondent also told the Complainant that he would have to remove the towel to work in the thoracic area. As he had indicated, prior to working on the Complainant's thoracic area, Respondent removed the towel that was draping Complainant’s breasts. The postural integration massage includes and involves the massage therapist performing certain penetrations to the pectoralis minor muscles and to the area under the breast tissue. These practices and procedures were consistent with Respondent's education and training in the area of postural integration massage and were implemented by Respondent when he performed the massage on the Complainant. At no time during the massage, including the ten minute period when the breasts were undraped, did Respondent touch the Complainant's breasts in a sexual manner. The Respondent neither fondled her breasts nor touched her nipples. According to the Complainant, Respondent worked on the right side of her breast and then "did the same thing on the other side." During the time that Respondent was working on the Complainant's thoracic area, she never indicated to Respondent that she was uncomfortable when the drape was removed from her breasts or that she wanted the drape pulled up to cover her breasts. After completing the work on the thoracic area, Respondent redraped Complainant’s breasts and completed the massage. During various types of massages, it is sometimes necessary to work around the sternum area, or the perimeters of the breasts. While doing so, it is the practice of some therapists to work with a towel over that area and pull it down through the center and move it from side to side as necessary. Notwithstanding this practice by some therapists, a female's breasts may sometimes be undraped during a massage. The mere undraping of a breast during a massage, in and of itself, is not prohibited by law or rule and is not evidence of sexual activity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint and finding that Respondent, Maurice Battista, did not violate Section 480.046(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and Rules 61G11-26.008(2) and 61G11-26.010(2), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruby Seymour-Barr, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 33599 Albert P. Lima, Esquire Lima and Associates 620 Twiggs Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Joe Baker Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues presented in this case are whether Respondent has violated the provisions of chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based on the testimony, evidence admitted at the formal hearing, and the agreed facts in the pre-hearing stipulation. The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and chapters 456 and 480. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was licensed to practice as a massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 79509. At all times material to the allegations in this matter, Respondent was employed as a massage therapist at Daytona College, in Daytona Beach, Florida. Respondent’s address of record is 10 Spanish Pine Way, Ormond Beach, Florida 32174. S.W. is a licensed mental health counselor who has been licensed for approximately 22 years. She resides in Clermont, Florida, which is where she lived at the time of the massage. In July 2017, S.W. and C.W., her 23-year-old daughter, traveled to the Daytona Beach area to visit S.W.’s elderly mother. On July 19, 2017, S.W. and C.W. went to Daytona College, for the first time, for a massage. Upon arriving at the school, they were greeted by the receptionist. S.W. and C.W. were scheduled for 80-minute massages to take place at 3:30 p.m. However, the ladies arrived ten minutes late, so the massages began late. Upon arrival, the ladies were asked whether they needed to use the restroom, which they did. After using the restroom, the ladies were taken to the massage area for their services. S.W. selected the male massage therapist based on her past positive experiences with male therapists. S.W. had received a number of massages in the past, including massages by men. She allowed her daughter to be scheduled with the female massage therapist because she believed her daughter preferred a woman. S.W. was scheduled for a massage with Respondent, and C.W. was scheduled with Elizabeth Branson. Respondent escorted S.W. to the massage room first. Ms. Branson escorted C.W. to the room a few minutes later. As Respondent escorted S.W. to the massage room, S.W. described the areas in which she wanted special attention, including her neck, shoulders, scalp, and feet. Respondent asked S.W. whether she needed massage in the sciatic area. S.W. had problems in the sciatic area, so she consented to have the area massaged. The common room where massages occurred at Daytona College contained eight massage tables separated by curtains. Respondent took S.W. into the massage room and instructed her to undress to her comfort level. Respondent left the room while S.W. undressed down to her underwear. When Respondent reentered the room, S.W. was draped with a sheet. Respondent tucked the drape into S.W.’s underwear and lowered it onto her buttocks. A short time later, S.W. could hear her daughter in the area near her, but she could not see her. C.W. whispered to S.W. to let her know she was in the room. At some point, S.W. heard her daughter exit the room. C.W. finished her massage before S.W., even though S.W.’s service began before C.W.’s. C.W. recalled that her mother was unusually quiet during the massage instead of being “chatty,” as she normally would be. C.W. waited in the hallway outside the massage room for four or five minutes for S.W.’s massage to finish. After S.W. came out of the massage room, C.W. immediately noticed that something was wrong. When S.W. exited the room, she was “wired” and not relaxed, as she would normally appear after a massage. C.W. described her as appearing nervous and agitated. C.W. could tell that something was wrong, but S.W. did not say anything at that time. The two ladies walked to the front desk. As was her routine, S.W. paid for both massages and left a $10 tip. She did not make a complaint regarding the massage with the receptionist before leaving the school. Concerned regarding her mother’s behavior, C.W. asked S.W. what happened. S.W. stated that something weird happened. The ladies left the school and began driving to their destination. S.W. continued to be upset and ultimately, began crying. She was so upset that initially, she could not articulate what occurred. S.W. ultimately told C.W. that Respondent had placed his hand under her underwear and touched her clitoris. S.W. contacted her friend Mike, a law enforcement officer. S.W. explained to Mike what happened, and he suggested that she contact the police to report what happened to her. S.W. and C.W. called the police and requested that an officer meet the ladies at Daytona College. They also contacted the school and advised them that S.W. had been inappropriately touched during her massage. They arrived back at the school approximately 20 minutes later. The officer arrived shortly after S.W. and C.W. The officer interviewed S.W. and she reported to him that while massaging her thighs, Respondent “grazed” her vaginal area with his finger. S.W. also reported that Respondent touched her clitoris with his finger. S.W. declined to pursue criminal charges and stated she would file a complaint with the Department. However, she expressed that she wanted to ensure there was a record of the incident so another woman would not have the same experience. On or about July 26, 2017, one week later, S.W. filed a complaint with the Department of Health. S.W. submitted a typewritten statement regarding the events involving Respondent. S.W. related that at the beginning of the massage, she gave Respondent permission to pull down her underwear and tuck in the drape. She stated that toward the end of the massage, Respondent “grazed” her vagina outside her underwear. He then placed his finger under her underwear and began massaging her clitoris for a couple of seconds. She stated that she grabbed Respondent’s hand and pushed it away. In response, Respondent abruptly told S.W. that the massage was done. In addition to the report to the police and the Department, S.W. also reported the incident to the school administrators, Dr. Ali and Mr. Brooks. Dr. Ali met with S.W. and C.W. when they returned to the school. Dr. Ali described S.W. as appearing embarrassed, subdued, and uncomfortable. Mr. Brooks was also present during the meeting. He was called to campus after he received a report that something inappropriate happened. He observed that S.W. appeared upset. Although there was no expert offered to testify in this matter, Chris Brooks, LMT, provided insight regarding the type of massage provided to S.W. He explained the difference between sensualized touch and sexualized touch. A sensualized touch is not uncommon in massage. On the other hand, sexualized touch is used to evoke sexual pleasure. At hearing, S.W. was clear and unwavering in her recollection of the events involving Respondent touching her vaginal area. S.W. appeared anxious, uncomfortable, and her voice cracked when she testified that Respondent moved her underwear and touched her vaginal area. Specifically, she testified that Respondent grazed her vagina on top of the front of her underwear. She was in such shock that it happened she could not say anything. Respondent then put a bare finger underneath her underwear and began massaging her clitoris. She still could not speak, so she quickly grabbed his hand and pushed it away. Consistent with her statement to the police officer and her written statement, she credibly testified that Respondent touched her vaginal area with his finger. At hearing, Respondent denied touching S.W.’s vagina during the massage. He also denied rubbing her clitoris. Mr. Brooks, who is personally and professionally acquainted with Respondent, testified that Respondent seemed shocked to learn of S.W.’s complaint. Respondent testified that he draped S.W.’s legs in such a way that it caused the draping to “bunch” between the area massaged and the genitalia. Respondent argues that S.W. could not determine whether the draping touched her genitals when Respondent massaged her legs. However, when pressed on this point, S.W. unequivocally testified that she was certain it was Respondent’s finger that touched her clitoris. Respondent had no prior complaints of inappropriate touching before S.W.’s complaint. Although Mr. Brooks asked him about the complaint on the date of the incident, there was no evidence offered at hearing that Respondent was formally interviewed by the school administration. However, Respondent was terminated from his job at Daytona College based on S.W.’s complaint. Respondent was also not interviewed by the police officer investigating the complaint. Respondent was not charged with a crime. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action involving his license to practice massage therapy. The evidence demonstrates that Respondent crossed the boundaries of appropriate massage into sexual misconduct when he massaged S.W.’s clitoris with his finger. While Respondent’s testimony seemed sincere, S.W. was more persuasive. Based on the totality of the evidence presented at hearing, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent touched S.W.’s vaginal area or clitoris with his finger. The placement of a massage therapist’s finger on the vaginal area or clitoris of a patient is outside the scope of the professional practice of massage therapy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding: Respondent guilty of violating sections 480.046(1)(p) and 480.0485 as further defined in rule 64B7-26.010; Imposing a fine of $2,500; and Revoking Respondent’s license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 2019.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy, in violation of section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (Petitioner or Board), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43, and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. Stipulated Facts At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed massage therapist in the state of Florida, holding license number MA48984. Respondent’s current address of record is 4069 Old Mill Cove Trail West, Jacksonville, Florida 32277. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent worked for Massage Envy, a massage establishment in Jacksonville, Florida. On or about August 28, 2020, Respondent performed a massage on A.M., a 32-year-old female. In preparation for her massage, A.M. undressed, laid down on a massage table, and covered herself with a draping. In the course of the massage, Respondent uncovered A.M.'s right leg and massaged her quadricep. Sexual misconduct is outside the scope of generally accepted practices of massage therapy. No massage therapist may engage in sexual misconduct with his or her patient. Facts Adduced at Hearing Respondent was educated in massage therapy, and has practiced massage therapy for roughly 13 years. As part of his education, he received education in ethics and professional conduct. He has also received continuing education as part of his Florida licensure. His education included instruction that sexual misconduct is not allowed. Respondent worked for Massage Envy at two of its Jacksonville branches, though he was released after the report of the August 28, 2020, incident. He also works as a massage therapist for the Jacksonville Jaguars professional football team. Respondent indicated that if a client raises a sexual issue during a massage, a massage therapist is instructed to give the client every opportunity to correct their pattern of behavior and/or try to divert the behavior back to the massage. If the client persists, the therapist may ask the client to stop or leave the room. Respondent testified that prior to August 28, 2020, he had not been accused of misconduct of any form in connection with his practice of massage therapy, nor had a client objected about his touching them inappropriately during a massage. There was no evidence to the contrary. A.M. was a regular client of Respondent on a generally month-to- month basis, having become a member at Massage Envy in July 2015. She received massages on a monthly basis until services were suspended for an undisclosed period due to Covid-19. The Massage Envy facility had reopened at some time prior to August 28, 2020. Respondent was A.M.’s primary massage therapist, though she was treated by another massage therapist, Ross, when Respondent was unavailable or when A.M. saw him by choice to provide specialty service. Ross was regarded as being particularly skilled in treating the neck area. A.M. and Respondent had no interaction, professional, social, or otherwise, outside of Massage Envy. A.M. and Respondent would talk during treatment. The subject matter previously varied, and A.M. may have occasionally strayed into areas that could be perceived as inappropriate, but there was nothing to cause concern on Respondent’s part that would have resulted in termination of a session. A.M. typically kept her eyes closed during treatment, occasionally falling asleep. The massages generally had their desired effect of relaxation such that A.M. was often in a “massage daze” afterwards. At some time prior to the events at issue, Respondent wrote his telephone number on the back of a Massage Envy tip envelope and gave it to A.M. The reason for Respondent providing his number to A.M. was, as is the case with many of the facts of this case, disputed. A.M. testified that due to the Covid-19 outbreak, Massage Envy had closed. She stated that Respondent told her that he had been seeing clients at their homes, and gave her his number in case she wanted him to give her a massage at her home. Respondent, on the other hand, testified that he had a favorite pair of “massage pants” that were in need of repair, and that he had given them to A.M., who is a seamstress, to have her take a look at them. Respondent stated that he gave A.M. his telephone number so that she could call him to let him know if they were worth trying to fix. A.M. acknowledged that at some point during her professional relationship with Respondent, they discussed whether she could repair the pants. However, A.M. denied that he had provided her with his number when he gave her the pants, stating that it made her uncomfortable that she was not able to contact him regarding the work that it would entail. The events of August 28, 2020, could not be more contested. This is not a case of nuanced behavior. Sexual activity occurred, or it did not occur. The testimony of each is summarized as follows:1 A.M.’s Testimony A.M. testified that she appeared at Massage Envy at 9:00 a.m. on August 28, 2020, for a scheduled 90-minute massage. She undressed and laid face down on the massage table, covered by a sheet. There was no evidence as to whether A.M. completely disrobing was her routine, but neither A.M. nor Respondent indicated it to be outside of the norm. The massages with Respondent were “mostly the same order of operation,” but on the 28th, since A.M. was sore from a workout, she asked that Respondent not do a deep massage. Respondent massaged A.M.’s back, legs, and arms without incident. During the first part of the massage, A.M. engaged in conversation with Respondent. She did not believe the discussions were sexual in nature. She told Respondent about her new fitness routine and the workouts involved. Respondent noted that that he had noticed, and that she looked really good, to which A.M. replied “oh, thanks.” In the second conversation, A.M. asked Respondent to weigh in with his thoughts about a situation in which a client asked if he should take A.M. to dinner after the completion of a job. A.M. stated that she told the client “look, I'm down to go to dinner with you, but I have to let you know that I do have a partner and he will know about this.” She stated that the prospective 1 The recitation of testimony that follows is graphic and unfiltered. In a case dependent entirely on the testimony of the only two witnesses to the event, it seems necessary to consider, in full, the testimony of the only two witnesses to the event. client said “Oh, no you got me all wrong,” decided not to go through with the work, and never spoke with her again. A.M. was curious as to Respondent’s speculation as to the client’s intentions. She also indicated that although she was in a relationship, she was open to dating other men, as long as her partner knew about it. Roughly halfway through the massage, A.M. turned over so Respondent could massage the front of her body, as was normal. Respondent began to massage the quad at the front of A.M.’s upper right leg. A.M. testified that, when Respondent started massaging her quad, instead of downward strokes along the quad towards her feet, he started to massage upward and around the top of her quad behind her upper thigh until he was touching her buttocks and her vulva. As Respondent began to touch A.M., she clenched her buttocks, and asked, “Is this a thing that's happening?” Respondent started to finger A.M.’s vagina and asked, “Is this okay?” to which A.M. replied “yes, that's fine.” Respondent continued to insert his finger into A.M.’s vagina. She remembered Respondent saying, “Damn, it's so wet and tight,” to which she replied “And smooth.” A.M. testified that as Respondent fingered her vagina with one hand, he had the other on her clitoris, but would intermittently massage the nipple and areola of her right breast. A.M. testified that Respondent again remarked about how tight her vagina was, and that she responded, “My asshole is, too.” A.M. later testified that she was shocked that the event was happening, but that “when it happened I tried to enjoy it,” and put her hands over her head and moaned. A.M. testified that she did not run or resist because “I didn't know what would happen if I did. Like, I felt very vulnerable, and, I thought, you know, like, I'll just lay here and let it finish.” Although Respondent had never given A.M. reason to believe he was violent, she testified that “he is still tall and bigger than me and muscular and I was naked. I'm 4' 11. I was very vulnerable.” At no point during the incident did A.M. tell Respondent to stop. Rather, A.M. recounted that after a while, she ultimately said, “look, I'm not going to cum from this, can you please just make sure my muscles are even,” to which Respondent stated, “I guess I have to go back to doing my job.” She remembered him continuing to finger her vagina for a bit longer before he stopped and said, “I’m sorry. I'm sorry,” to which she “thanked him” and said, “Don't be sorry. I guess people just like touching me.” As Respondent concluded, A.M. asked Respondent if he had a crush on her, and told him she “would try to be better prepared the next time.” A.M. testified that Respondent then proceeded to massage her low back from underneath. She thought he may have been wiping his hands on her. He then moved to massage her shoulders, at which time A.M. said, “oh, great, I'm going to smell like pussy juice now.” She testified that Respondent then said, “you're going have guys hawking all over you from all the pheromones.” A.M. testified that as Respondent concluded, she said a few more things because it seemed awkward, and remembered Respondent saying “I wanted to do that for a long time, but, you know, had to keep it professional.” A.M. testified that after the sexual act was concluded, she told Respondent that “I actually had a sex dream about you once, but it was no big deal.” He asked “was it one of those when you felt like you were really there?” A.M. said, “yeah,” and Respondent said, “That's awesome.” She also indicated that she asked “is this why girls at the front desk are like, oh, you were with Mike, he's so amazing,” to which he just kind of laughed. A.M. also stated to Respondent “I've always honestly come here for a massage,” to which he replied “I think my clients come back to me because I use a lot of pressure.” A.M. also testified that, again after the sexual act was concluded, she told Respondent “that one time while I was receiving a massage from Ross that he had his hands on my neck and I just wondered to myself what it would be like if he choked me.” She recounted that Respondent replied that “[w]e often wonder what our clients are thinking.” Respondent finished the massage and left the room, closing the door behind him as was normal. A.M. got dressed and headed for the front desk. She noticed a clock that read 10:59 a.m., well beyond the scheduled 90- minute massage. A.M. testified that she saw Respondent in the hallway, and said “Bye. See you next time.” She testified that she was in a “massage daze” as she walked to the front desk to check out. She spoke with the manager, telling her that she felt very relaxed. She paid for the massage, and left a tip for Respondent. She did not say anything else to anyone about the massage before she left the premises. As to the reason for not alerting anyone at Massage Envy to the incident, A.M. testified that “I was confused. You know, like, obviously, I said I wasn't injured. So, maybe, you know, I thought to myself, oh, maybe that's a thing that happened and I can get over it.” Respondent’s Testimony A.M. had a 9:00 a.m. appointment with Respondent on August 28, 2020. A.M. went to the massage room alone, undressed, and laid face down on the massage table. She was draped with a sheet. Respondent testified that the appointment was normal. He greeted A.M., asked if there was anything that needed particular attention, and tried to get an understanding of what she was looking for in the massage that day. A.M. was sore from exercise, and did not want a deep massage, as she typically received. She did request a full body massage. From what he could recall, Respondent performed a “normal service,” with no specific out of the ordinary requests. Respondent has an established routine when performing massage, working around the body in a clockwise pattern to ensure that he does not skip a body part or miss something along the way. Patients typically start lying on their stomachs and, about halfway through a session, turn over. The general pattern is the same on both sides. That has been his practice since therapy school. Respondent testified that A.M.’s massage as she was positioned on her stomach was uneventful, and conversation routine. About midway through the massage, A.M. turned over, which was the normal course for a full body massage. Respondent testified that “the conversation quickly changed and it went into one of that was off the topic of massage of what we had been talking about.” He recounted three topics of conversation during the course of A.M.’s massage that started to get “off track.” First was the discussion, also a topic of A.M.’s testimony, regarding a client she had done some work for. Respondent stated that A.M. wanted his advice because “you're a guy, you might understand why he reacted this way.” Purportedly, to Respondent’s recollection, after A.M. completed the work, the client asked A.M. to dinner “and other things.” Respondent indicated that A.M. told the client “yeah, I'm cool with that, but I have to ask my boyfriend,” which caused the client to be taken aback. A.M. was curious about the client’s reaction, and wanted Respondent’s opinion as to his reaction. Respondent testified that “I guess it's because he wasn't expecting the response about your boyfriend.” Respondent testified that the question was off the topic of massage, and “a little strange and a little weird.” However, it was not to the point of what he perceived as “crossing that line.” Respondent testified that he redirected the conversation, with mixed success, back to what was needed in terms of the massage, but did not report the conversation to any other employee or manager at Massage Envy. Respondent testified that at another point in the massage, A.M. advised him that she had “a wet dream” in which Respondent performed oral sex on her. Respondent testified that he again tried to redirect the conversation to one of massage. A.M. had been a client quite a long time, and he was giving her every opportunity to continue to be a client. Finally, Respondent testified that when he started to work on A.M.’s neck, she advised him that when she was worked on by Ross, a massage therapist known for his neck work, she wondered what it would be like for him to choke her. Respondent perceived the choking to be for sexual gratification. As “shocking” as he perceived the comment to be, Respondent testified that “I tried to redirect it towards massage,” saying “Ross is good at neck work and a lot of his clients see him for neck work.” He was close to the end of the massage, tried to quickly finish the massage and said, “okay, hey, that's it, we're done.” Respondent testified that as he went to walk out of the room, A.M. noted that he forgot to work her pectoralis muscles on the upper part of her chest. Although he was already running over the scheduled time, he came back, massaged both sides for a few minutes, and left the room. It is Respondent’s normal custom to leave the room after a massage so the client can dress in privacy. Respondent testified that as A.M. left, “she said bye to me, and she goes I'll see you later.” She left him a “generous” tip -- over $30. Respondent testified that he found the nature of the conversations with A.M. to be “shocking.” However, he did not mention them to either his coworkers or management at Massage Envy. He testified that, in retrospect, he should have left the room and gone directly to management. He indicated that clients discussing topics that may be inappropriate -- politics, religion, things of a sexual nature -- are not uncommon. He tries to act professional and go about his business. He stated that, as he goes from client to client to client throughout the day, “[y]ou never think it's going to go to something like this or this point.” Respondent denied touching on or near A.M.’s vagina. Respondent denied touching A.M.’s breasts, though he did massage her pectoralis muscles along the collarbone and the upper path of the muscle tissue. Respondent denied that he experienced any type of sexual arousal during A.M.’s massage. Post-Incident Events - A.M. On August 31, 2020, while A.M. was masturbating, the events of August 28, 2020, came back to her. She came to the conclusion that what happened was wrong. Up until that point, A.M. had not told any other person about the alleged incident. The next day, September 1, 2020, A.M. went to Massage Envy to cancel her membership. She did not tell the representative about her allegations regarding Respondent. Massage Envy did not permit A.M. to cancel her membership that day. However, they allowed her to freeze her account. She could then cancel within the time needed to cancel without having to pay for another month.2 That same day, after her effort to cancel her membership proved unsuccessful, A.M. sent two text messages to Respondent. In her first, sent at 12:59 p.m., she said “Hey Mike, it’s A.M.,” to which Respondent replied at 2:12 p.m. “How are you?” A.M. then responded at 4:43 p.m.: I’m not okay I’m sad and angry over what happened Friday. I feel taken advantage of regardless of anything I said. None of what I said was an invitation to do that to me. I was in a very relaxed state of being. I’m disappointed that I built trust with you and that I paid you to do this to me. This was something I routinely made part of my fitness 2 Despite having frozen her membership, her next month’s dues were still withdrawn from her account. Massage Envy was apologetic and cancelled the membership. A.M. did not ask for a refund, and it is unclear, and ultimately irrelevant, whether she received one. and wellness the past several years. I had to cancel my membership today. I really hope you don’t do this with anyone else. A.M. then blocked Respondent from her contacts, though Respondent indicated that he did not try to reply. On September 2, 2020, A.M. discussed the incident with her friend, Dr. Ferrer-Bruker. The initial contact between A.M. and Dr. Ferrer-Bruker occurred that afternoon, when A.M. asked to discuss something “heavy.” They spoke around 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. Dr. Ferrer-Bruker recalled that A.M. told her that she received a massage from her regular massage therapist, and that he “fingered her,” and that she regretted that she did not do something different as a reaction at the time. Dr. Ferrer-Bruker tried to comfort A.M., and recommended that she go to the police, a discussion confirmed by A.M. Dr. Ferrer-Bruker remembered little else of the conversation. After having spoken with Dr. Ferrer-Bruker, A.M. filed a police report with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office (“JSO”) later in the evening on September 2, 2020. At 8:53 p.m., A.M. texted Dr. Ferrer-Bruker that “[t]hey are sending a police officer to me now.” The JSO conducted an investigation of the August 28 incident. A.M. testified that she recalled telling the police that she was shocked and terrified and scared at the time the incident was going on. However, she testified that Respondent had never previously given her reason to believe he was violent, nor had he made her feel threatened in a physical manner. Between the time A.M. made the police report and the date she reported the incident to Massage Envy, she stated that she discussed the incident with other persons. None of those persons testified and there is no other evidence of any such discussions. On September 14, 2020, A.M. reported the incident to Massage Envy. She advised the manager, Katherine Petrino, that she had a massage with Respondent on August 28, 2020. She reported that the massage started as normal, but as Respondent starting to massage her quad, he instead fingered her vagina. Later that day, A.M. emailed Ms. Petrino with an account of the incident that, despite her statement that her “[m]emory is foggy on the sequence of what else was done and said,” differed little, if at all, from her testimony. A.M. was then contacted by Redirect, a third-party investigator for Massage Envy. She restated the events to the representative. Post-Incident Events - Respondent About two weeks after August 28, 2020, Ms. Petrino, the clinic manager for Massage Envy - Harbor Village, advised Respondent that there was a complaint against him for inappropriate touching. She did not give details. Respondent was placed on suspension until further notice. A couple of days later, Respondent was contacted by the third-party investigator, and gave a statement. He testified that he told the investigator how the massage went, what body parts were worked on, and described the conversation. He advised of having received both of A.M.’s text messages on September 1, 2020, and that he did not respond to her second, lengthier message. He indicated that his discussion with the investigator was consistent with his statements at the hearing and otherwise. Social Media Starting around December 4, 2020, A.M. posted her thoughts regarding the incident on Instagram. The posts, with a few exceptions, were not dated. The text of the first post was as follows: TW: Sexual Assault I keep thinking about how the scariest thing I feel like I did this year was pick up the phone to report my abuser. I felt the most shame because I didn't think anyone would believe me because a) I'd known them so long b) they were well-loved at the place and c) I'm a sex pot so maybe it would just be “on-brand” to have “let it happen and regret it” (second quotes are actual words from a JSO officer in 2020). Please, the “brand” is pleasure. The brand is consent. The brand is joy, not confusion and fear and freezing and trying to just say anything to get through a situation. The brand is context and that it never should have happened in the first place. How sad is it that I just said the scariest thing was reporting my abuser and not the fact that it happened at all? Life is not happy and positive as a default. I've never been fake about anything, just learned that people love to see joy on here. Anyway, I am very grateful for this escape and the support I have gotten from my beautiful partner, friends, and family. Most of all grateful for myself because I'm mf-ing that bitch. A second post, also undated, provides that: TW: Sexual Assault I was gonna blame a man for molesting me and stressing me the fuck out and sending me into uncontrollable depression for setting me behind on all of my work but the reality is I'm actually just celebrating the fact that I've made it, I pushed through, and I am THAT bitch who was able to crush three custom wedding gowns in a week so ??????????? Try not to fuck with me THANKS!!! ?? Unlike the JSO investigation, the question here is not one of consent. If the acts alleged occurred between A.M. and Respondent, acting in the course of his licensed profession, they constitute a violation of section 480.0485, whether they were engaged in between two consenting adults, or whether they were forced upon the client entirely without consent. In short, if the acts occurred, they violated the massage therapy practice act. The testimony of Dr. Ferrer-Bruker, who was not a witness to any of the alleged acts of Respondent, played no direct role in the determination of the outcome in this matter. A.M.’s testimony was forceful and emotional. Despite her self- perceptions and her “brand,” she was precise about the facts, and adamant as to the role of consent in a sexual encounter. Respondent’s testimony was equally forceful, but more reserved in delivery. He testified that he loved his family and his job, that he had built a reputation and a career over many years, and performed at a high level. He stated that he would not jeopardize his work, his reputation, and his clients’ trust -- in short that he “would never do that, to sit there and throw it away on something like this.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Michael E. Maloy, L.M.T. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: T. A. Delegal, III, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Ryan Sandy, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kama Monroe, JD, Executive Director Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 James C. Poindexter, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kristen M. Summers, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Louise St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of chapter 480, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and; if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following factual findings are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of massage therapists pursuant to section 20.42 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 80938. During May 2016 Respondent worked at Massage Envy (“M.E.”) as a massage therapist. M.E. is a spa facility offering massage services. D.W. is a 46-year-old female with significant back issues. D.W. was in a boating accident as a child, and has had at least eight back surgeries in attempts to alleviate her back pain. Since 2012, D.W. has had numerous massages to help ease her back pain. She initially received massages through her chiropractor’s massage therapist. The chiropractor’s massage therapist was unable to continue, and D.W. started obtaining massages at M.E. D.W. obtained free massages from M.E. when she participated as a “mystery shopper”4/ for M.E. Following that experience, D.W. became a client of M.E. D.W. usually received full-body massages on a monthly basis,5/ except when she had the back surgeries. On May 27, 2016, D.W. contacted M.E. requesting a massage appointment. She was assigned Respondent as her regular masseuse was unavailable. D.W. arrived for the massage and met Respondent. The massage was scheduled for two hours. D.W. and Respondent discussed D.W.’s back pain. Respondent left the treatment room to allow D.W. time to completely disrobe and cover herself with the drape cloth or sheet. During the first half of the massage, D.W. was face down while Respondent stretched her out. She was comfortable with this part of the massage as she remained fully covered by the sheet. Approximately half way through the massage, Respondent briefly left the room, and D.W. turned over to be face up for the remainder of the massage. In the face-up position, Respondent began the next phase of the massage. While he was working on D.W.’s left leg, Respondent bumped her vagina. D.W. initially thought the touching was an accident; however, Respondent kept touching her clitoris. Respondent then put two to three fingers inside D.W.’s vagina. D.W. was “very scared,” and initially felt frozen in fear. After a few minutes Respondent asked if he needed to stop the massage. After a few seconds, D.W. was able to say, “It’s making me feel like I have to pee, please stop.” Respondent stopped. Respondent then asked if D.W. wanted to have her hands or feet massaged as there were a couple of minutes remaining in her appointment. D.W. did not want Respondent’s hands touching her hands; she indicated he could message her feet. Respondent finished the massage by working on D.W.’s feet. After the massage ended, D.W. dressed. D.W. went to the restroom, received a cup of water from Respondent and checked out at M.E.’s front desk. D.W. went to the parking lot, called the M.E. manager, and told the manager what happened. D.W. then went home. D.W. told her husband what had happened and the two of them returned to M.E. The Largo Police Department was called and a report was filed. While testifying about this very intimate type of contact, D.W.’s demeanor was distressed. She cried as if it were painful to recount. D.W. now is unable to use massage therapy to treat her back pain. Additionally, D.W. has trouble sleeping, and is unable to have sex because she considers what Respondent did to her was “foreplay.” Respondent denied that he engaged in any form of sexual activity with D.W. Respondent attempted to blame D.W.’s allegation as either a “counter-transference” or “transference” event. Respondent postulated that the counter-transference or transference is “where the client imposes a negative feeling or a negative association upon their therapist after something is awoken during massage.” Respondent agreed that D.W. had been getting massages for years, and that she would be accustomed to the massage experience. Respondent also agreed that there was nothing special about the massage he gave to D.W. Respondent’s testimony is not credited. Massage therapy training teaches that massage in the vicinity of the genital area is to be conducted very carefully. If a massage therapist properly draped a patient consistent with the requirements of rule 64B7-30.001, it would not be possible to inadvertently touch a client's genital area. The placement of a massage therapist's finger (or fingers) into the vagina of a massage client is outside the scope of the professional practice of massage therapy and is below the standard of care. There is no therapeutic value to massaging or penetrating the vagina, and there is no circumstance by which a massage therapist should touch a client’s vagina.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 480.0485 and rule 64B7-26.010; and imposing a fine of $2,500 and revoking his license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 2017.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy and failed to appropriately drape a client as alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint1 (AAC), and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent’s license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a massage therapist in Florida, having been issued license number MA 80545. In the time since Respondent was licensed, no prior disciplinary action has been taken against her license. Respondent was born in the Liaoning Province, North China, and came to the United States in 2005. Respondent is a U.S. citizen. Respondent attended a Beauty School for her massage education and her educational instruction at school was in English. Further, when she took the examination to become a Florida licensed massage therapist, the examination was in English, and no one helped her to translate the material. Respondent’s address of record is 9986 Red Eagle Drive, Orlando, Florida, 32826.4 At all times relevant to the AAC, Respondent practiced massage therapy, as defined in section 480.033(3), at Golden Asian Massage, LLC, doing business as The Wood Massage (Golden Asian). Golden Asian was located at 1218 Winter Garden Vineland Road, Suite 124, Winter Garden, Orange County, Florida. 4 On November 26, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, stipulating that Respondent’s address of record was in New York. At some point after the March 2016 investigation, Respondent moved out of Florida. Then, either before or after November 26, 2019, Respondent moved back to Florida, but failed to advise her counsel or DOH of her address change. Respondent’s counsel stated that he would ensure Respondent filed the appropriate change of address information with DOH. At the time of the investigation, the LEO had been trained at the police academy, had multiple courses in vice-related investigations, human trafficking investigations, and drug trafficking investigations, including prostitution activities. The LEO has participated in “well over a hundred” undercover prostitution operations. The LEO’s investigation assignments “as a whole” include “anything that would be vice-related, drug trafficking or human trafficking.” The MBI is a joint police task force for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, which includes Orange County and Osceola County. MBI routinely investigates vice, human trafficking crimes, and mid-level to upper-level narcotic organizations. Once the MBI receives a complaint about a massage parlor, an undercover investigation is initiated. An undercover investigation team usually consists of five law enforcement personnel: a supervisor-in-charge; the undercover agent (agent); and two to three additional support personnel. An agent goes into the establishment, posing as a customer. Once the agent is on the massage table, the agent waits for the massage therapist to initiate, either via conversation or through an overt act, a predisposition for sexual activity. In some instances, the massage therapist might glide their fingers in the inner thigh, or speak of some sexual activity. Once the massage therapist initiates an actual sex act, the agent then tries to stop the sex act, while engaging in conversation. On March 9, 2016, after receiving a tip or complaint about the establishment, the MBI conducted an undercover investigation of the Golden Asian. The LEO arrived at the Golden Asian, met Respondent at the counter, and in English, asked for a 30-minute massage. Respondent responded in English and told the LEO it would cost $50 for a 30-minute massage. The LEO agreed to the cost, and Respondent led the LEO to a massage room within the Golden Asian. The LEO got completely undressed and positioned himself on his stomach, face-down on the massage table. Upon entering the room, Respondent grabbed a towel and placed it on the LEO’s back midsection. The LEO described the area covered as “pretty much my buttocks to, like, my lower back,” but the towel was not tucked in. Using oil, Respondent massaged the LEO’s back, thighs, and neck. While the LEO was still on his stomach and roughly ten to 15 minutes through the massage, the towel fell off. The LEO did nothing to dislodge the towel while he was on his stomach. Roughly halfway through the 30-minute massage, Respondent “stopped massaging and it was more of a gliding motion from [the LEO’s] back to [the LEO’s] inner thighs.” With this action, the LEO determined that Respondent was predisposed to engage in sexual activity. Respondent directed the LEO to turn over, which he did. The LEO testified that after he turned over his genitals were exposed. Respondent put more oil on her hands and massaged the LEO’s chest to his thigh area. Respondent further testified that Respondent “would glide and touch [the LEO’s] penis and scrotum.” Respondent asked the LEO if he liked it when Respondent “tapped” the LEO’s penis. The LEO answered “yes” to Respondent’s question. The touching of the LEO’s penis and scrotum again provided the predisposition that sexual activity could be engaged. The LEO then asked Respondent for oral sex, i.e. a blow job. Respondent declined to perform oral sex. The two engaged in talking and hand gesturing regarding manual masturbation and its cost. The LEO testified Respondent raised her hand to indicate manual masturbation would be $40.00. Respondent testified that she said “no” and did not state a price. As provided below, Respondent’s testimony was not credible. The LEO told Respondent that $40.00 was too expensive for masturbation. He then grabbed the original towel that had draped him from between his legs, cleaned the oil, dressed, and left the massage establishment. Shortly thereafter, Respondent was arrested.5 5 The dismissal of Respondent’s criminal charges is not probative of whether she committed the regulatory violations. Respondent’s hearing testimony of how the towel fell off during the LEO’s massage differs from her deposition testimony. At hearing, Respondent testified that when the LEO flipped over, the towel fell off and she did not grab it fast enough. Respondent then added it took her “one minute, two minutes” to adjust the towel. Respondent admitted that she exposed the LEO’s genitals without his permission. However, during her deposition, Respondent blamed the type of oil massage that she was administering to the LEO for the towel falling off. Respondent claimed that her hand movement was “pretty hard. So with the movement, the towel shifting a little bit by little bit, and then [the towel] fell off completely.” Respondent also testified that she “saw it [the towel] dropped off, then [she] put it back right away.” In either instance, the LEO’s genitals were exposed without his consent. At the hearing, Respondent’s description of the towel used on the LEO changed from her deposition. During the hearing, Respondent testified the towel was “one to two feet wide . . . the length is about 1.5 meters [over four feet]. I’m not exactly sure.” However, in her deposition, Respondent provided that the towel was “more like a facial towel. It’s not a very big shower towel, but it’s more a facial towel size . . . one [foot] by two [foot].” Respondent’s testimony describing the LEO’s massage is not clear or credible and is rejected. The LEO’s testimony was credible, clear, convincing, and credited. Ms. Buhler is a licensed massage therapist and based on her education, training, and experience, she is accepted as an expert in massage therapy. “Draping” is covering the body while a massage therapist is working on it for the client’s comfort and privacy. Usually, a sheet is used for draping a client (if the room is too cold, a blanket could be added). As a massage therapist works on specific body areas, that body part is uncovered and the towel repositioned when the therapy to that area is completed. Ms. Buhler opined that the size of the towel (“1 [foot] x 2 [foot]” as described by Respondent in her deposition) is “very small,” and is an unusual drape size. Further, she opined that a “1 x 2 towel barely covers anything. It would be almost impossible not to either view something or potentially accidentally bump something with a drape of that size.” If any drape were displaced during a massage, the standard of care requires that the drape be put back in place immediately, not in one or two minutes. Ms. Buhler opined that “anytime a therapist attempts to, either for their own pleasure or for the pleasure of the client, to get any sort of sexual gratification, that is considered sexual misconduct.” A therapist has a choice when any type of sexual activity is suggested or offered. A therapist can redirect someone, state that the activity is not appropriate for the setting, threaten to terminate the massage, or in fact, terminate the massage by leaving the treatment room. Respondent provided that she continued to massage the LEO for one or two minutes after the request for oral sex. Although Respondent claimed she said “No,” she did not take any affirmative action to terminate the session or remove herself from the situation. Respondent’s actions on March 9, 2016, were outside the scope of generally accepted treatment of massage therapy patients. There is no evidence that Respondent has ever had any prior discipline imposed against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding Respondent, Mingli Li, in violation of sections 480.046(1)(i) and 480.0485, Florida Statutes, constituting grounds for discipline under section 480.046(1)(p), imposing a fine of $3,500.00; revoking her license to practice massage therapy; and assessing the cost of investigating and prosecuting the Department’s case against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Zachary Bell, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed) Michael S. Brown, Esquire Law Office of Michael S. Brown, PLLC 150 North Orange Avenue, Suite 407 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Christina Arzillo Shideler, Esquire Florida Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Chad Wayne Dunn, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Kama Monroe, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 (eServed) Louise Wilhite-St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issues for determination in these consolidated cases are whether Petitioner's applications for approval as a continuing education provider should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Carol Rangle Gilmore, is a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida. Petitioner also holds a certificate to practice massage therapy which was issued by the city of San Diego, California. On February 12, 1991, Petitioner received a certificate from the Mueller College of Holistic Studies in San Diego, California, stating that Petitioner had completed the prescribed course of training in anatomy, physiology, and human relations, and passed a creditable examination in the art of massage. Petitioner completed 9 credit hours in anatomy, 9 credit hours in physiology, 9 credit hours in history, theory and ethics, and 75 credit hours in practice and demonstration, for a total of 100 credit hours of instruction at Mueller College of Holistic Studies. The certificate of completion issued to Petitioner by Mueller College of Holistic Studies was as a Massage Technician. Mueller College of Holistic Studies was not at the time of the issuance of Petitioner's certificate of completion in 1991, nor is Mueller College of Holistic Studies now, a Board- approved massage school for purposes of licensure in Florida under Rule 64B7-32.003, Florida Administrative Code. On September 16, 1992, Petitioner received a certificate of completion of a course of 1000 hours of holistic studies from the Desert Resorts School of Soma Therapy (Desert Resorts) in Desert Hot Springs, California. Petitioner's certificate of completion from Desert Resorts states that the course of study consisted of a 100-hour massage technician certificate course (which was credited from Mueller College), and 900 hours of "postgraduate work" in anatomy, physiology, acupressure, nutrition, business ethics, history, theory, and practice of both Eastern and Western forms of massage, specializing in specific forms used in various types of bodywork. Petitioner's transcript from Desert Resorts reflects the 100 hours of credit for her massage technician course from Mueller College, and 48 credit hours in each of the following subjects: Acupressure I; Acupressure II; Advanced Massage I (Aromomatherapy, Manual Lymph Drainage); Advanced Massage Therapy II (Sports Massage); Anatomy & Physiology; Kinesiology; Communication Skills & Ethics; Body/Mind Integration; and Health and Nutrition. Additionally, Petitioner's transcript from Desert Resorts reflects 468 credit hours in Assessment & Remediation. Petitioner's certificate from Desert Resorts designated her a holistic health practitioner. Desert Resorts School of Soma Therapy was not at the time of the issuance of Petitioner's certificate of completion in 1992, nor is Desert Resorts now, a Board-approved massage school for purposes of licensure in Florida under Rule 64B7-32.003, Florida Administrative Code. Subsequent to completion of her studies at Mueller College of Holistic Studies and Desert Resorts School of Soma Therapy, Petitioner applied for licensure as a massage therapist in the State of Florida. Rule 64B7-32-002, Florida Administrative Code, requires graduation from a Board-approved massage school for licensure eligibility in Florida. Pursuant to Rule 64B7-32.003, Florida Administrative Code, the minimum requirements for Board approval of a massage school includes 500 classroom hours of coursework as follows: 150 hours in Anatomy and Physiology; 225 hours in Basic Massage Theory and Clinical Practicum; 10 hours in Florida Statutes/Rules and History of Massage; 15 hours in Theory and Practice of Hydrotherapy; 97 hours in Allied Modalities; and 3 hours in HIV/AIDS. Because neither Mueller nor Desert Resorts were Board-approved massage schools, Petitioner, in order to meet Florida licensure eligibility requirements, was required to transfer credit through a massage school approved by the Board. To meet Florida requirements, Petitioner was further required to complete coursework in HIV/AIDS, Florida statutes and rules, and the history of massage therapy. Petitioner successfully completed the Florida licensure eligibility requirements by receiving further instruction at the Core Institute in Tallahassee, Florida, a Board-approved massage school, and by completing her HIV/AIDS course at another Board-approved massage school in Atlanta, Georgia. Petitioner's coursework from Mueller and Desert Resorts was transferred through, and included in, her credited hours for licensure eligibility in Florida by completion of her instruction at the Board-approved massage schools she attended in Florida and Georgia. As indicated above, subsequent to her licensure as a massage therapist in Florida, Petitioner applied to the Board for approval as a continuing education provider for six courses in the following subjects: professional ethics, manual lymph draining, reflexology, aromatherapy, sports massage, and HIV/AIDS. For several years Petitioner has been preparing and offering correspondence or home study courses related to massage therapy under the corporate name Tranquility, Inc. Petitioner's correspondence courses are used as part of the curriculum of Applied Kinesiolgy Studies, a school of massage/bodywork in Reston, Virginia. Applied Kinesiolgy Studies is not a Board- approved massage school. Petitioner's home study courses are also used as part of the continuing education program at the Alternative Conjunction, which is a Board-approved school of massage in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania. The requirements for approval as a continuing education provider are set forth in Rule 64B7-28.010, Florida Administrative Code, as more fully set out below. There is no dispute that Petitioner is ineligible for approval as a continuing education provider under Rule 64B7-28.010(2)(c )1., 2.a., or 2.b., Florida Administrative Code, in that Petitioner does not hold a bachelor's degree from a college or university accredited by the Department of Education, has not had a minimum of two years teaching experience in the subject matter to be offered, and has not taught the courses three times in the past two years before a professional convention, professional group, or at a massage therapy school. Although Petitioner's correspondence courses are offered through at least two massage therapy schools, Petitioner does not serve on the faculty of any massage therapy school, and does not present classes of instruction at any massage therapy school. The dispute in this matter arises in regard to the application of Rule 64B7-28.010(2)(c ) 2.c., Florida Administrative Code, which allows for approval as a continuing education provider if a person has graduated from a school of massage which has equivalency to a Board-approved school, has completed three years of professional experience in the practice of massage, and "has completed specialized training in the subject matter and has a minimum of two years of practical experience in the subject." Petitioner takes the position that her coursework at Desert Resorts, which includes 900 hours of "postgraduate work," constitutes "specialized training" for the purposes of approval as a continuing education provider under Rule 64B7-28.010, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent takes the position that Petitioner's "postgraduate" coursework at Desert Resorts in California was not specialized training, but primarily basic massage training. Moreover, Respondent contends that Petitioner's training was not conducted at a Board-approved massage school, and the credit for this training was already considered as part of the fulfillment of Petitioner's basic licensure eligibility requirements which was afforded Petitioner by the Board approved schools she attended in order to obtain licensure in Florida. A comparison of the educational requirements for licensure in Florida found in Rule 64B7-32.003, Florida Administrative Code with the coursework completed by Petitioner at Mueller College and Desert Resorts Schools shows that: Petitioner completed 75 hours of practice and demonstration at Mueller College and 468 hours of assessment and remediation at Desert Resorts, a combined 543 hours which correspond to the requirements in basic massage theory and clinical practicum. The transcript shows that 318 of the 500 hours Petitioner completed in excess of the Florida minimum requirements were in clinical practicum, and not in the subjects in which Petitioner seeks specialized training designation and continuing education provider approval. Petitioner's training in lymphatic systems is part of the Florida requirement for 150 hours of study in anatomy and physiology, and is not specialized training. The coursework credited by Desert Resorts School to meet the requirement of 150 hours in anatomy and physiology does not total 150 hours, but 109 hours as follows: Massage Technician 13 hours; Anatomy and Physiology 48 hours; Advanced Massage/Active 48 hours. Accordingly, when Petitioner's credits were transferred to a Florida approved massage school, additional credits were needed to meet the Florida anatomy and physiology requirements, which Petitioner would have had to take at the Core Institute although her transcript from Core was not submitted. 144 hours coursework taken at the Desert Resorts School are not equivalent to any of the Florida requirements, and include 48 hours of study in each of the following: communication skills and ethics, body/mind integration, and health and nutrition. None of these courses relate to the six topics of continuing education courses for which Petitioner seeks approval, and are therefore irrelevant. Of the 500 excess hours of study taken by Petitioner at Desert Resort, 462 of those hours do not constitute advanced or specialized training in manual lymph drainage, aromatherapy, sports massage or HIV/AIDS. There is nothing on the transcripts that indicated any study in reflexology, for which Petitioner seeks approval as a continuing education provider and there is no indication from the transcript that reflects study in HIV/AIDS. The only training Petitioner has demonstrated in HIV/AIDS is the continuing education courses necessary to renew her license. The documentation Petitioner provided does not demonstrate any specialized training in addition to the transcripts from which she was granted initial licensure in Florida, and there is no evidence other than what was reflected on Petitioner's transcripts in the areas of manual lymph drainage, relexology, aromatherapy, or sports massage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for approval as a continuing education provider. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD A. HIXSON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Rangle Gilmore, pro se 520 107th Avenue North Naples, Florida 34108 Lee Ann Gustafson, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Joe Baker, Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and Rule 64B7-26.010(1) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, by engaging in sexual misconduct with a massage client, and thereby violated Section 480.046(1(k), Florida Statutes; and, if yes, what penalty should be imposed on his license to practice massage therapy.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (Department), is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of massage therapy in the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 480, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Miodrag Visacki (Respondent), was at all times material hereto, a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA23741. A. R. is a female who resides in Rhode Island. At the times material to this proceeding, A. R. was 18 years old and was on vacation with members of her family in Florida. During this vacation, A. R. and her family were staying in a condominium unit at the Long Boat Key Resort in Longboat Key, Florida. While on vacation in Longboat Key, Florida, A. R. and her aunt decided to obtain massages. They looked at advertisements for massage therapy in the newspaper, and then called telephone numbers listed in several different advertisements. After calling several of the telephone numbers, A. R. and her aunt decided to order massage services from one of the advertisements. On April 21, 2000, A. R.'s aunt called the number listed in one of the advertisements to set up appointments for April 22, 2000. On April 22, 2000, Respondent went to the condominium unit in which A. R. and her aunt and parents were staying to perform the massages. When Respondent arrived there, he identified himself as Michael. Prior to beginning the massages, Respondent requested that A. R. and her aunt fill out client intake forms that elicited information about the purpose or the reason for the massage, the "areas requiring specific attention," and the "areas preferred not to be worked on." On the client intake form, A. R. indicated that she wanted a relaxation massage. With regard to areas requiring special attention, A. R. noted, "legs, neck, and back." A. R. indicated that the areas she preferred not to be worked on were her face and head. Respondent set his table up in the living room of the condominium unit and began the massage of A. R. When Respondent began the massage, A. R.'s aunt was in the kitchen, which was adjacent to the living room. Soon after Respondent began with the massage of A. R., her aunt left the kitchen and went to a bedroom in the condominium unit. At the beginning of her massage, A. R. was wearing a bra and her underwear, was lying on her back, and was covered by a sheet. Approximately 15 minutes after the massage began and after A. R.'s aunt left the kitchen and went to one of the bedrooms, Respondent pulled down A. R.'s bra and proceeded to massage her breasts and nipples. Respondent then asked A. R. if she enjoyed his massaging her breast and nipples to which she responded "no." After A. R. told Respondent that she did not want him to massage her breasts and nipples, he began massaging her ankles, working his way up her legs, vagina, and stomach. Respondent removed A. R.'s underwear during the massage although he never asked for her permission to do so and she never consented to his doing so. In an attempt to stop Respondent from massaging her vagina, A. R. turned over on her stomach. While A. R. was laying on her stomach, Respondent penetrated A. R.'s vagina and anus with his finger while alternately massaging her back, shoulders, and buttocks. During A. R.'s massage, two sheets were used to cover her. Throughout the massage, A. R. was covered from the waist up by one of the sheets. However, Respondent continually moved or adjusted the sheet that was to cover A. R. from the waist down so that it was "half on, half off." At no time prior to or during the massage did A. R. give her consent to Respondent to remove the sheet draping her body so as to expose her buttocks and genitalia. When Respondent finished the massage of A. R., she spoke to her aunt briefly and indicated that something was wrong, but she did not reveal the full details of what had occurred during the massage. Respondent then proceeded to massage A. R.'s aunt. While her aunt was receiving her massage, A. R. went to the bathroom, washed up, changed, and waited for Respondent to finish her aunt's massage. A. R. was in "total confusion" and after Respondent completed her aunt's massage, A. R. urged her to pay Respondent so he could leave the condominium. After Respondent left the condominium, A. R. divulged to her aunt some, but not all, of the details of what had occurred during the massage. A. R. and her aunt then left the condominium and went to the nearby beach area where A. R.'s parents were and informed them about what had occurred during the massage. A. R.'s mother immediately called the Longboat Key Police Department and police officers were dispatched to the condominium that day. When Officer Heidi Blake Micale arrived at the condominium, A. R. confided in and reported to her the conduct engaged in by Respondent during the massage. As part of its investigation of the April 22, 2000, incident, the Longboat Key Police Department contacted Respondent and scheduled an interview with him. On April 24, 2000, Lieutenant Detective Christina Roberts interviewed Respondent regarding the incident. During the interview, Respondent admitted to massaging A. R.'s breasts, including the nipple area. As justification, in explaining his actions, Respondent indicated that he massaged A. R.'s breasts because they were not listed on the intake form as one of the "areas preferred not to be worked on." As evidence of this, Respondent provided Lieutenant Detective Roberts with a copy of the intake form that A. R. had completed prior to the massage. Prior to her encounter with Respondent, and while in Rhode Island, A. R. had received numerous massages for sports related injuries and she continues to receive such massages. However, A. R. has never encountered sexual conduct by any massage therapist other than Respondent. Respondent's actions with regard to massaging A. R.'s breasts and/or nipples may or were likely to cause erotic arousal. Furthermore, this conduct by Respondent constitutes sexual activity and is outside the scope of the practice of massage. Respondent's actions of penetrating A. R.'s vagina and anus may or were likely to cause erotic arousal. This conduct by Respondent constitutes sexual activity and is outside the scope of the practice of massage.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 480.046(1)(k), Florida Statutes, Section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and Rule 64B7-26.010(1) and (3), Florida Administrative Code; imposing a $1000.00 fine against Respondent; and revoking Respondent's license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 18th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Miodrag Visacki 454 North Jefferson Avenue Sarasota, Florida 34237 Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Lori C. Desnick, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Ft. Knox Building 3, Mail Station 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against a licensee on the basis of alleged misconduct set forth in a two-count Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Andrea L. Snyder, was a licensed Massage Therapist, having been issued license number MA-0024773 by the Florida Board of Massage Therapy. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed part-time at D & D of Broward, Inc., doing business as "Stress Massage Clinic" at an establishment located at 179 State Road 7, Margate, Florida. On February 9, 1998, Broward County Sheriff Detective Steve Drum entered the Stress Massage Clinic, where he encountered the Respondent. Detective Drum arranged for a one- half hour therapy session with the Respondent for a thirty- dollar fee. The Respondent accepted the fee. The Respondent escorted Detective Drum to a private room and advised him to get comfortable. Detective Drum removed his clothing and then laid himself face down on a massage table, naked, and undraped. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent entered the room and began to massage Detective Drum. After a few minutes, the Respondent asked Detective Drum to turn over. Still naked and undraped, Detective Drum turned over onto his back, and the Respondent continued to massage him. The Respondent then asked Detective Drum if he wanted her to put oil on his genital area. He indicated that he did. The Respondent then indicated that she expected additional compensation for doing so, and Detective Drum agreed to additional compensation. Thereupon, the Respondent removed her shirt, which left her naked from the waist up. She then placed oil on her hands and grabbed Detective Drum's penis and attempted to masturbate him. Detective Drum stopped the attempted masturbation. The Respondent made a second attempt to grab the detective's penis, but he stopped her from doing so, and began to get dressed. Detective Drum then paid the Respondent an additional forty dollars and left the establishment. On March 12, 1998, Detective Drum called the Stress Massage Clinic and made an appointment for a two-girl session. Upon entering the facility on March 12, 1998, Detective Drum was greeted by the Respondent and by another female employee named Kira Talis. Detective Drum paid a fee and was escorted to a massage room. The March 12, 1998, massage session began with Detective Drum lying naked and undraped on a massage table. Both the Respondent and Ms. Talis began performing a massage on Detective Drum. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent and Ms. Talis both removed their shirts and both were naked from the waist up. During the course of the March 12, 1998, massage session, both the Respondent and Ms. Talis attempted to masturbate Detective Drum by grabbing his penis. Detective Drum promptly stopped these attempts to masturbate him by moving the women's hands away from his penis, and by asking them to massage other parties of his body. At the conclusion of the March 12, 1998, massage session, Detective Drum gave a one hundred dollar bill to one of the women to be divided between the two of them.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy issue a final order in this case finding the Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a penalty consisting of the following: (a) revocation of the Respondent's license; an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00; and assessments of costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 3rd day of January, 2001.
