The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy, in violation of section 480.0485, Florida Statutes; engaged in improper sexual activity, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7-26.010; or failed to appropriately drape a client, in violation of rule 64B7-30.001(5); and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy within the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. Mr. Rodriguez is a licensed massage therapist within the state of Florida, having been issued license number MA 75735. He has been licensed since 2014. Mr. Rodriguez's current address and address of record is 812 Northeast 2nd Street, Apartment 1, Hallandale, Florida 33009. On or about January 9, 2017, Mr. Rodriguez was employed at Om'echaye Wellness & Fitness Center (Om'echaye) located at 1100 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009. On or about January 9, 2017, Patient R.A., a 24-year- old female, received a body scrub and a massage from Respondent. Patient R.A. had never received a massage at Om'echaye before, though she and her boyfriend lived close by and had eaten lunch at the Om'echaye restaurant a few times. It was on one of these earlier visits that she saw a special promotion for a body scrub and Swedish massage. She bought a gift card for the promotion for her boyfriend for his birthday. He was not enthusiastic about getting a massage there, however, so they decided that Patient R.A. would use the card herself. She reported what happened during the massage shortly after the incident. Her testimony at hearing was detailed and was consistent with previous accounts. These factors, along with her demeanor at hearing, made her testimony clear and convincing, and her testimony is credited. Patient R.A.'s appointment was at 6:15 p.m., and she arrived a few minutes early. The receptionist introduced her to Mr. Rodriguez. In the massage room, Patient R.A., having never received a body scrub before, asked Mr. Rodriguez whether she should leave her underwear on, as she had always done during massages she had received. He told her that no one did that, saying that otherwise it would be difficult to perform the body scrub. Patient R.A. asked if she should go under covers, but he directed her not to. He asked her to lie face up on the massage table and left the room so that she could undress. There were two 16" x 24" towels on the table, with which she covered herself notwithstanding his instruction, placing one over her lower body and one over her breasts. Mr. Rodriguez returned to the room and began to wet her skin with a hot towel. He asked her how she heard about Om'echaye. She told him about the gift card she had originally bought for her boyfriend's birthday, and that it was almost her birthday and that she was using the card. He learned that she was a foreign student from Germany studying psychology. He told her that his sister-in-law was a psychologist in Brazil. Patient R.A. asked him if he was from Brazil, and he told her no, that he was from Peru. He began the body scrub as they were talking. He applied a coconut and sugar body scrub solution, pushing her legs apart as he quickly worked up her legs, the back of his hands touching her vagina several times. As he bent her leg at the knee the towel slid onto her stomach, exposing her. He removed the towel completely, touched her vagina again, and then scrubbed the front part of her vagina with the body scrub. Mr. Rodriguez continued working up her body, removing the upper towel and, without asking her, began scrubbing her breasts. Afterwards, he removed the scrubbing solution from the front of her body with a hot towel. He then asked her to turn over. Mr. Rodriguez scrubbed the back body of Patient R.A. He scrubbed her buttocks and touched her anus with the side of his hands. After wiping off the body scrub solution, he told her that he would begin the Swedish massage. Mr. Rodriguez did not receive consent from Patient R.A. that she would remain undraped. He dripped hot oil onto Patient R.A. and rubbed it over her body, rubbing her buttocks, with his hands frequently against her anus, spilling oil down her buttocks. He then asked her to turn over. He massaged Patient R.A.'s front, including her breasts, and touched her vagina. He then began to rub his finger against her clitoris. Patient R.A. grabbed his wrist and told him not to touch her down there. He then returned his massage to her breast area and began to tickle her nipples. He moved his hands to her lower body several other times, touching her vagina. He came close to her clitoris, but did not touch her there again. Less clear and convincing was Patient R.A.'s testimony that Mr. Rodriguez pressed his penis against her elbow at some point during the massage. In cross examination, she stated: Q: Now, did you say in your direct testimony that there was an erect penis that touched you? A: At first was the--I believe so, but I'm not sure. That's what I said first. And even--then I mentioned I felt his genitals, but I don't think he was erect. I'm not sure. I felt it, but if he was erect-- Q: Okay. So something-- A: --I'm not sure-- Q: --something touched you, but you don't know whether it was his penis or his arm or-- A: His genitals. Patient R.A. stated at the hearing that she did not see Mr. Rodriguez touch her, but felt him touch her right arm. She did not remember how many times. Her testimony that Mr. Rodriguez pressed his penis against her was not clear and convincing. After the massage, Mr. Rodriguez asked Patient R.A., "How was it?" Patient R.A. responded that it was not a Swedish massage and that he needed to be careful about the way he performed massages. She asked him if he always did his massages like that. He responded saying, "That's how I do it with my clients. I don't know what other massage therapists do." She again said that he needed to be very careful with what he was doing. He apologized, saying, "Thank you for being cool." He gave her his business card. He offered to give her a deep tissue massage for free at his studio. He said that all of his clients come there because "it is too expensive here." Patient R.A. declined. The door to Om'echaye was locked because of the late hour that she was leaving, and Mr. Rodriguez had to open the door to let her out. At hearing, Patient R.A. said that she did not do more to prevent the assault because at first she refused to believe it was happening and later she was afraid. Patient R.A. was ashamed of herself when she got outside Om'echaye, thinking she should have stood up for herself more. At first, she was not going to tell anyone that she had been sexually assaulted, but ended up telling her boyfriend and going back to Om'echaye early the next morning and talking to the owner. She met with police later that day and gave them statements. She later notified the Department. Respondent denied Patient R.A.'s account in every material element. He testified that he never touched her vagina, anus, breasts, nipples, or clitoris, either intentionally or accidently. He testified that he acted within the scope of massage therapy practice and that no sexual misconduct occurred. He testified that she remained properly draped the entire time. He suggested that Patient R.A. made up the entire incident and that there was no video recording or witnesses.1/ Respondent also asserted that he would not have committed sexual misconduct against Patient R.A. because she was a female and he was gay, and so was not attracted to her. Curiously, Mr. Rodriguez sought to bolster this claim with testimony that he had performed some massage therapy at Ed Logan's, represented to be a gay resort, and that at one time he had advertised in a gay publication. Since the massage therapist-patient relationship does not appropriately involve sexual motivation of any kind--whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual--it is not entirely clear why Mr. Rodriguez was suggesting that these activities, even had they been supported by additional documentary evidence of some sort, somehow confirmed his testimony. In any event, the assertion that he was gay, even if accepted, would not exonerate Mr. Rodriguez in light of the clear and credible testimony of R.A. in this case. The definition of sexual activity is not limited to physical contact intended to erotically stimulate the therapist, but also includes contact intended to erotically stimulate the patient, as well as contact which is likely to cause such stimulation, regardless of intention, as discussed further in the Conclusions of Law below. Respondent's touching of Patient R.A.'s breasts, nipples, anus, vagina, and clitoris, as described by Patient R.A., was direct physical contact likely to erotically stimulate either person or both. It was clearly outside the scope of practice of massage therapy. The touching described by Patient R.A. was sexual activity as defined under the rule. Patient R.A.'s testimony was clear and convincing and proved that Respondent used the therapist-patient relationship to engage in sexual activity. Patient R.A. testified that after reporting the incident, she "could not function anymore." She saw a poster saying "get a massage for $20 for 30 minutes" on campus, and she broke out in tears. She started counseling and soon after that was put on an antidepressant for a period of five months. Mr. Rodriguez testified that he depends on his massage business to make his living, that he is no longer working at Om'echaye spa, and that he has been painting buildings to pay his bills. There was no evidence to indicate that Mr. Rodriguez has ever had any prior discipline imposed in connection with his massage therapy license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order finding Ernesto Rodriguez in violation of section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 64B7-26.010 and 64B7-30.001(5), constituting grounds for discipline under section 480.046(1)(p), Florida Statutes; imposing a fine of $2,500.00; revoking his license to practice massage therapy; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 2017.
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 Whether Respondent Sabina Dahlberg's Massage Therapy violated Sections 480.46(1)(k) and 480.043(7), Florida Statutes (1993), whether Respondent Sabina Dahlberg violated Section 480.046(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1993), and if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Sabina Dahlberg (Dahlberg) holds a massage therapy license from the state of Florida, license number, MA0011128. Dahlberg owns Sabina Dahlberg’s Massage Therapy which holds a massage establishment license from the state of Florida, license number MM004301. In March, 1993, Dahlberg opened a vitamin store, Powerhouse Vitamins, at 732 S. Federal Highway, Dania, Florida. At that time Dahlberg was involved in professional body building and did not provide massage therapy services. Subsequent to the opening of the vitamin store, Dahlberg began to give massages in the rear of the building. There is a neon sign in the front window of the store which says "massages." Dahlberg filed an application with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department) to obtain the necessary license for a massage therapy establishment. The license was issued to Sabina Dahlberg’s Massage Therapy located at the 732 South Federal Highway address. Between August 1993 and March 1994, Dahlberg employed licensed massage therapists Cynthia Williams and Dorothy Martin. Donna Booras, who was then under the apprenticeship of Dorothy Martin, also worked at Dahlberg’s establishment. In August, 1993, Ruth "Debbie" Cerminaro was also working at the establishment known as Powerhouse Vitamins. Ms. Cerminaro had a cosmetology license and was hired to perform facials, body wraps, and body waxing. Ms. Cerminaro did not have a license to give massages. Sometimes Dahlberg’s mother, Ursula Metzler, would help out at the store by answering the telephones and selling vitamins. At one time Ms. Metzler was considering becoming an apprentice in order to obtain a license to practice massage. Dahlberg testified that her mother never performed massages; however the pages from the store’s appointment book indicate that on March 3, 1994, Ursula had two appointments. In each massage room there is a sign which tells the customers, "Don’t even ask" for illegitimate acts. A customer could get a half-hour massage for $25 or a full hour massage for $45. The half-hour massage consisted of massaging the back and the back of the legs. The hour massage consisted of massaging the back, the front and back of the legs, the arms, the chest, and the colon. It was not unusual for customers to leave tips. In 1993 and 1994, Dahlberg had an arrangement with Dr. and Mrs. Spingarn to give the Spingarn’s massage therapy. Mrs. Spingarn had been involved in an accident and was receiving massage therapy as well as pool therapy from Dahlberg. For the most part, Mrs. Spingarn’s therapy was paid through workers’ compensation insurance. Dr. Spingarn was a dentist and at times Dahlberg would provide massage therapy to Dr. Spingarn in exchange for dental services. Dr. Spingarn would be given the massages at his office, the Powerhouse Vitamins’ location, or at his home. Because of the severity of her injuries, Mrs. Spingarn usually received her massage therapy at home, but she had also been given therapy at her husband’s office. When she received therapy at home, Dahlberg would massage her for about one and one-half hours and provide therapy in the swimming pool for about an hour. The home sessions would usually begin in the morning around ten or eleven o’clock and go into the afternoon. Around August 2, 1993, the Broward County Sheriff’s office received information alleging that Dahlberg and other employees at her business had engaged in sexual activity with customers at the business. Detectives Chris Percival (Percival) and Joseph Ventura (Ventura) of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office were assigned to conduct an undercover operation to determine if prostitution was occurring at Dahlberg’s place of business. On August 7, 1993, Ventura went to Powerhouse Vitamins and requested a massage. He was shown to a room in the back of the store, where he removed his clothes and placed a towel around his waist. A female named Debbie entered the massage room and told him to lay on his belly on the massage table. Debbie put lotion on her hands and began to massage Ventura’s back. Halfway through the massage, Ventura asked Debbie if she worked for tips and what could he get for a tip. Debbie wanted to know what he wanted, and he told her that he wanted to be taken care of. She told him to roll over on his back. Debbie wanted to know if Ventura was a cop and he assured her that he was not. Debbie began to rub lotion on his upper leg area. She removed the towel, poured lotion on his groin area, and began to masturbate Ventura. Ventura told her to stop that he was nervous. Debbie stopped and then resumed the back massage. A few minutes later the massage ended. Ventura paid her for the massage, including a tip, and left. On August 10, 1993, Detective Chris Percival (Percival) went to Powerhouse Vitamins for an appointment with Dahlberg for a massage at 4:30 p.m. During the massage, Percival told Dahlberg that he was impotent. About twenty to twenty-five minutes into the massage, Dahlberg applied lotion to her hands and began to masturbate Percival. Percival stopped her and told her that he thought that she had taken care of his problem. He paid her for the massage and included a tip. On August 10, 1993, Dahlberg gave a massage to Pat Spingarn at Mrs. Spingarn’s home. The message session started at ten o’clock and lasted for about one and one-half hours. They broke for lunch and then did pool therapy for an hour. The distance from Mrs. Spingarn’s home to Dahlberg’s establishment is approximately a 45 minute drive. There was sufficient time for Dahlberg to provide therapy to Mrs. Spingarn and return to her business establishment to give a massage to Percival beginning at 4:30 P.M. On the afternoon of March 2, 1994, Percival went to Powerhouse Vitamins for a massage with Sabina at 4:30. Sabina remembered him from his previous visit. Percival was shown to a room in the rear of the building where he disrobed. Sabina came in and began to give him a massage. About half way through the massage, Sabina told Percival to roll over face up. Sabina put a lubricant on her hands and massaged his penis. Once Percival achieved an erection, Sabina stopped. Percival paid her and left. Respondent’s Exhibit Three is a page from the business’s appointment book for March 2, 1994. There is a notation that Sabina was not working that afternoon; however, the notation was written over an erasure that appeared to be an appointment from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent Sabina Dahlberg’s Massage Therapy is guilty of the violations set forth in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 94-01866 and revoking the massage establishment license of Sabina Dahlberg’s Massage Therapy and that a Final Order be entered finding that Sabina Dahlberg is guilty of the violation set forth in Count I of the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 96-1991, dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 96- 1991, and revoking the massage therapy license of Sabina Dahlberg. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of May, 1997. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 29th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruby Seymour Barr, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerome H. Shevin, Esquire 100 North Biscayne Boulevard, 30th Floor Miami, Florida 33132 Joe Baker, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
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 Whether Respondent's license to practice massage in the state of Florida should be disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage in the state of Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed massage therapist in the state of Florida, holding license number MA 0007149. At all times material to this proceeding, Frank Calta's Health Connection (Health Connection) was not licensed as a massage establishment in the state of Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent did hold a license for a massage establishment in the state of Florida. In October 1989, the Respondent filed a licensure application with Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, Dietetics and Nutrition Practice Council (Council) for licensure as a Nutritional Counselor. In answering a request for all work experience as a Nutritional Counselor in the application, Respondent listed the Health Connection as an employer from "11/87 to present" (October 1989) and as to the position held, listed "massage therapist". Respondent's answers to questions in the application were under oath wherein he declared under penalty of perjury that his statements were true and correct. As part of this application to the Council, Respondent submitted a notarized statement by Frank Calta of the Health Connection indicating that Respondent had worked as a massage therapist at the Health Connection from "September 5, 1987 to the present" (September 11, 1989). The testimony of both Respondent and Frank Calta at the hearing established that Respondent was not employed by the Health Connection as such in that he was not paid a salary by the Health Connection or that he worked regular hours for the Health Connection. However, this same testimony established that Respondent did perform massages for Frank Calta and members of the Health Connection in between sets of exercises and at the end of the exercises. These massages were conducted at either the Health Connection located at the 4626 Busch Boulevard, Tampa, Florida address or the Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida address during the period from September 5, 1987 through September 11, 1989. The Respondent was compensated for these massages by the individual members or by Frank Calta through the use of the Health Connection. Other than the individual members of the Health Connection, the Respondent did not solicit business from the "general public" as such. It was Respondent's contention that these massages were performed at sports events. However, there was no evidence that the individual members or Frank Calta were involved in any type of sport competition at the time of the massages by the Respondent, but only exercising to keep their bodies in shape. There was sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that Respondent was practicing "massage" as that term is defined in Section 480.033(3), Florida Statutes, in an unlicensed "establishment" as that term is defined in Section 480.083(7), Florida Statutes, during the period from September 5, 1987 through September 11, 1989. There was no evidence presented to show that Respondent's license as a massage therapist had ever been disciplined or that any disciplinary action, other than the instant case, had been taken against the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the penalty guidelines set out in Rule 21L-30.002, Florida Administrative Code, it is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 480.036(1)(n), Florida Statutes, and for that violation issue the Respondent a letter of reprimand and assess an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 3rd day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-2613 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in the case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. - 4. Adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order in Findings of Fact 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. 5. - 7. Adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order in Finding of Fact 5. 8. - 9. Adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order in Finding of Fact 6. Neither relevant nor material to this proceeding other than as to Respondent's credibility as a witness. - 13. Adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order in Finding of Fact 7 and 9. 14. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record but in any event, is neither material nor relevant to this proceeding other than as to the extent of the disciplinary action taken. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1. Respondent has submitted what is titled Proposed Finding of Facts. However, it more of a conclusion of law or legal argument than finding of fact. As to the facts set out in paragraph 5 (unnumbered) see Finding of Fact 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Lois B. Lepp, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Aaron Benjamin 8319 Cross Timbers Drive East Jacksonville, FL 32244 Anna Polk, Executive Director Board of Massage 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy, in violation of section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43, and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Na Li was a licensed massage therapist in the state of Florida, holding license number MA71793. Between November 2013 and December 2013, Na Li was employed by A Golden Massage and Spa, located in Hallandale Beach, Florida, where she performed Swedish massages and deep tissue massages. During November and December 2013, M.B. assisted the Hallandale Police Department in a criminal investigation. On November 13, 2013, M.B., working in an undercover capacity with Detective R.S., went to A Golden Massage and Spa as a client seeking a massage. When M.B. and R.S. entered A Golden Massage and Spa, they were greeted by a woman who introduced herself as Cici. They told Cici that R.S. was M.B.’s boss, that he had just won some money in a casino, and that he was treating M.B. to a massage. R.S. paid for two massages and Cici led M.B. to a massage room and told him to disrobe. M.B disrobed and lay face down, covered by a towel. Na Li then came into the room and introduced herself as “Yumi.” She asked M.B. if he needed a massage in any particular place, to which he said “no.” Na Li put oil on her hands and began to massage M.B. from the neck down. Na Li was concentrating on M.B.’s lower back, and then removed the towel and began massaging M.B.'s buttocks and inner legs and thighs, occasionally touching M.B.'s testicles with the back of her hand. Each time Na Li touched M.B’s testicles, she would giggle. Na Li then asked M.B. to lie on his back. M.B. turned over, Na Li put a pillow behind M.B.’s head, and she covered his genitals with a towel. Na Li resumed massaging M.B., working his upper body, shoulders, and chest. Na Li then removed the towel and placed it to the side. Na Li began massaging M.B.’s upper thigh and again occasionally touched M.B.’s genitals with the back of her hand. She then indicated through gestures that M.B. should make a fist with his right hand and put it over his penis. When M.B. complied, she placed her own hand on top of M.B’s hand and began to move it in a circle and up and down. She was moving his hand, as M.B. testified, in a “masturbation way.” M.B. stopped Na Li and asked her “how much for her to do it.” Na Li giggled, and resumed massaging M.B. Then, a second time, she put his hand on his penis and her hand on top of his. Again, M.B. asked her how much. She replied “tip,” indicating that she would expect a better tip. M.B. did not agree to give a better tip, saying that his “boss” had his money. Na Li next began to massage M.B.’s arm, and worked down to his fingers. She then placed her face in M.B.’s left hand and tried to lick his middle finger. On December 4, 2013, M.B. again went to the A Golden Massage and Spa with R.S. as part of the continuing investigation. On this occasion, he paid for himself, and was again shown to a massage room. Na Li came into the room. M.B. and Na Li recognized each other, and Na Li giggled. She again asked M.B. if he needed a massage in any particular place; he again said no. She used oil and began to massage M.B., eventually removing the towel, massaging his thighs, and touching his testicles with the back of her hand. She began tickling M.B. and licking her lips while looking at M.B.’s penis. He asked her how much for her to “do it with her lips.” She giggled and continued tickling him, but gave no answer. When he again asked her how much, she said “no, no,” which M.B. interpreted as declining to engage in oral sex. M.B. did not ask that the draping covering his genitals be removed. He did not ask Na Li to touch his genitals or give her permission to do so on either November 13th or December 4th. Consistent with the testimony of Ms. Jennifer Mason, a licensed massage therapist and expert in massage therapy, there is no reason for draping to be removed during the course of a massage. If draping comes off by accident, it is usually put back on right away. There is no massage technique that requires the use of a massage therapist’s tongue or mouth. While massage of the buttocks and inner thigh of a male patient is sometimes appropriate, it should be done with careful draping and tucking of the drape to avoid inadvertent touching of the genitalia. There is never a reason for a massage therapist to touch a patient’s genitalia. Na Li’s actions on November 13 and December 4, 2013, were outside the scope of generally accepted treatment of massage therapy patients. Na Li’s contrary testimony, to the effect that she performed only standard massage techniques on M.B., was not credible and is rejected. Na Li used the massage therapist-patient relationship to attempt to induce M.B. to engage in sexual activity and to attempt to engage him in sexual activity. Na Li engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy. Na Li has never had any prior discipline imposed against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding Na Li in violation of section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, constituting grounds for discipline under section 480.046(1)(p), Florida Statutes; imposing a fine of $2,500.00; revoking her license to practice massage therapy; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristen M. Summers, Esquire Oaj S. Gilani, Esquire Brynna J. Ross, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Simon Patrick Dray, Esquire S. Patrick Dray, P.A. Penthouse I 40 Northwest Third Street Miami, Florida 33128 (eServed) Christy Robinson, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 (eServed) Daniel Hernandez, Interim General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the March 1994 massage examination in order to become a licensed massage therapist. She scored a 69. She needed 70 to pass. Each question was worth one point. Prior to the hearing, Petitioner challenged 15 of the questions. At the beginning of the hearing, she reduced her challenge to five questions, later reducing it, during the hearing, to four questions. Question three states: "A physiological function which cause edema is a/an." The answer for which Petitioner gave credit was "D. Obstruction in lymphatic flow." Respondent answered "C. Increase in capillary colloidal osmotic pressure." In Healing Massage Techniques: Holistic, Classic, and Emerging Methods by Frances M. Tappan (Appleton & Lange 2d edition 1988), the text identifies at page 30 four physiologic mechanisms favoring edema, including "decreased capillary colloidal osmotic pressure" and "obstruction of lymphatic flow." Petitioner failed to prove that an increase in capillary colloidal osmotic pressure could also predispose someone to edema. She did not understand the meaning of "colloidal" and evidently did not understand the area well enough to challenge the text. Question 47 asks: "For clients who have difficulty relaxing, which strokes can be used on the entire muscle or limb and to encourage relaxation?" Respondent gave credit for "D. Shaking vibration." Petitioner answered "B. Cupping tapotement." In Healing Massage Techniques: A Study of Eastern and Western Methods by Frances M. Tappan (Reston Publishing Co. 1980), the text mentions at page 66 that vibration is often used for a soothing effect. As demonstrated by one of Respondent's witnesses, and confirmed in the text, the vibration is very gentle. Tapotement is used for stimulation, not soothing. Question 58 states: "To loosen superficial scar tissue, you should use". Respondent gave credit for answer "A. Deep circular friction movements." Petitioner answered "B. Light effleurage." In Manual of Hydrotherapy and Massage (Pacific Press Publishing Association 1964), the text states that "[f]riction is a deep circular movement." Petitioner testified that in Sweden, where she learned massage, the stroke is called "effleurage." The problem for Petitioner is that her answer is "light" effleurage. Regardless of the name of the stroke, the touch required for loosening up scar tissue is not light. 16. Question 86 states: "A license to operate a massage establishment can be transferred to another location." Respondent gave credit for the answer, "C. Under NO circumstances." Petitioner answered "D. When a massage therapist moves." As provided by Section 480.043(7), Florida Statutes, a license for operation of a massage establishment, as opposed to the license of a massage therapist, may be not transferred to a different location. The challenged questions and credited answers are reliable and valid. They are supported by good authority. The questions present enough information for the student to supply the correct answer. The challenged questions and credited answers are not arbitrary, capricious, or devoid of logic.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's exam challenge. ENTERED on March 24, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 24, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Sylvie Salter, pro so 2944 West Bay Drive, Suite 207 Belleair Bluffs, FL 32399-0750 William M. Woodyard Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Linda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
