The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are whether Respondent committed sexual misconduct as charged in the Administrative Complaints, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy pursuant to chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a licensed massage therapist in Florida, having been issued license number MA 11149. Respondent has practiced massage therapy for approximately 30 years. Client M.S., DOAH Case No. 20-4754PL On January 10, 2018, M.S. completed her initial client intake form with Respondent which contained several sections. M.S. wrote that she suffered from post-concussion syndrome. According to M.S., she was diagnosed with post-concussion syndrome and mild traumatic brain injury after a log fell on her head in August of 2017. Under the heading “concerns,” M.S. wrote: “I’m going crazy and losing memory completely—eyes burning.” Under “recent changes,” M.S. wrote: “loss of memory, confusion, irate, irritability, uncontrollable anxiety, depression, extreme vertigo, unable to focus or comprehend, extreme nervousness and feeling out of control emotions.” M.S. had four massage sessions with Respondent on January 10, 19, 24, and 31, 2018. M.S. removed her shoes but was otherwise fully clothed during all four massage sessions. The Department alleges that the sexual activity occurred during M.S.’s fourth and final session on January 31, 2018. Specifically, the Department alleges that Respondent touched M.S.’s labia with his fingers, rested his fingers on M.S.’s vagina, and cupped her vagina.2 During her testimony, M.S. demonstrated how Respondent touched her vagina. Using her own hand to demonstrate, M.S. placed her hand above her vagina with her fingers pointed in a horizontal position. M.S. did not indicate that Respondent “cupped” her vagina during this demonstration. Respondent denies that he touched M.S.’s labia with his fingers, rested his fingers on her vagina, or cupped her vagina. Respondent’s testimony as to the touching that occurred during the January 31, 2018, massage session was credible and more precise than that of M.S. Respondent’s testimony is accepted over the testimony of M.S. where it conflicts. Dr. George Rozelle is the physician who owns the facility where Respondent performed massage therapy on M.S. The Department offered hearsay testimony from a witness who heard Dr. Rozelle say “not again” when M.S. told him that Respondent had touched her inappropriately during the massage session that occurred that day. The inference suggested by the Department is that Respondent had been previously accused of inappropriately touching other massage therapy clients on other occasions. 2 The Department also states in its PRO that Respondent touched M.S.’s breasts. The Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 20-4754PL does not, however, identify the touching of M.S.’s breasts as a sexual activity that occurred when Respondent massaged her, and therefore cannot serve as a basis for disciplinary action in this case. Trevisani v. Dep’t of Health, 908 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Delk v. Dep’t of Prof’l Reg., 595 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). The testimony is hearsay for which the Department failed to establish an exception, and is unreliable because Dr. Rozelle did not testify to explain what he meant when he said “not again.” Even if Dr. Rozelle said “not again,” because there were one or more prior similar complaints about Respondent, such unproven allegations cannot be relied upon here to establish that Respondent had a propensity to commit sexual misconduct on massage therapy clients. § 120.57(1)(d), Fla. Stat. For all of these reasons, the “not again” statement is not accepted as evidence against Respondent. The Department failed to prove that Respondent engaged M.S. in sexual activity, or that Respondent touched M.S. in a manner that was intended to, or likely to, erotically stimulate himself or M.S. Client S.B., DOAH Case No. 20-4755PL S.B. presented to Respondent for massage therapy for the first time on August 15, 2017. S.B. completed a client information form indicating that the reason for her visit was “low energy, lost, depressed.” S.B. wrote that she experienced these conditions for four years, that they followed an undisclosed accident, trauma, or illness, and that they were aggravated by “life.” S.B. was seen by Respondent for massage therapy on nine different occasions on August 17 and 20, and October 10 and 19, 2017; January 16, 23, and 30, and February 6 and 15, 2018. Respondent was fully clothed during all the massage sessions with Respondent. S.B. testified that Respondent told her that he “loved” her and that he was “never going to leave” her during several visits, but she could not identify when Respondent made those statements. S.B also testified that Respondent told her that she may experience an orgasm when he applied pressure to her groin during a session, but she could not recall when that happened. S.B. testified that she returned to see Respondent for message therapy after he touched her groin and allegedly made the “orgasm” comment, but that she had another female massage therapist with her during the session. Additionally, S.B. testified that Respondent put his hands over her breasts during more than one session, but she could not say how often or when this occurred. S.B. denied that Respondent ever “grasped” her breasts and admitted that she never complained to Respondent about allegedly touching her breasts. Respondent denied that he told S.B. that he “loved” her, that he was “never going to leave” her, or that she might experience an “orgasm.” According to Respondent, he touched S.B.’s adductor muscles and pubic bone—not her vagina—to help reduce her complaint of hip pain during her third visit on October 10, 2017. S.B.’s testimony was imprecise and the facts to which she testified were not distinctly remembered. Respondent’s testimony is accepted over S.B.’s testimony where it conflicts. The Department failed to prove that Respondent engaged S.B. in sexual activity or that Respondent touched S.B. in a manner that was intended to, or likely to, erotically stimulate himself or S.B.
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 Complaints. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRIAN A. NEWMAN 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 26th day of May, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary A. Wessling, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Richard A. Greenberg, Esquire Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 120 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Julisa Renaud, Esquire Florida Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kama Monroe, JD, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 Ann L. Prescott, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 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 32399-3265
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, whether Respondent's license to practice massage therapy in Florida should be revoked or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION (DBPR), is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory duty and authority to administer the provisions of Chapter 480, Florida Statutes, governing massage practice. Respondent, ROBERT WILLIAM IVANY, was initially licensed as a massage therapist in the State of Florida on July 8, 1986, and presently holds license number MA 0006899 (Massage). Respondent's license is currently in "delinquent/renewal notice prepared" status. Respondent's current license biennium expires on January 31, 1997. At all material times hereto, Respondent was employed as a licensed massage therapist at the Pasadena Wellness Center in St. Petersburg, Florida. On or about January 28, 1994, complainant, Linda Schaufele, arrived at the Pasadena Wellness Center to receive a massage. Ms. Schaufele had been experiencing soreness in her shoulder and neck and wanted a massage to alleviate this condition. Ms. Schaufele had previously received massages many times; however, this was her first visit to the Pasadena Wellness Center. Ms. Schaufele was sent by the staff receptionist at the Pasadena Wellness Center to a massage room, where she removed her clothing except for her underwear. Respondent subsequently entered the massage room. Prior to this time, Ms. Schaufele did not know Respondent, and had no previous contact with Respondent. Respondent entered into a therapist-client relationship with Ms. Schaufele. Ms. Schaufele informed Respondent of the soreness in her shoulder and neck. Ms. Schaufele agreed to a full body massage, but requested Respondent concentrate on her shoulder and neck. Respondent began the massage with Ms. Schaufele lying on her stomach. Respondent used oil or lotion during the massage. After massaging her shoulders, neck and working down her back, Respondent turned Ms. Schaufele over to lie on her back and began to massage her from the waist down. At this time Respondent distinctly placed his hand between Ms. Schaufele's legs into her pubic area. Ms. Schaufele immediately stiffened her legs to prevent Respondent from continuing to keep his hand between her legs. Respondent removed his hand from between Ms. Schaufele's legs, and finished the massage. Respondent used the therapist-client relationship to engage in sexual activity with Ms. Schaufele. Ms. Schaufele was very uncomfortable during the remainder of the massage, and was upset about the Respondent's actions. Subsequent to this incident on January 28, 1994, Ms. Schaufele became acquainted with the owner of the Pasadena Wellness Center. Ms. Schaufele then informed the owner of the Respondent's actions which occurred during her massage on January 28, 1994. Ms. Schaufele was told by the owner that there had been other complaints regarding Respondent. On or about May 12, 1993, complainant, Nancy Scotti, arrived at the Pasadena Wellness Center to receive a massage. Ms. Scotti had never received a massage before, and had no prior experience with a licensed massage therapist. Ms. Scotti was instructed by the staff receptionist to fill out certain forms. Respondent then came to the reception area and led Ms. Scotti to a massage room. Ms. Scotti did not know Respondent, and had no previous contact with Respondent. Respondent entered into a therapist-client relationship with Ms. Scotti. Respondent instructed Ms. Scotti to "get ready", which in response to, Ms. Scotti undressed, except for her underwear, and lay down on her stomach on the massage table. Ms. Scotti covered herself with a sheet that was provided in the massage room. Ms. Scotti informed Respondent that she had experienced pain in her upper back, shoulders and neck. Ms. Scotti did not request any particular kind of massage. Respondent began the massage with Ms. Scotti lying on her stomach. Respondent massaged her neck, shoulders, and worked down her back. Respondent used and applied a lotion to Ms. Scotti's body during the massage. Respondent then proceeded to massage Ms. Scotti's arms and legs, working his way back to her inner thighs and crotch area. While massaging her inner thighs Respondent asked Ms. Scotti why she was not indicating her enjoyment of the massage. At this point Ms. Scotti was becoming increasingly uncomfortable and concerned; however, due to her apprehension and her inexperience with a licensed massage therapist Ms. Scotti did not express her concern, or otherwise stop the massage. Respondent then placed his hands inside Ms. Scotti's underwear and massaged her buttocks. Respondent turned respondent over on her back, and massaged her neck and shoulders. Respondent then uncovered and with one hand massaged Ms. Scotti's breasts, and with the other hand digitally penetrated Ms. Scotti's vagina repeatedly. Respondent used the therapist-client relationship to engage in sexual activity with Ms. Scotti. Ms. Scotti was frightened and alarmed. Respondent attempted to remove her underwear, and she pushed him away. Respondent then inquired if Ms. Scotti had reached orgasm. She did not respond, and Respondent concluded the massage session and left the massage room. Ms. Scotti remained frightened and alarmed. She dressed, left the Pasadena Wellness Center, and walked outside where her friends Audra Radvil, Bernadette Robinson, and Peg Etchison were waiting for her. At this time Ms. Scotti appeared distraught. She began crying and informed her friends what had occurred. Her friends observed a law enforcement officer in the parking lot, and approached the officer and related the incident. A second officer, Deputy Sheriff Craig Bornstein, was summoned to the scene. Ms. Scotti related the incident to Deputy Bornstein. Ms. Scotti was then transported to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office where her sworn statement was taken by Detective Kenneth Kanoski. Ms. Scotti was then taken to the Pinellas County Health Unit where she underwent a sexual assault victim examination. The examination was conducted by Sylvia Franklin, an advanced registered nurse practitioner with extensive experience in conducting such examinations. The examination included drawing blood, taking vaginal and breast swabs, and obtaining saliva and urine samples. The chain of custody of the samples obtained during the examination was preserved. Detective Kanoski investigated this incident, and obtained a sample from Respondent of the lotion used by Respondent on Ms. Scotti. The lotion was Revlon Aquamarine Body Lotion. The specimens obtained during the examination of Ms. Scotti and the sample lotion obtained during the investigation by Detective Kanoski were sent for analysis to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) laboratory. The results of the FBI analysis showed the presence of isopropyl palmitate in the lotion obtained from Respondent, as well as in the vaginal and breast swab specimens taken during the examination of Ms. Scotti. Isopropyl palmitate is not a naturally occurring substance, and is not found in any product normally intended for use in the vaginal area. Isopropyl palmitate was contained in the lotion that was used by Respondent, and was introduced into Ms. Scotti's vagina as a result of Respondent's actions. Following this incident, Ms. Scotti has missed work and become withdrawn, depressed, and apprehensive toward others.
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, enter a final order revoking Respondent's license to practice massage therapy. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert W. Ivany 762 15th Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Anna Polk, Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues to be resolved are whether Respondent committed the offenses charged in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of massage therapy practice pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Terrence Grywinski, is a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida and holds license number MA 6049. Respondent’s mailing address is 6419 Meandering Way, Lakewood Ranch, Florida 34202. Respondent, Terrence Grywinski Massage, is licensed as a massage establishment in the State of Florida and holds license number MM 18059. The establishment’s physical location is 1188 Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida 34236, and this location is the location where all appointments relevant to the facts in this case were scheduled and conducted. Respondent has been licensed to practice massage therapy in Florida since on or about July 9, 1985. The establishment was licensed as a massage establishment on or about March 20, 2006. Respondent is the sole owner and sole employee of the establishment, which conducts business as Advanced Craniosacral Therapy. No evidence was presented to indicate that either license has been previously disciplined by the Board. As a licensed massage therapist, Respondent is subject to the state of Florida laws and rules governing licensed massage therapists, and the establishment that he owns is likewise subject to the laws and rules governing massage establishments. Respondent does not practice traditional massage therapy and has not done so since approximately 1995. He was trained in a modality called craniosacral therapy (CST) in 1995, and has performed that modality exclusively since that time. According to Respondent, trauma of any kind, whether emotional or physical, causes a tremendous force of energy to come into the body, and the body tries to protect itself by “shortening” and isolating the energy. This isolation of the energy created by trauma is what creates areas of tension within the body. The theory behind CST is that the body will correct itself when it feels “safe.” CST works with the fascia connective tissue that attaches muscles to the bone, and encases a person’s organs, brain, and spinal cord. CST uses very gentle holds to create a safe space for the body, which will help the body slip into a corrective reorganizational healing mode. When a person undergoes CST, the fascia will start to release and the person will feel a “letting go” or release in the tissue. CST does not involve manipulation of the tissue, but rather, a series of holds that may last in any one place for five to ten minutes. The amount of pressure applied is “whatever pressure the body tells you it needs,” but generally no more than five grams of pressure. According to Faith Buhler, who testified by deposition as an expert for the Department, when there is a release, there is a different pulse in the body. Respondent trained in CST through the Upledger Institute, which was established by John Upledger. Respondent has received extensive continuing education in CST and the majority of his statutorily required continuing education deals with the performance of this modality. Typically, Respondent’s first-time clients make an appointment for CST and are given a code to enter the second floor of the building where Respondent’s office is located. He greets patients in a common waiting room and takes them to the one-room office where therapy takes place. The office contains two chairs, a massage table, a small side table where a “cupping” machine is stored, and a bookshelf. New clients are asked to fill out an intake sheet that requests some basic information about the client and his or her reason for seeking CST. Respondent uses the information on the intake sheet to speak with the client about his or her needs, and places it in a manila folder that he uses to take notes. The notes are on the manila folder itself, as opposed to paper contained in the folder. If additional space is needed for subsequent visits, he simply gets another manila folder and, hopefully, keeps the folders about a particular client together. Respondent admits he is not very organized, and maintaining his files is not his specialty. Most clients have three to six sessions with Respondent, so it is conceivable that for most clients, a single folder would be sufficient. After Respondent speaks with the client, the client lies down on a table during the therapy, fully clothed, facing up. Typically, Respondent is the only person in the room during CST sessions, and the sessions last approximately an hour and a half. He will assess a client by lifting each leg to compare length and will rotate the legs to assess range of motion through the hips. After assessing a client, Respondent goes through a series of gentle holds, generally using the same protocol each time, with some variation depending on the need of the client. He testified that he will tell clients what he is going to do and where he is going to place his hands, and advises clients that if at any time they feel uncomfortable with what he is doing or where he is placing his hands, the client should feel free to tell him. Respondent will review the notes he made from prior visits at the beginning of each session and will discuss any changes that have taken place since the last session. Many times, the notes that Respondent keeps will include sensitive personal information related by a client if that information may reveal a source of trauma. During the time period relevant to these proceedings, Respondent advertised his practice in an alternative medicine magazine called “Natural Awakenings.” M.M. is the managing editor of Natural Awakenings. As part of her job, she writes articles and conducts interviews of professionals who advertise in the magazine. M.M.’s supervisor, Janet Lindsay, assigned her the task of interviewing and writing an article about Respondent and his practice. M.M. was told that Respondent practiced CST. On May 1, 2017, M.M. emailed Respondent and told him that Natural Awakenings wanted to feature him in an article for the June issue, and sent him a series of questions to answer, along with her telephone number. Respondent did not immediately respond, so on May 8, 2017, M.M. emailed him again to make sure he received the first email. Respondent called M.M. the next day and suggested that M.M. come in and receive a CST treatment at no charge, so that she would have a better understanding of the modality when writing the article. M.M. accepted the offer and made an appointment to see Respondent on May 12, 2017. During this first session, M.M. interviewed Respondent for the article, filled out an intake sheet, and provided a medical history. Respondent asked her some questions, then directed her to remove her shoes and lie on the table, fully clothed. Respondent explained what he was doing and where he would place his hands as he performed the various holds. M.M.’s description of the first session is consistent with Respondent’s description of how he conducts all CST sessions. There is no allegation that any improper or unprofessional conduct took place at the May 12, 2017, session. At the end of the session, Respondent offered to continue providing free sessions to M.M. in exchange for M.M. writing additional articles for the magazine about his practice. M.M. agreed to the arrangement. She testified that these kinds of arrangements are not the norm, but that it was not the first time it had occurred. M.M. testified that she felt better after having the CST session, in that her chronic pain was better, her body less tense, and her breathing easier, especially when running. These benefits, however, were temporary. M.M. wrote an article about the first session, which she provided to Respondent for review and approval before it was published. Respondent appreciated the article, felt that it was well written, and benefited his practice. On May 18, 2017, M.M. provided the final copy of the article for publishing. There was no indication from the evidence presented that the parties’ interaction at the initial visit or the exchanges regarding the article in the week following the visit were anything but professional. M.M. saw Respondent for additional sessions on June 9, 2017; September 26, 2017; November 3, 2017; and November 30, 2017. M.M. did not find anything about these visits to be unprofessional or out of the ordinary, with the exception of the last visit on November 30, 2017. M.M. and Respondent’s accounts of the November 30, 2017, visit are not reconcilable. Respondent testified that the visit was much like previous visits, while M.M. contends the visit involved unwanted and inappropriate touching and inappropriate commentary about her body. Leading up to the final visit, M.M. testified that Respondent’s behavior seemed more familiar and personal than the behavior of a health care provider. She claimed that he started calling and emailing her late at night, and referred to her as his “muse.” She specifically indicated that one call came on a weekend, and she chose not to answer it because she was with her sister and did not want to interject work issues into her weekend. Phone records from the providers for both M.M. and Respondent’s phone numbers reveal only one call made from Respondent to M.M., and that call took place May 9, 2017, before her first appointment with him. The Department did not produce any of the emails M.M. claimed that Respondent made to her. Respondent produced most, but not all, of the emails between the two. He testified that he provided to the Department all of the emails he found at the time he responded to the complaint, and that any omissions were unintentional. It is noted that the subpoena issued to Respondent requests patient records, but does not request emails. The request for production issued by the Department to Respondent, which is on the docket for this case, does not specifically request emails, but instead requests documents to be used at hearing. None of the emails in evidence contain any improper statements. All of them involve either questions about Respondent’s practice, or review of the articles that M.M. wrote about his practice.2 2 During hearing, the Department showed Respondent a copy of an email he provided in response to the Department’s request for production. The email appears, from the portions read at hearing, to involve an article that Respondent wrote about his practice. The Department did not offer the email into evidence, but asked Respondent to read where the email apparently stated, “both of you are my angels.” Respondent responded by saying, “Yes, I said that, but I never called her an angel in any session. I was complimentary. Both Lindsay – or Janet Lindsay and Ms. M.M. were very helpful in my professional life, and I see nothing wrong with referring them to angels who are helping me in my profession. And if I said I never called anybody an angel, I couldn’t remember that email until you brought it up now.” Phone records between M.M. and Respondent do indicate that Respondent contacted M.M. either by email or by text, late on some evenings. However, up until March of 2018, well after the final appointment, these contacts were in response to emails sent by M.M. to Respondent. The telephone records reference emails sent by Respondent to M.M. on January 17 and 23, 2018, a few months after M.M.’s last visit. However, neither Respondent nor M.M. were asked about these emails by date, and the record contains no information regarding their contents. The weekend before the November 30, 2017, visit was Thanksgiving weekend, and M.M. and her husband had a lengthy car ride returning from Atlanta where they spent Thanksgiving. For whatever reason, M.M. had a panic attack during the car ride, and remained especially tense at her appointment with Respondent. She recalled that the discussion portion of the visit seemed shorter, and that Respondent used a pendulum to detect energy before commencing with the CST.3 He noticed that her chest area was more closed then usual and asked her if there was some reason why she had tightness there. M.M. testified that she explained to Respondent that she had always had body image issues, specifically with her chest. She stated that Respondent offered to address the tension with a modality called “cupping,” which would also make her breasts look “perkier.” Cupping is a modality that Respondent acknowledges using on occasion. He has cupping equipment that has a variety of cup sizes and is The Department also contends in its Proposed Recommended Order that “Grywinski has no explanation for why he did not provide the January 2018 emails.” However, the record does not reflect that the Department ever specifically asked Mr. Grywinski a question about those emails, either at hearing or in his deposition, so as to require an explanation about them. 3 The use of the pendulum is a technique that Respondent developed himself. It supposedly detects energy in the body, or an absence thereof, and he also used this technique in a prior session. made so that one can use one or two cups at a time, although he generally uses only one. The machine has tubing that attaches to both the machine and the cup(s), and the amount of pressure to create suction can be changed using a dial on the machine. M.M. testified that she was familiar with the concept of cupping, both from research she had performed for articles, and from the then-recent 2016 Olympics where there were stories about Michael Phelps using the technique. She agreed to the cupping, and she testified that Respondent directed her to completely disrobe. According to her testimony, Respondent remained in the room while she disrobed, and did not offer her a drape of any kind. There was no testimony about what Respondent was doing while M.M. disrobed: i.e., whether he turned his back, set up the equipment, or watched her. M.M. testified that she did as Respondent asked because she had seen a number of health care providers for a variety of reasons all of her life, and trusted them. M.M. stated that Respondent instructed her to lay face up on the table and rolled a cart with the cupping machine over to the table.4 According to her, Respondent explained that while “one breast was being suctioned, he was performing what he called lymphatic drainage on the other breast, which basically involved finger motions on my skin that were kind of applied in a – in a rhythmic upward motion with both hands. And the idea behind it was to stimulate blood flow and circulation in the lymph nodes of that region.” M.M. stated that after the cupping of the first breast was completed, Respondent moved the cup to the other breast and duplicated the process. He then explained that he would continue to perform lymphatic drainage on the remainder of her body, and began working his way down her body, performing the same circular motions, including her stomach, hips, and pelvis; down to her pubic area and groin, and eventually her genital area, 4 Respondent testified that there is not a rolling cart in the room, because the room is too small to accommodate one. According to him, the cupping machine sits on the table against the wall, but has lengthy tubing. which she testified could have been either accidental or purposeful contact. M.M. testified that he grazed her buttocks and called them “buns of steel,” as well as referring to himself as a “horny old man.” M.M. also testified that while performing the lymphatic drainage, he touched her genitals with his fingertips. Following the lymphatic drainage, Respondent told M.M. that the session was over, and she could dress. M.M. stated that he asked not to include the last portion of the visit in her article because he was afraid of losing his license. She redressed, with Respondent remaining in the room, and after doing so, they exchanged pleasantries and she left the office. Respondent emphatically denies M.M.’s allegations. He acknowledges that he performed cupping on M.M but denied that he performed it on her breasts. According to Respondent, he performed cupping on her abdomen to relieve constipation. His records for November 30 state in part, “sm + lg. intestines & ileocecal inflamed. – complained about constipation -- cup abdomen?” When M.M. was asked whether Respondent performed cupping of her abdomen for constipation, she could not remember if she mentioned constipation to Respondent, but it was possible, and did not remember if he cupped her abdomen. Respondent testified that he explained cupping to her and told her both about uses for cupping in China, which include cupping of the breast and of the face, but also explained it is used for different purposes in the United States. In his written response to the allegations that he provided to the Department during the investigation, he stated: Because of her interest in health, (she has her own health blog) and a possible future article, I demonstrated the cupping process for her and went into a lot of detail on how it worked and what it was used for in China and the protocols that cupping I had been trained in through Ace Cupping. With cupping, the therapist is able to bring new blood and enhance circulation and lymph flow and drainage in congested and tight muscles or area of the body. * * * I also shared that the Chinese used the machine to cup women’s breasts and they claimed that if a woman breast was cupped everyday for 30 days, it would enhance circulation and lymphatic drainage and that would bring about healthier breasts or uplift them. In no way was I suggesting that we cup her breasts and I did not do so. Respondent also indicated in the investigative response that M.M. seemed uncomfortable with the cupping procedure and that he cut it short. Although his response stated that she seemed uncomfortable with the cupping, it also stated that she did not state that she was uncomfortable with any procedure he employed throughout all of the craniosacral sessions, including the November 30 session. Respondent testified that he did not ask her to undress, but rather, asked her to raise her shirt to the bottom of her ribcage, and to lower her shorts to the top of her hips, so that only that strip of skin was exposed. He placed oil on her skin, used a cup approximately two inches in diameter, and moved the cup in the same direction as the digestive system in a circular motion. M.M., by contrast, testified that no oil was used. Respondent did not perform lymphatic drainage: while he is aware of the technique, he has not been trained in it. A review of his continuing education records do not reveal any classes in lymphatic drainage. Respondent further testified that only a small portion of skin was showing while he performed the cupping, and Respondent did not provide M.M. a drape (although it is unclear that one would be necessary), and did not leave the room while she readjusted her clothing once the procedure was finished. Respondent also denies that he asked M.M. not to include the final portion of the visit in her article because he was afraid he would lose his license. At the time of the visit, there was no article in process. M.M. had already produced two articles about Respondent’s practice, and although M.M. believed she wrote three, no third article was produced, and there are no emails or texts addressing a third article, like there were for the first and second ones M.M. wrote. M.M. claimed that the third article was supposed to be a question/answer column with Respondent and a local chiropractor, Eric Winder, who Respondent says he does not know. It does not appear from the investigative report that Eric Winder was interviewed, and he was not called as a witness at hearing. Respondent likewise denies telling M.M. that she has “buns of steel,” or referring to himself as a “horny old man.” There was no further contact between M.M. and Respondent for several months. The phone logs for AT&T indicate that there were three emails sent by Respondent to M.M. in January, but as noted previously, those emails are not in evidence. On March 11, 2018, Respondent reached out to M.M. by email, asking for permission to use an edited version of one of her articles in some advertising for his practice. M.M. responded by saying, “[y]es that’s fine. Feel free to use the edited version.” On April 14, 2018, Respondent emailed M.M. again, and stated, Dear [M.M.] Hope all is well with you. I want to thank you for allowing me to use your articles in my ads. Very effective and have brought me a number of new clients. I would like to send you a check for $200, a $100 each for the 2 articles in appreciation. Could you send me your address so I can send you the check. As my practice slows down for the summer, I should be able to get you back in for more sessions. With great appreciation, Terry To which M.M. replied, That’s kind of you to offer, but not necessary but appreciated. If you feel compelled to send a check (again, not necessary), you can mail it to [M.M.’s home address]. However, I will tell you that I’m unable to come in for sessions, as I recently moved to the other side of town, and the drive is no longer conducive with my weekly schedule. But you are free to continue to use the articles I’ve written about your practice in any capacity you choose. M.M. testified that she told a friend about the November 30 session about a week after it happened, and it was her friend’s reaction that alerted her that what happened was not appropriate. Notes from her therapist indicate that she stated that she did not tell anyone for several months.5 She did not tell her husband for approximately four months after the incident. Neither her husband nor the friend that M.M. stated she told about the incident testified at hearing. There are other date discrepancies in the therapist’s notes as compared to other events in this case. For example, the September 5, 2019, entry refers to hearing from the Sarasota Police Department regarding the incident, which is, as found below, prior to the time she even reported the incident to the Department of Health, who in turn contacted law enforcement. It may be that even if the dates for the sessions in the notes are incorrect, the inconsistencies are enough to raise concerns. This is especially so given that the subpoena sent to the therapist requests ALL patient records, and the ones provided only covered the time period from August 8, 5 M.M.’s therapist’s records were subpoenaed by the Department. Statements made for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment by a person seeking the diagnosis or treatment which describe medical history, past or present symptoms, pains, sensations, or the inceptions or general character of the cause or external source thereof, insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment, are an exception to the hearsay rule. § 90.803(4), Fla. Stat. While the statements attributed to M.M. in her therapists’ notes may not be hearsay, they are not considered in this case for the truth of the matter asserted, but simply to show that there are differing statements regarding when M.M. shared her story with others. 2019, through September 10, 2019, a period of time that is much shorter than M.M. testified that she saw her therapist.6 In April 2018, M.M. emailed her employer and told her about the incident. In the emails, she states in part that he “ended our session by asking me to omit this portion of the treatment from my article, as he could lose his license. I did not report the incident, and I wrote the article as he requested, highlighting the benefits of his practice.” As noted above, there was no article after the November 30 session. She also wrote in a follow-up email that “Over the next couple of months, he tried calling/texting me in a friendly way that suggested he viewed us as more than professional acquaintances.” The telephone records do not support M.M.’s statement. M.M.’s employer responded by terminating M.M.’s advertising with Natural Awakenings and providing M.M. with the contact information for an attorney. M.M. filed her complaint with the Department on September 11, 2019, nearly two years after the incident. She did not file a complaint with law enforcement, but upon receiving her complaint, the Department investigator notified the Sarasota Police Department on September 26, 2019. Ultimately, no criminal charges were filed, but the decision of the State Attorney’s Office has no bearing on whether or not there is a basis for discipline in this case. Both M.M. and Respondent had some inconsistencies in their stories. Respondent’s, in large part, appear to be based on the fact that his records for the sessions he had with M.M. were not together, and he did not find the records for the earlier session (i.e., his first manila folder) until after his deposition. As noted previously, clients typically have three to six sessions, so it was not unreasonable for Respondent to assume that he only had one folder for M.M., especially given that the records were requested two years after his 6 It may be that notes related to couple’s counseling were not provided because those notes were not just about M.M. but M.M. and her husband. That does not, however, address the inconsistencies in the timeframes reflected in the notes. last session with M.M. His counsel turned those records over to the Department, but not when requested in discovery, and some of those records were not admitted as a result.7 The Department takes issue with a statement Respondent made about M.M. telling him that she was sexually assaulted in college, stating that there is “no mention of sexual assault, or assault of any kind, in either set of Patient M.M.’s treatment notes.” (Petitioner’s Proposed Recommended Order at 15, ¶ 111). However, given that Petitioner successfully objected to some of Respondent’s records regarding M.M. being admitted into evidence, what is in evidence does not reflect all of the records regarding M.M.’s sessions with Respondent. There can be no finding that the records contain no mention of sexual assault when, as the result of Petitioner’s objections, not all of Respondent’s records are in evidence. The Department also finds Respondent’s records to be untrustworthy because their physical appearance is somewhat different. As noted previously, Respondent writes his notes on manila folders and writes from edge to edge. He testified that when he tried to copy the manila folders for the Department, some of the notes were cut off, so he rewrote what was on the notes and provided them to the Department. There are some minor differences in the notes and in a few places, he wrote the dates as 2019 as opposed to 2017. Given that the records were requested in 2019, such an error is not significant. While the copies of the records are not exact, the differences are extremely minor. Furthermore, the Department points to no statute or rule that requires a massage therapist to have patient records at all, much less one that dictates a format to which they must conform. Most importantly, the Department does not point to any discrepancy that 7 The Department also appears to question Respondent’s and Respondent’s counsel’s good faith regarding these records, stating that Respondent testified that he found the records two to three weeks before the hearing, and yet counsel for Respondent was able to use these records in questioning M.M. in her deposition June 22, 2021. A specific date for when Respondent gave the records to his attorney is not in the record. materially affects Respondent’s account of what happened on November 30, 2017. There are other concerns with M.M.’s account of the incident in addition to those issues listed with respect to the telephone records, discrepancies in dates, and references to an article that was not written. For example, M.M. testified that she has had a great deal of medical procedures performed on her, and she is accustomed to doing what medical professionals ask of her. Kacee Homer and Lisa Caller are character witnesses who testified on behalf of Respondent. Both are healthcare professionals who testified that when a patient is asked to disrobe, they generally do. Ms. Homer, a nurse, said that generally when a patient is asked to disrobe, she leaves the room while the patient is undressing, and if possible, the patient is draped. Here, M.M. testified that Respondent asked her to disrobe, and stood there while she did so. It seems odd that M.M., who writes articles about healthcare, and by her own admission has had several medical procedures in her life and is fairly knowledgeable regarding the medical field, would not at least ask for a drape, or wait for Respondent to leave the room before undressing. M.M.’s description of the cupping and lymphatic drainage also raises more questions than it answers. She testified that while the cup was placed on one breast, Respondent massaged the other with both hands. That means the cup had to remain in place based solely on the suction or pressure provided by the cupping machine. It seems that it would be difficult for the cupping machine to provide enough suction for the cup to remain in place on her breast without causing discomfort or pain, and possibly bruising, but there was no testimony that she found the experience physically painful or it left any discernible marks. Finally, the undersigned is troubled that M.M. would willingly give her home address to a man that she claimed sexually assaulted her. It does not seem plausible that she would so easily provide this type of information to Respondent when it could enable him to make further contact with her. After careful consideration of all of the evidence presented, the undersigned finds that there is not clear and convincing evidence to support a finding that Respondent asked M.M. to disrobe in front of him without providing a drape. There is not clear and convincing evidence that Respondent massaged M.M.’s breasts, buttocks, and groin area, and touched her vagina with his fingertips, all without a valid medical reason. Likewise, there is not clear and convincing evidence that Respondent told M.M. that she had “buns of steel” or that he was a “horny old man.” The evidence failed to establish that Respondent’s conduct toward M.M. constituted sexual activity outside the scope of practice, or an attempt to engage or induce M.M. to engage in such activity.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Dannie L. Hart, Esquire Andrew James Pietrylo, Esquire Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 For Respondent: Lance O. Leider, Esquire Amanda I. Forbes, Esquire The Health Law Firm Suite 1000 1101 Douglas Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaints against Terrence Grywinksi, L.M.T., and Terrence Grywinski Massage, be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of November, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of November, 2021. Dannie L. Hart, Esquire Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Amanda I. Forbes, Esquire The Health Law Firm Suite 1000 1101 Douglas Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Kama Monroe, JD, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health Bin C-06 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 Lance O. Leider, Esquire The Health Law Firm Suite 1000 1101 Douglas Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Andrew James Pietrylo, Esquire Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Louise St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399
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 Did Respondent, Jianping Liu, L.M.T. (Ms. Liu), induce patients N.D. and J.H. to engage in sexual activity or engage in sexual activity outside the scope of practice or the scope of generally accepted examination or treatment? Did Ms. Liu massage patient N.D. at a location not licensed as a massage establishment and without exemption? Did sexual misconduct occur in Respondent, Queen Spa, Inc.’s (Queen Spa), massage establishment? Did Queen Spa’s backpage.com and anyitem.org advertisements induce or attempt to induce, or engage or attempt to engage, clients in unlawful sexual misconduct? Did Queen Spa fail to include its license number in its backpage.com and anyitem.com advertisements?
Findings Of Fact Section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 464, Florida Statutes, charge the Department with licensing and regulation of massage therapy. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Ms. Liu was a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida. She holds license MA 68834. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Queen Spa was a licensed massage therapy establishment in the State of Florida. It holds license MM 32567 registered at 10915 Bonita Beach Road, Unit 1121, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135, and license MM 32546 registered at 51 9th Street South, Naples, Florida 34102. Patient N.D. was a criminal investigation detective for the narcotics and vice division of Lee County Sheriff’s Office. On March 27, 2014, N.D., as part of an undercover investigation, scheduled an appointment for a massage at Ms. Liu’s home, 9951 Utah Street, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135. During the massage, Ms. Liu touched N.D.’s penis and asked if he wanted it massaged. N.D. offered an additional $50.00 tip and Ms. Liu began masturbating his penis. Ms. Liu was charged with prostitution. On April 30, 2014, Ms. Liu entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Lee County State Attorney’s Office. Ms. Liu’s home on Utah Street has a home occupational license issued by the city for a massage therapy administration office. It is not a licensed massage establishment. J.H. is a police officer in the crime suppression unit for the City of Naples, Florida. On May 9, 2014, the Naples Police Department began investigating Ms. Liu’s massage parlor. On July 24, 2014, J.H., as part of an undercover investigation, scheduled a massage appointment with Ms. Liu at the Queen Spa in Naples. After the massage, J.H. gave Ms. Liu a $20.00 tip and she gave him a separate business card. She explained this card was for “special customers” and had a different phone number than her regular card. J.H. scheduled a second massage for July 29, 2014. At some point near the end of that massage, J.H. asked if Ms. Liu offered special or extra services. Ms. Liu replied by asking if he was trouble or a cop. J.H. asked how much it would cost, but Ms. Liu did not take additional payment. Ms. Liu then began masturbating J.H.’s penis until he ejaculated. Ms. Liu contends that penis manipulation is part of a “full body” massage. But she testified during the hearing that this was an additional service to the full body massage. Further, she testified that she only conducted each “extra service,” because J.H. and N.D. requested it. This establishes that masturbation was not part of the massage. It was a sexual service. Testimony of the expert witness Jennifer Mason also proves this fact. Backpage.com is a classified advertising website that contains listings explicitly for prostitution. The adult entertainment section of backpage.com is linked to the majority of the Naples police investigations into prostitution. Ms. Liu posted ads for Queen Spa on backpage.com and anyitem.org. The backpage.com ad titled “erotic pleasure” was listed in the adult services section. The anyitem.org ad titled “erotic pleasure” was listed in the escort section. Ms. Liu contends the postings did not advertise sexual services and that the application on her phone mistranslated the word erotic from Mandarin to English. However, the character of backpage.com and posting the advertisements as adult services, rather than as massage services, supports the conclusion the postings advertised sexual activities. The backpage.com and anyitem.com advertisements did not include the license number of Queen Spa. Touching of the genitalia is not within the scope of a full body massage. Stimulation of the genital area is considered sexual misconduct. It is not part of an ethical massage. There is no therapeutic value to massaging a client’s penis. Sexual innuendo or stimulation is a problem in massage therapy. The industry has worked to remove it from the practice to create a safe and therapeutic environment. Training of massage therapists requires them to “decline, leave the room, terminate the massage” when sexual stimulation is requested by a patient. When discussing “extra services,” Ms. Liu told J.H. about her friend who got into trouble after performing certain acts and that the friend had lost her license; “no license, no job”. Ms. Liu engaged in sexual misconduct with J.H. just three months after she signed a deferred prosecution agreement disposing of the Lee County charges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order: finding that Respondent, Jianping Liu, L.M.T., violated sections 480.0485 and 480.046(1)(o), Florida Statutes; revoking her license; requiring the payment of an administrative fines in the amount of $2,750.00; and awarding costs for the investigation and prosecution of this case to the Department. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is also RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order: finding that Respondent, Queen Spa, Inc., violated sections 480.046(1)(e) and 480.0465, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7-26.010; revoking its license; requiring the payment of an administrative fine in the amount of $4,000.00; and awarding costs for the investigation and prosecution of this case to the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 2nd day of October, 2015.
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations in a three-count Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint alleges violations of Paragraph (f), (h), and (i) of Section 480.046(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent has been licensed to practice massage therapy, having been issued license number MA0006547. At all times material to this case, the Respondent has also held a massage establishment license, having been issued establishment license number MM000556833. In or around September of 1993, a Mr. J. V. T. 1/ read a newspaper article to the effect that the Respondent had successfully treated children suffering from attention deficit disorder by using vitamins and health supplements in lieu of drugs such as Ritalin. At that time Mr. J. V. T. had a minor son, D. T., who was suffering from attention deficit disorder and was taking Ritalin pursuant to a prescription written by the son's pediatrician. Shortly after reading the newspaper article, Mr. J. V. T. took his son to see the Respondent for the purpose of determining whether his son's condition could be treated without Ritalin. Mr. J. V. T. and his son saw the Respondent at a facility named Advanced Health Center. At that location Mr. J. V. T. saw a massage therapy license for the Respondent. Mr. J. V. T. is not certain that was the only license. The purpose of Mr. J. V. T.'s visit was to obtain nutritional counseling with regard to his son's attention deficit disorder. He did not ask the Respondent to perform a massage on his son. In or around January of 1994, the Respondent recommended that J. V. T.'s son undergo a blood test. The blood test was performed by someone else at another facility. Eventually, someone gave Mr. J. V. T. a videotape that was described to him as being a video tape of his son's blood test. Shortly thereafter, Mr. J. V. T. met with the Respondent to discuss the results of the blood test. The Respondent told Mr. J. V. T. that the blood test showed that Mr. J. V. T.'s son had tape worms and that the tape worms were consuming large quantities of the nutrition and health supplements the son had been taking. The Respondent recommended some treatments to counteract the tapeworms. Mr. J. V. T. lacked confidence in what he was being told by the Respondent and discussed the matter with his son's pediatrician. Based on his discussion with the pediatrician, Mr. J. V. T. did not seek any further services from the Respondent. Mr. J. V. T. paid the Respondent for the services provided by the Respondent. Mr. J. V. T. does not believe that his son received any benefit from the services provided by the Respondent. When questioned by Mr. J. V. T., the Respondent stated that he was self taught and that he was not a doctor.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1997, 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 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1997.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage (Chapters 20.30, 455, and 480, Florida Statutes). The Respondent is a licensed massage therapist, holding license number MA 0004771 (P's Exh. 2). The Respondent holds a massage establishment license for Massage by Olga, license number MM001233 (P's Exh. 1). Massage by Olga is located at 643 Tanglewood, Daytona Beach, Florida 32114. No other businesses are located at that address (T-31). The Petitioner is charged with inspecting the establishment premises. Section 480.043(9), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21L-26.005, Florida Administrative Code. It is the usual and common practice of inspectors to make unannounced inspections (T-10-11). To make announced inspections would contravene the reason for the inspection, giving licensees time to clean up their licensed premises (T-11, 28). The Petitioner's inspector, Linda Mantovani, who works out of Jacksonville, Florida, attempted to make an inspection of the establishment, Massage by Olga, on January 30, 1991 (T-13). She knocked on the front door and waited seven (7) minutes. No one came to the door. Ms. Mantovani observed two cars in the driveway of the establishment (T-14). Ms. Mantovani heard noise coming from inside the establishment (T-14- 15). Ms. Mantovani went around to the side entrances and windows, and again knocked on the front door (T-15-16). Ms. Mantovani's knocks were unanswered (T-15). Ms. Mantovani waited outside the establishment for another 15 to 20 minutes to see if anyone left. She observed no one leaving or entering the establishment (T-16). Ms. Mantovani observed a sign on the front door of the establishment which said: Appointments & Information by telephone-only No appointments, No knock!!!! Do not ring bell unless on time (+ or - 5 min.) Phone number....lost it, find it! Inspectors see rule #2. No exceptions (T-14, 23-24; P's Exh. 4). Ms. Mantovani formed the impression that people were inside the establishment (T-15, 18) The Respondent told Ms. Mantovani that although she parked her car at the licensed premises, she frequently walked to lunch in the neighborhood. Ms. Mantovani contacted the Respondent by telephone without difficulty. The Respondent told Ms. Mantovani that she did not live at the licensed premises; that she was there only for appointments; and she would make herself available for Ms. Mantovani for inspection purposes. Ms. Mantovani advised the Respondent that the Petitioner made unscheduled inspections. The Respondent told Ms. Mantovani that she could not promise that she would be at the licensed premises when Ms. Mantovani was in Daytona. The Respondent also stated that it was her practice not to answer the door, except to receive scheduled patrons. Ms. Mantovani refused to schedule an inspection, or to call and ascertain that the Respondent was available and inspect at that moment.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the charges be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 21st day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-6559 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-15. Adopted. 16-17. Rejected as contrary to more credible portion of Ms. Mantovani's testimony. 18. Adopted and moved to Paragraph 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Anna Polk, Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Lois B. Lepp, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rita Brigugulio 643 Tanglewood Daytona Beach, FL 32114
