The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at formal hearing was whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in Petitioner's Administrative Complaint, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's massage license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 455 and 480, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is a Florida licensed massage therapist and has been at all times material hereto, having been issued license number MA 0012000. Respondent had been licensed for one (1) year prior to the alleged incidents and has performed approximately 700 massages, with approximately 300 of them being performed on women. In August 1992, P. G. was suffering from tension in her neck, so she contacted Respondent for a massage. P. G. was acquainted with Respondent as a result of them attending the same church and participating for six weeks in "prosperity classes" which met once a week. Respondent agreed to give her a massage at her home. At no time prior to this had P. G. had a massage. In the afternoon, on a day in August 1992, Respondent came to P. G.'s home to give her the massage. He brought with him a table and a sheet. P. G.'s husband was at home when Respondent arrived and was in another room in the home during the first half of the massage. The massage lasted approximately one hour and 15 minutes. Before beginning the massage, Respondent did not obtain any medical or health history from P. G. Also, Respondent gave P. G. the option of being draped with her underwear on or nude. P. G. chose to keep her underwear on. Respondent massaged P. G.'s neck, arms, shoulders, back, legs, feet and breasts. Throughout the massage, P. G. and Respondent conversed continuously. At one point, Respondent told her that she had a great body and that if she ever wanted to get rid of her husband he was available. P. G. did not take Respondent's comments seriously and dismissed them. When Respondent was massaging P. G.'s arms and shoulders, she was lying in a prone position with her arms and hands outstretched forward and with him standing in front of her. Several times, during this part of the massage, when Respondent leaned forward, he brushed his penis against her hands. Prior to massaging P. G.'s breasts, Respondent did not discuss massaging her breasts with her. Also, throughout the massage of P. G.'s breasts, Respondent used his hands to manipulate her breasts and manipulated her nipples. At one point during the massage, Respondent touched P. G.'s vaginal area and began stroking her clitoris. P. G. described Respondent's action as a "stimulation" of her clitoris in a sexual manner "like your husband would do." When Respondent did this, P. G. immediately asked Respondent if this was part of the massage. He asked her if she wanted him to do this and she said no. Respondent ceased and did not do it again. After the massage was over, P. G. paid Respondent $20 or $30, she did not recall which. Additionally, she walked Respondent to his vehicle and requested that he leave some of his advertising material with her, which he did. P. G. reported the incident to Petitioner after her twin sister informed her that Respondent should not have touched her vaginal area and nipples. Approximately two months later, on or about October 1, 1992, S. K. came to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, from California for her father's funeral. After his funeral, she was very stressed and wanted to get a massage. For S. K., massages were therapy, relieving her of stress, and she had been receiving massages for approximately 10 years. Also, S. K. is a licensed massage therapist in the State of California. On or about October 3, 1992, a Sunday, S. K. called Respondent after selecting him from his advertisement in the yellow pages. Respondent agreed to perform a massage on her that same day in the afternoon at his home. After arriving at Respondent's home, he directed S. K. to a small room which contained a massage table. She undressed completely and was provided with a small rectangular sheet about the width of her body for draping. Prior to the massage, S. K. and Respondent discussed areas in particular that S. K. wanted massaged, i.e., shoulders, neck, and lower back. Further, she requested that Respondent use a special oil that she brought with her, and he agreed to do so; she felt "safe" with the smell of the oil. At no time did Respondent take any medical or health history from S. K. S. K.'s massage lasted for approximately one hour. Respondent talked continuously during the entire massage, relating his real estate dealings. Respondent began the massage by having S. K. lie on the massage table in a prone position. He placed the small sheet on her, leaving her buttocks uncovered. In the course of massaging the top of S. K.'s legs, Respondent brushed S. K.'s genital area, specifically her labia, very briskly at least six or eight times (three or four times on each leg). S. K. began to become suspicious of Respondent but did not object to Respondent's action. While S. K. was still in the face down position, Respondent massaged S. K.'s buttocks. During the massage of her buttocks, Respondent brushed his fingers over S. K.'s anus several times, causing her to believe that Respondent was doing this intentionally. However, S. K. did not object to Respondent's action, wanting to believe, instead, that what was happening really wasn't. Additionally, while in the prone position, Respondent massaged S. K.'s shoulders. She was lying with her arms and hands outstretched in the front of her and with Respondent standing in front of her. Several times, while manipulating S. K.'s shoulders, Respondent would brush his stomach and penis against her hands. Each time the brushing occurred, either with his stomach or his penis, S. K. would move her hands back, but the massage procedure would cause her hands to move forward again. S. K. objected to Respondent's action, and he stopped. When Respondent had S. K. to lie on her back, he did not cover her genital area with any kind of draping. She became angry, accused Respondent of not properly draping her, and proceeded to drape her genital area herself. While S. K. was still lying on her back, Respondent massaged her breasts with his hands. Respondent had not discussed massaging S. K.'s breasts before doing so. During the massage of S. K.'s breasts, Respondent manipulated her nipples with his hands. At the conclusion of the massage, S. K. paid Respondent $20 for the massage and gave him a $10 tip. Neither S. K. nor P. G. were acquainted with one another. Expert testimony was that draping is not universally taught in Florida's massage schools and that there is no universally accepted method of draping by massage therapists in Florida. When a massage therapist performs a massage on a client for the first time, the minimum standard of practice, according to expert testimony, requires the massage therapist to take the client's medical history. Obtaining the medical history guides the massage therapist in the client's massage, such as informing the therapist which areas of the body are appropriate for massage and which are not. A massaging of the breasts is not prohibited; however, according to expert testimony, the minimum standard of practice requires the massage therapist to (a) inform the client, prior to the massage, that the breasts will be massaged, (b) obtain the client's consent, and (c) use the client's hand to massage the breasts (massage through the client's hand). Additionally, the minimum standard of practice prohibits the manipulation of the nipples. Massaging of the genital area, according to expert testimony, is prohibited by the minimum standard of practice, unless the client's physician has ordered such a massage. No physician ordered a massage of the genital area for either P. G. or S. K. According to expert testimony, the anus is involved in a massage procedure referred to as colonic irrigation which is a gloved procedure and requires special equipment. The minimum standard of practice requires a massage therapist to obtain the client's consent for the procedure and requires the client to go through an advance procedure prior to the colonic irrigation massage. No colonic irrigation was performed on either P. G. or S. K.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Massage enter a final order: Determining James J. Maes guilty of violating Subsection 480.046(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by violating Board of Massage Rule 21L-30.001(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing an administrative penalty of five years suspension. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of April 1993 ERROL H. POWELL 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 this 16th day of April 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on findings proposed by the Petitioner. 1-6. Rejected as subordinate to Findings of Fact 23-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25, except for the reference to appropriate draping which is rejected. Expert testimony revealed that there was no universally accepted method of draping. See Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Rejected, see Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, except the reference to the clitoris which is rejected. Taking the deposition testimony about S. K.'s clitoris and labia indicates that S. K. meant her labia, not her clitoris. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20, except the reference of failing to properly drape which is rejected. See Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Rulings on findings proposed by the Respondent. Client I Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4, except the reference to the date which is rejected as contrary to the evidence presented. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, except as to P. G. wearing panties throughout the massage which is adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, except as to the last sentence which is adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Client II Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, except for the expert testimony on draping which is adopted and modified in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, see Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, see Finding of Fact 20. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, see Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as unnecessary and contrary to the evidence presented, except the reference to the tip which is adopted in Finding of Fact 21. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan E. Lindgard, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James J. Maes 1498 Northeast 34th Court Oakland Park, Florida 33334 Anna Polk, Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, 339 Health Studio, Inc., was licensed as a massage establishment, having been issued license number MM0005810, and conducted business at 339 Northeast 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. On December 19, 1995, Denise Quintela, an inspector employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulations, visited the licensed premises to conduct an inspection. Ms. Quintela identified herself to the "front desk clerk," who allowed her admission ("opened the door") to the premises. (Transcript, page 10). Apparently, in the "office where the front desk clerk was sitting down," there was a sign posted which listed the services, and their prices, offered by the establishment, including a massage for $80.00. (Transcript, page 17). Following admission, Ms. Quintela "started opening the curtains to make sure there was people working," and, upon opening one of the curtains, she observed "a lady working there with a gentleman," "the lady was standing, and the gentleman was lying down, and she was performing a massage." (Transcript, pages 10 and 11). Observing such activity, Ms. Quintela asked the lady for her massage license, but received no response. Thereupon, the "front desk clerk" volunteered that "she doesn't have a license."1 (Transcript, page 11). By examination of the lady's driver's license, Ms. Quintela identified her as You Won Park. According to the Department's records, You Won Park was not then, nor had she ever been, licensed as a massage therapist in the State of Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Apart from any inferences that could be drawn from the foregoing findings, the only proof offered regarding You Won Park's relationship with the Respondent was the following testimony of Ms. Quintela: DIRECT EXAMINATION * * * Q. And did you determine whether Ms. Park was employed at the 330 Health Studio? A. Yes. * * * CROSS-EXAMINATION * * * Q. Were there any documents showing that that lady was employed there that you saw? A. No. Q. Was the sole basis for your determining that she was employed there your seeing her there? A. She was working there, yes. Q. Do you know if she was paid a salary? A. At the moment, I didn't see any money exchanged, no. Q. Not just at the moment, I mean in the whole world: Have you any indication that she received payment -- either cash, checks -- A. No. Q. Anything of that nature? A. No. * * * Q. . . . So is the answer you don't know if she was employed there or not? A. Well, she was employed because she was working there. Q. Well -- A. And the lady -- the front desk clerk told me that she was an employee there. And I believe I put down how long she worked there. Did I? Q. You noted in the report three weeks. But you don't know that she was an employee, do you? A. (No response.) Q. I mean, you don't have any evidence that she was an employee or that she was being paid other than the fact that she was there; is that true? A. Right. * * * Q. You do not know, do you, whether any money was exchanged between the supposed patron or the person allegedly getting the massage and the lady supposedly giving the massage? A. No. * * * REDIRECT EXAMINATION * * * Q. Was there any discussion with regard to a fee? A. No. Q. In your investigative report, there's a reference to the amount of time that Ms. Park was working there. How did you make a determination how long Ms. Park was working at the establishment? A. I asked the person in charge -- the front desk clerk. . . . (Transcript, pages 13 through 16, and 18). Apart from the statements attributed to the "front desk clerk," the results of Ms. Quintela's inspection, as evidenced by her testimony, are ambiguous, and are not sufficiently detailed to provide a reliable foundation on which to base a conclusion, with any degree of confidence, as to what relationship, if any, existed between the Respondent and You Won Park. Notably, based solely on Ms. Quintela's observations, You Won Park's presence and activities were equally consistent with what one would expect of an employee practicing massage or a non-employee who Respondent was permitting to practice massage on the licensed premises.2 You Won Park's activities were also consistent with those of a volunteer, as where one would accord an acquaintance a rub down. As for the comments Ms. Quintela attributes to the "front desk clerk" regarding You Won Park's status on the premises, they too are ambiguous and lacking in adequate detail. In this regard, it is observed that the statements of the "front desk clerk" may have simply meant that You Won Park had "worked" on the premises for three weeks, which is not necessarily the same as being engaged as an "employee." Apart from the ambiguity of the statements attributed to the "front desk clerk," they are also hearsay, and not subject to a hearsay exception.3 Consequently, the clerk's comments cannot support the conclusion that You Won Park was Respondent's employee. In sum, it must be concluded that, due to the paucity of proof, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that You Won Park was Respondent's employee.4
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be rendered which dismisses the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1998.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy, in violation of provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7- 26.010 and sections 480.046(1)(o) and 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, Ms. Xu was a licensed massage therapist in the state of Florida, holding license number MA56426. During all times relevant to the complaint, Ms. Xu was employed by Massage Elite, located at 800 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard in Hallandale Beach, Florida. On November 22, 2010, Officer F.C., working in an undercover capacity with Officer C.T., went to Massage Elite, where they were greeted by Ms. Xu, who introduced herself as Diana. Ms. Xu stated that a one-hour full body massage was $70.00. They each paid, and Officer F.C. was taken to a separate room and told to disrobe and lie face down. Minutes later, Ms. Xu came into the room and began a massage. After some time, Ms. Xu asked Officer F.C. to turn over. After he did so, Ms. Xu began touching Officer F.C. on his penis, asking, "Do you want me to massage this?" Officer F.C. asked her, "How much?" Ms. Xu replied, "Sixty dollars." Officer F.C. said he only had $30.00, and Ms. Xu replied, "No, not for thirty, maybe next time." The massage was then completed. On November 23, 2010, Officer F.C. returned to Massage Elite. Other arrests were made at that time, but Ms. Xu was not on the premises. On November 30, 2010, Officer F.C. returned to Massage Elite with Officer R.A. He asked for Diana, and they called her from the back. Ms. Xu came in. Officer F.C. made a positive identification, based upon her appearance, that Ms. Xu was the same woman who had earlier introduced herself to him as Diana, and had given him the massage. She was placed under arrest. Ms. Xu's contrary testimony, to the effect that she was not at work on November 22, 2010, that she had never seen Officer F.C. before November 30, 2010, is not credible, and is rejected. Ms. Wei Zhou, Ms. Xu's daughter, testified through deposition that she came to Florida for Thanksgiving in 2010, and that her mother stayed with her the entire time in a hotel. She said she could not remember exactly when she was there or if she arrived before or after Thanksgiving Day. At another point in her testimony, she said she arrived around the 19th or 20th of November. She said she couldn't remember if her grandmother traveled with her or not. She indicated that she did not know what kind of work her mother did. Her testimony, to the extent it was intended to establish that Ms. Xu did not work at Massage Elite on November 22, 2010, was not credible. Her vague account of events did not cast doubt on Officer F.C.'s clear and convincing testimony. As noted in the deposition testimony of Ms. Jennifer Mason, there is no reason for a licensed massage therapist to ever touch the genitalia of a patient. Officer F.C. paid for a massage, and Ms. Xu began to give him a massage. She was governed by the requirements of the massage therapist-patient relationship. Ms. Xu's actions on November 22, 2010, were outside the scope of generally accepted treatment of massage therapy patients. Ms. Xu used the massage therapist-patient relationship to attempt to induce Officer F.C. to engage in sexual activity and to attempt to engage him in sexual activity. Ms. Xu engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy. There is no evidence that Ms. Xu 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 Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order finding Ms. Ranjie Xu in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7-26.010 and section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, constituting grounds for discipline under section 480.046(1)(o), Florida Statutes; revoking her license to practice massage therapy; imposing a fine of $1000.00; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 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 4th day of April, 2017.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether the Respondent, Lauren Dillman-Bell, obtained her Florida license to practice massage therapy through fraud or error, in violation of section 456.072(1)(h), Florida Statutes (2009), or made misleading, untrue, deceptive, or fraudulent representations on her application for licensure, in violation of section 456.072(1)(w), both of which constitute violations of section 480.046(1)(o); and if so, the appropriate sanction. (Unless otherwise indicated, citations to the Florida Statutes and rules of the Florida Administrative Code refer to the versions in effect when the Respondent’s license was issued on July 1, 2009.)
Findings Of Fact The 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 (2016). At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent was licensed to practice massage therapy in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 56509 on or about July 1, 2009. When the Respondent applied for licensure in June 2009, she answered “no” to a question whether she had “ever been convicted of, or entered a plea of guilty, nolo contendere, or no contest to a crime in any jurisdiction other than a minor traffic offense.” When the Respondent’s license was issued, the Petitioner was unaware that the answer to the question on the application should have been “yes.” This was not brought to the Petitioner’s attention until June 2013. The Petitioner investigated, and the Administrative Complaint was filed. It is clear from the evidence presented at the hearing that the Respondent entered the following pleas in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, in December 2005: guilty to one count of possession of a controlled, dangerous substance with intent to distribute; guilty to one count of possession of a controlled, dangerous substance (methamphetamine) with intent to distribute; guilty to one count of possession of a stolen vehicle/receiving stolen property; and guilty to two counts of possession of a weapon. Although the Respondent did not appear or testify at the hearing, it can be inferred that she knew or should have known that her answer to the question on her license application about criminal convictions and guilty pleas was false. Even if the answer were unintentionally false, the Petitioner relied on it when it issued the Respondent’s license without conducting any investigation into the Respondent’s fitness for licensure notwithstanding the guilty pleas. (It also could be inferred from the Respondent’s failure to pursue her request for a hearing, and her failure to provide effective contact information so as to receive notices regarding the case, that she has withdrawn and waived her disputes as to the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued: (1) finding that the Respondent violated section 480.046(1)(o) by violating sections 456.072(h) and (w); and (2) revoking her massage therapy license. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 May, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Lauren Dillman-Bell, L.M.T. 5033 Lords Avenue Sarasota, Florida 34231 Lealand L. McCharen, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed) Jaquetta Johnson, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed) Claudia Kemp, JD, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 (eServed) Nichole C. Geary, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed sexual misconduct in the practice of massage, 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 chapters 20, 456, and 480, Florida Statutes (2013).1/ At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a massage therapist in Florida, having been issued license number MA 69679 on or about July 26, 2012. In the short period of time since Respondent has been licensed, no prior disciplinary action has been taken against her license. On December 11, 2013, Respondent was working at Lulu’s Massage in West Palm Beach, Florida. That same day, Department of Health investigator/ inspector Kevin Lapham conducted an inspection of Lulu’s Massage, to determine licensure status of individuals working there and to determine compliance with licensure requirements. Mr. Lapham entered one of the massage rooms at Lulu’s Massage, without knocking first. Mr. Lapham observed the following upon entering the room: A completely nude male customer was lying on his back on a massage table. Respondent was standing next to the male, with her hand on his groin and her face near his groin. Respondent was uncovered from her waist to her ankles, with her shorts and underwear pooled around her ankles. When Mr. Lapham entered the room, Respondent reacted by putting her body over the nude male customer’s crotch. At hearing, Mr. Lapham positively identified Respondent, without question or hesitation, as the exposed woman he saw with the nude male customer, as described above, at Lulu’s Massage on December 11, 2013. Mr. Lapham’s testimony was credible, clear, and convincing. Respondent admitted to the intrusion of the Department inspector into the massage room where she was with a male customer on December 11, 2013. Respondent also admitted that when Mr. Lapham entered the room, both her shorts and her underwear were not in place covering her, because they had been pulled down her legs. Respondent blamed her male customer for pulling down her shorts and her underwear so that they were around her ankles, and claims that she objected to his behavior. Respondent’s claim was not credible. Respondent did not step away from the table out of his reach, leave the room, or even pull up her underwear and shorts. Instead, Respondent testified that in reaction to him pulling down her shorts and her underwear, she “tried to comfort him, asking him don’t move.” While Respondent was comforting her nude male customer, the Department inspector entered the room. Respondent denied that she touched the nude male customer on his groin, but offered no reasonable explanation for Mr. Lapham’s contrary testimony. Respondent was arrested by the Juno Police Department on December 11, 2013, and charged with committing, engaging in, or offering to commit prostitution. Respondent testified that the police did not provide her with an interpreter that afternoon, and she did not understand why she was arrested. However, no evidence was offered to prove that the matter was later cleared up, once Respondent had representation and/or an interpreter to assist her in connection with the criminal charges. No evidence was offered to prove the status or disposition of those charges. While no adverse inferences are drawn from the fact of criminal charges, Respondent’s attempt to explain away those charges is not credited. Respondent’s testimony characterizing her actions on December 11, 2013, as lawful and legitimate massage therapy was not credible. Instead, Respondent’s partial verification of the facts observed by Mr. Lapham adds more weight to his clear and convincing testimony.
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 imposing a fine of $2,500.00 against Respondent, Hong Yang, and revoking her license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 3rd day of October, 2014.
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against a licensee on the basis of alleged misconduct set forth in a two-count Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Andrea L. Snyder, was a licensed Massage Therapist, having been issued license number MA-0024773 by the Florida Board of Massage Therapy. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed part-time at D & D of Broward, Inc., doing business as "Stress Massage Clinic" at an establishment located at 179 State Road 7, Margate, Florida. On February 9, 1998, Broward County Sheriff Detective Steve Drum entered the Stress Massage Clinic, where he encountered the Respondent. Detective Drum arranged for a one- half hour therapy session with the Respondent for a thirty- dollar fee. The Respondent accepted the fee. The Respondent escorted Detective Drum to a private room and advised him to get comfortable. Detective Drum removed his clothing and then laid himself face down on a massage table, naked, and undraped. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent entered the room and began to massage Detective Drum. After a few minutes, the Respondent asked Detective Drum to turn over. Still naked and undraped, Detective Drum turned over onto his back, and the Respondent continued to massage him. The Respondent then asked Detective Drum if he wanted her to put oil on his genital area. He indicated that he did. The Respondent then indicated that she expected additional compensation for doing so, and Detective Drum agreed to additional compensation. Thereupon, the Respondent removed her shirt, which left her naked from the waist up. She then placed oil on her hands and grabbed Detective Drum's penis and attempted to masturbate him. Detective Drum stopped the attempted masturbation. The Respondent made a second attempt to grab the detective's penis, but he stopped her from doing so, and began to get dressed. Detective Drum then paid the Respondent an additional forty dollars and left the establishment. On March 12, 1998, Detective Drum called the Stress Massage Clinic and made an appointment for a two-girl session. Upon entering the facility on March 12, 1998, Detective Drum was greeted by the Respondent and by another female employee named Kira Talis. Detective Drum paid a fee and was escorted to a massage room. The March 12, 1998, massage session began with Detective Drum lying naked and undraped on a massage table. Both the Respondent and Ms. Talis began performing a massage on Detective Drum. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent and Ms. Talis both removed their shirts and both were naked from the waist up. During the course of the March 12, 1998, massage session, both the Respondent and Ms. Talis attempted to masturbate Detective Drum by grabbing his penis. Detective Drum promptly stopped these attempts to masturbate him by moving the women's hands away from his penis, and by asking them to massage other parties of his body. At the conclusion of the March 12, 1998, massage session, Detective Drum gave a one hundred dollar bill to one of the women to be divided between the two of them.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy issue a final order in this case finding the Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a penalty consisting of the following: (a) revocation of the Respondent's license; an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00; and assessments of costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 2001.
