The Issue The issues are whether the Respondent, a licensed massage therapist, violated applicable sections of the Massage Practice Act, by attempting to engage in prohibited sexual activity with a client or patient; and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in Florida under section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes (2015).1/ In 2015, the Respondent was licensed to practice massage therapy in Florida, having been issued license number MA 67956 by the Board of Massage Therapy. In November 2015, the Vice Unit of the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office conducted an operation to investigate a complaint that prostitution was taking place at VIP Massage (VIP), located at 5915 Memorial Highway in Tampa, which advertised “hot, beautiful, friendly Asian ladies” under the “body rub” section of advertisements on an internet website. On November 12, 2015, Detective M.D., who was working undercover, entered VIP. He was met by the Respondent, and she confirmed the appointment for a one-hour massage that he had made the day before, led him to a massage room, and collected the $60 charge. She then left the room with the money and returned after M.D. disrobed, except for his boxer shorts, and got on the massage table. The Respondent performed the hour massage in an appropriate manner and left to get M.D. some water. When she returned she asked him why he did not remove his boxer shorts. He said he was shy. She then asked if he was the police. He said, no, he was just shy. At this point, the Respondent made a hand motion indicating masturbation and asked, “do you want?” M.D. asked, “how much?” She said, “40,” meaning $40. M.D. asked if she would “suck” him, referring to oral sex. The Respondent said, “no, only,” and repeated the hand gesture for masturbation. He declined, saying that he was too shy, and that he was married. This was a pre-arranged signal for his investigative team of law enforcement officers to enter the VIP and make an arrest for prostitution. M.D. identified the Respondent to the arresting officers and explained to the Respondent that she was being arrested for prostitution. The Respondent understood the charge and loudly denied it. The Respondent again denied the charges in her testimony at the hearing. She said there was a misunderstanding between M.D. and her due to her poor command of English (and his inability to speak or understand Chinese). She said that she actually asked M.D. if he wanted an additional hour of massage and that she was referring to the charge for that when she said, “40.” Although there were some minor details of M.D.’s testimony that were inconsistent or misremembered and later corrected, his testimony as to essentially what occurred at VIP on November 12, 2015, was clear and convincing, especially since it was consistent with what was in the arrest affidavit he signed under oath that same day. The Respondent’s argument that it was all a misunderstanding due to a language barrier is rejected. She appeared to have little difficulty understanding some of the conversation between him and her regarding his massage, or understanding the criminal charge when she was arrested, and there was no mistaking the meaning of her hand gesture for masturbation. The Respondent also raised the question why she would have waited until returning with water to ask if he wanted her to masturbate him. While there is some appeal to the logic of her argument at first blush, there are a number of plausible explanations for her timing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: finding the Respondent guilty of violating sections 480.046(1)(p), 480.0485, and 456.072(1)(v); fining her $2,500; revoking her license to practice massage therapy; and awarding costs of investigation and prosecution of this matter to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 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 1st day of November, 2017.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, a licensed massage therapist, should be disciplined under section 480.046(1)(p), Florida Statutes (2016),1/ for sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy; and, if so, the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner licenses and regulates the practice of massage therapy in Florida, including discipline of licensees who are in violation of the governing statutes and rules. The Respondent holds massage therapy license MA 80154. In March 2017, the Respondent was employed as a massage therapist at Hand and Stone Massage and Facial Spa in Brandon, Florida. On March 29, 2017, Y.B., went to Hand and Stone to use a gift card for a free massage that had been given to him by his fiancée. The Respondent approached and introduced himself to Y.B., and asked if he could help him. Y.B. told him why he was there, and the Respondent led him back to a therapy room. In the therapy room, Y.B. asked the Respondent to focus on his upper body, arms, and fingers. The Respondent had him undress and lay down on the massage table face down, covered only by a sheet. The massage proceeded without incident at first. Then, the Respondent asked for permission to massage Y.B.’s legs. Y.B. granted permission. As the massage proceeded, Y.B. closed his eyes and relaxed. When the Respondent finished massaging the back of Y.B.’s legs, he asked Y.B. to roll over onto his back. As the massage proceeded, Y.B. again closed his eyes and relaxed. After massaging Y.B.’s upper body, arms, and fingers, the Respondent asked, “May I?” Thinking the Respondent was asking if he had permission to massage the front of his legs, Y.B. said, “yes, do what you have to do.” Before Y.B. knew what was happening, the Respondent grasped Y.B.’s penis in his hand and put it in his mouth. Startled and shocked, Y.B. opened his eyes, sat up, and made the Respondent stop, saying “Whoa, whoa, whoa, what do you think you’re doing? I’m not gay.” At that point, the Respondent stopped and brought Y.B. water and a towel. What the Respondent did was very upsetting to Y.B. He was so upset and angry that he was distracted while being checked out by another employee of Hand and Stone. He unwittingly presented his gift card and answered questions. He discovered later that he not only had paid for the massage but also had given the Respondent a tip. Y.B. continued to be bothered by what happened and returned to Hand and Stone the next day to confront the Respondent and have him explain the reason for what he had done the day before. During this confrontation, the Respondent admitted to his misconduct and tried to apologize, saying “I thought we had a connection.” Y.B. continues to be affected by what the Respondent did to him. He received counseling through his employer. He still is less affectionate than he used to be, even towards his family. To this day, he still becomes anxious when reminded of the incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty as charged; revoking his license; and fining him $2,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2018, 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 23rd day of January, 2018.
The Issue The issues presented in this case are whether Respondent has violated the provisions of chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based on the testimony, evidence admitted at the formal hearing, and the agreed facts in the pre-hearing stipulation. The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and chapters 456 and 480. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was licensed to practice as a massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 79509. At all times material to the allegations in this matter, Respondent was employed as a massage therapist at Daytona College, in Daytona Beach, Florida. Respondent’s address of record is 10 Spanish Pine Way, Ormond Beach, Florida 32174. S.W. is a licensed mental health counselor who has been licensed for approximately 22 years. She resides in Clermont, Florida, which is where she lived at the time of the massage. In July 2017, S.W. and C.W., her 23-year-old daughter, traveled to the Daytona Beach area to visit S.W.’s elderly mother. On July 19, 2017, S.W. and C.W. went to Daytona College, for the first time, for a massage. Upon arriving at the school, they were greeted by the receptionist. S.W. and C.W. were scheduled for 80-minute massages to take place at 3:30 p.m. However, the ladies arrived ten minutes late, so the massages began late. Upon arrival, the ladies were asked whether they needed to use the restroom, which they did. After using the restroom, the ladies were taken to the massage area for their services. S.W. selected the male massage therapist based on her past positive experiences with male therapists. S.W. had received a number of massages in the past, including massages by men. She allowed her daughter to be scheduled with the female massage therapist because she believed her daughter preferred a woman. S.W. was scheduled for a massage with Respondent, and C.W. was scheduled with Elizabeth Branson. Respondent escorted S.W. to the massage room first. Ms. Branson escorted C.W. to the room a few minutes later. As Respondent escorted S.W. to the massage room, S.W. described the areas in which she wanted special attention, including her neck, shoulders, scalp, and feet. Respondent asked S.W. whether she needed massage in the sciatic area. S.W. had problems in the sciatic area, so she consented to have the area massaged. The common room where massages occurred at Daytona College contained eight massage tables separated by curtains. Respondent took S.W. into the massage room and instructed her to undress to her comfort level. Respondent left the room while S.W. undressed down to her underwear. When Respondent reentered the room, S.W. was draped with a sheet. Respondent tucked the drape into S.W.’s underwear and lowered it onto her buttocks. A short time later, S.W. could hear her daughter in the area near her, but she could not see her. C.W. whispered to S.W. to let her know she was in the room. At some point, S.W. heard her daughter exit the room. C.W. finished her massage before S.W., even though S.W.’s service began before C.W.’s. C.W. recalled that her mother was unusually quiet during the massage instead of being “chatty,” as she normally would be. C.W. waited in the hallway outside the massage room for four or five minutes for S.W.’s massage to finish. After S.W. came out of the massage room, C.W. immediately noticed that something was wrong. When S.W. exited the room, she was “wired” and not relaxed, as she would normally appear after a massage. C.W. described her as appearing nervous and agitated. C.W. could tell that something was wrong, but S.W. did not say anything at that time. The two ladies walked to the front desk. As was her routine, S.W. paid for both massages and left a $10 tip. She did not make a complaint regarding the massage with the receptionist before leaving the school. Concerned regarding her mother’s behavior, C.W. asked S.W. what happened. S.W. stated that something weird happened. The ladies left the school and began driving to their destination. S.W. continued to be upset and ultimately, began crying. She was so upset that initially, she could not articulate what occurred. S.W. ultimately told C.W. that Respondent had placed his hand under her underwear and touched her clitoris. S.W. contacted her friend Mike, a law enforcement officer. S.W. explained to Mike what happened, and he suggested that she contact the police to report what happened to her. S.W. and C.W. called the police and requested that an officer meet the ladies at Daytona College. They also contacted the school and advised them that S.W. had been inappropriately touched during her massage. They arrived back at the school approximately 20 minutes later. The officer arrived shortly after S.W. and C.W. The officer interviewed S.W. and she reported to him that while massaging her thighs, Respondent “grazed” her vaginal area with his finger. S.W. also reported that Respondent touched her clitoris with his finger. S.W. declined to pursue criminal charges and stated she would file a complaint with the Department. However, she expressed that she wanted to ensure there was a record of the incident so another woman would not have the same experience. On or about July 26, 2017, one week later, S.W. filed a complaint with the Department of Health. S.W. submitted a typewritten statement regarding the events involving Respondent. S.W. related that at the beginning of the massage, she gave Respondent permission to pull down her underwear and tuck in the drape. She stated that toward the end of the massage, Respondent “grazed” her vagina outside her underwear. He then placed his finger under her underwear and began massaging her clitoris for a couple of seconds. She stated that she grabbed Respondent’s hand and pushed it away. In response, Respondent abruptly told S.W. that the massage was done. In addition to the report to the police and the Department, S.W. also reported the incident to the school administrators, Dr. Ali and Mr. Brooks. Dr. Ali met with S.W. and C.W. when they returned to the school. Dr. Ali described S.W. as appearing embarrassed, subdued, and uncomfortable. Mr. Brooks was also present during the meeting. He was called to campus after he received a report that something inappropriate happened. He observed that S.W. appeared upset. Although there was no expert offered to testify in this matter, Chris Brooks, LMT, provided insight regarding the type of massage provided to S.W. He explained the difference between sensualized touch and sexualized touch. A sensualized touch is not uncommon in massage. On the other hand, sexualized touch is used to evoke sexual pleasure. At hearing, S.W. was clear and unwavering in her recollection of the events involving Respondent touching her vaginal area. S.W. appeared anxious, uncomfortable, and her voice cracked when she testified that Respondent moved her underwear and touched her vaginal area. Specifically, she testified that Respondent grazed her vagina on top of the front of her underwear. She was in such shock that it happened she could not say anything. Respondent then put a bare finger underneath her underwear and began massaging her clitoris. She still could not speak, so she quickly grabbed his hand and pushed it away. Consistent with her statement to the police officer and her written statement, she credibly testified that Respondent touched her vaginal area with his finger. At hearing, Respondent denied touching S.W.’s vagina during the massage. He also denied rubbing her clitoris. Mr. Brooks, who is personally and professionally acquainted with Respondent, testified that Respondent seemed shocked to learn of S.W.’s complaint. Respondent testified that he draped S.W.’s legs in such a way that it caused the draping to “bunch” between the area massaged and the genitalia. Respondent argues that S.W. could not determine whether the draping touched her genitals when Respondent massaged her legs. However, when pressed on this point, S.W. unequivocally testified that she was certain it was Respondent’s finger that touched her clitoris. Respondent had no prior complaints of inappropriate touching before S.W.’s complaint. Although Mr. Brooks asked him about the complaint on the date of the incident, there was no evidence offered at hearing that Respondent was formally interviewed by the school administration. However, Respondent was terminated from his job at Daytona College based on S.W.’s complaint. Respondent was also not interviewed by the police officer investigating the complaint. Respondent was not charged with a crime. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action involving his license to practice massage therapy. The evidence demonstrates that Respondent crossed the boundaries of appropriate massage into sexual misconduct when he massaged S.W.’s clitoris with his finger. While Respondent’s testimony seemed sincere, S.W. was more persuasive. Based on the totality of the evidence presented at hearing, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent touched S.W.’s vaginal area or clitoris with his finger. The placement of a massage therapist’s finger on the vaginal area or clitoris of a patient is outside the scope of the professional practice of massage therapy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding: Respondent guilty of violating sections 480.046(1)(p) and 480.0485 as further defined in rule 64B7-26.010; Imposing a fine of $2,500; and Revoking Respondent’s license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 2019.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department and the Board of Massage Therapy ("Board") have regulatory jurisdiction over licensed massage therapists such as Respondent. The Department furnishes investigative services to the Board and is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint, as it has done in this instance, when cause exists to suspect that a licensee has committed one or more disciplinable offenses. On March 13, 2007, the Department issued Respondent license number MA 49800, which authorized her to practice massage therapy in the state of Florida. With the exception of the instant proceeding, Respondent's license has not been the subject of prior disciplinary action. Respondent's Training and Application for Licensure Respondent was born in China and, at all times relevant to this proceeding, was a citizen of China. Respondent ultimately immigrated to the United States (the record is silent as to the date) and, on July 6, 2007, enrolled at Royal Irvin College ("Royal Irvin"), an institution located in Monterey Park, California, that offered massage therapy instruction. Some five months later, upon Respondent's successful completion of a course of study comprising 500 hours, Royal Irvin awarded her a degree. Subsequently, on February 26, 2007, Respondent passed the National Certification Examination for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork. At or around that time, Respondent relocated to south Florida in pursuit of employment as a massage therapist. From what can be gleaned from the record, it seems that the owner of a massage studio, Ming Goa, informed Respondent that she required a Florida license to be eligible for hire. Owing to the fact that Royal Irvin was not a Board-approved massage school, Respondent needed to complete a course of study at an approved institution or, alternatively, an apprenticeship program. On or about March 5, 2007, and at the apparent suggestion of Mr. Goa, Respondent traveled to the Fort Lauderdale campus of the Florida College of Natural Health ("FCNH"), a Board-approved massage school. On that occasion, Respondent met with FCNH's registrar, Glenda Johnson, to discuss the steps necessary to obtain a Florida license. The particulars of Respondent's dealings with Ms. Johnson and Respondent's subsequent application for licensure are discussed shortly; first, though, a description of FCNH——and its responsibilities under Florida law——is in order. FCNH, an incorporated nonpublic postsecondary educational entity, holds a license by means of accreditation that authorizes its operation in Florida as an independent college. The Florida Commission for Independent Education ("CIE"), which regulates nonpublic postsecondary institutions, issued the necessary license to FCNH pursuant to section 1005.32, Florida Statutes (2012).3/ In addition to being duly licensed by the state, FCNH is accredited by the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges and by the Commission on Massage Therapy. Finally, FCNH is a "Board- approved massage school" within the meaning of that term as defined in section 480.033, Florida Statutes. At the times relevant to this proceeding, the minimum requirements for becoming and remaining a Board-approved massage school were set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7- (Aug. 16, 1998), which provided in relevant part as follows: In order to receive and maintain Board of Massage Therapy approval, a massage school, and any satellite location of a previously approved school, must: Meet the requirements of and be licensed by the Department of Education pursuant to Chapter 1005, F.S., or the equivalent licensing authority of another state or county, or be within the public school system of the State of Florida; and Offer a course of study that includes, at a minimum, the 500 classroom hours listed below . . . . Apply directly to the Board of Massage Therapy and provide the following information: Sample transcript and diploma; Copy of curriculum, catalog or other course descriptions; Faculty credentials; and Proof of licensure by the Department of Education. (emphasis added). As an institution holding a license by means of accreditation, FCNH must comply with the fair consumer practices prescribed in section 1005.04 and in the rules of the CIE.4/ Regarding these required practices, section 1005.04, Florida Statutes (2007), provided during the relevant time frame as follows: Every institution that is under the jurisdiction of the commission or is exempt from the jurisdiction or purview of the commission pursuant to s. 1005.06(1)(c) or (f) and that either directly or indirectly solicits for enrollment any student shall: Disclose to each prospective student a statement of the purpose of such institution, its educational programs and curricula, a description of its physical facilities, its status regarding licensure, its fee schedule and policies regarding retaining student fees if a student withdraws, and a statement regarding the transferability of credits to and from other institutions. The institution shall make the required disclosures in writing at least 1 week prior to enrollment or collection of any tuition from the prospective student. The required disclosures may be made in the institution's current catalog; Use a reliable method to assess, before accepting a student into a program, the student's ability to complete successfully the course of study for which he or she has applied; Inform each student accurately about financial assistance and obligations for repayment of loans; describe any employment placement services provided and the limitations thereof; and refrain from promising or implying guaranteed placement, market availability, or salary amounts; Provide to prospective and enrolled students accurate information regarding the relationship of its programs to state licensure requirements for practicing related occupations and professions in Florida; * * * In addition, institutions that are required to be licensed by the commission shall disclose to prospective students that additional information regarding the institution may be obtained by contacting the Commission for Independent Education, Department of Education, Tallahassee. (emphasis added). At the time of the events giving rise to this proceeding, the CIE's rule relating to fair consumer practices provided in relevant part as follows: This rule implements the provisions of Sections 1005.04 and 1005.34, F.S., and establishes the regulations and standards of the Commission relative to fair consumer practices and the operation of independent postsecondary education institutions in Florida. This rule applies to those institutions as specified in Section 1005.04(1), F.S. All such institutions and locations shall demonstrate compliance with fair consumer practices. * * * (6) Each prospective student shall be provided a written copy, or shall have access to an electronic copy, of the institution's catalog prior to enrollment or the collection of any tuition, fees or other charges. The catalog shall contain the following required disclosures, and catalogs of licensed institutions must also contain the information required in subsections 6E- 2.004(11) and (12), F.A.C.: * * * (f) Transferability of credits: The institution shall disclose information to the student regarding transferability of credits to other institutions and from other institutions. The institution shall disclose that transferability of credit is at the discretion of the accepting institution, and that it is the student's responsibility to confirm whether or not credits will be accepted by another institution of the student's choice. . . . No representation shall be made by a licensed institution that its credits can be transferred to another specific institution, unless the institution has a current, valid articulation agreement on file. * * * (11) An institution is responsible for ensuring compliance with this rule by any person or company contracted with or employed by the institution to act on its behalf in matters of advertising, recruiting, or otherwise making representations which may be accessed by prospective students, whether verbally, electronically, or by other means of communication. Fla. Admin. Code R. 6E-1.0032 (July 23, 2007)(emphasis added). As a duly-licensed, accredited, Board-approved massage school, FCNH was, at all relevant times, authorized to evaluate the transferability of credits to FCNH from other massage schools, so that credits earned elsewhere (including from schools that were not Board-approved) could be applied toward the award of a diploma from FCNH. In making such an evaluation, FCNH was obligated to follow the standards for transfer of credit that the Board had established by rule.5/ Further, when exercising its discretion to accept transfer credits, FCNH was required to complete, sign, and attach to the student's transcript the Board's Transfer of Credit Form, by which the school's dean or registrar certified that the student's previously-earned credits, to the extent specified, were acceptable in lieu of the student's taking courses at FCNH. Returning to the events at hand, Respondent met with Ms. Johnson, FCNH's registrar, on March 5, 2007. Notably, it has not been shown that Ms. Johnson lacked the authority to create official diplomas and transcripts on behalf of FCNH; on the contrary, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that Ms. Johnson possessed the actual authority, on that date and at all relevant times, to generate such records.6/ The meeting, which took place on a weekday during normal business hours, was held in Ms. Johnson's office——located on the first floor of a multi-story building on FCNH's Fort Lauderdale campus. Upon Respondent's arrival (at the main entrance), a receptionist summoned Ms. Johnson, who, a few minutes later, appeared in the lobby and escorted Respondent to her office. During the meeting that ensued, Respondent advised Ms. Johnson (with her limited English skills) that she was a recent graduate of Royal Irvin and that she wished to obtain licensure in Florida as a massage therapist. Ms. Johnson immediately telephoned Royal Irvin, spoke with an employee of that institution, and requested that Respondent's records be faxed to FCNH. It appears that the Royal Irvin records were furnished a short time later, at which point Ms. Johnson informed Respondent, erroneously, that her existing coursework was sufficient for licensure and that she could simply transfer her previously-earned credits to FCNH. All Respondent needed to do, Ms. Johnson incorrectly explained, was study FCNH-prepared materials concerning the Florida rules and statutes relevant to massage therapy. Significantly, Ms. Johnson also informed Respondent——again, incorrectly——that her Royal Irvin credits satisfied the requirement that a Florida applicant complete two hours of board-approved coursework relating to the prevention of medical errors.7/ As their March 5, 2007, meeting wound to a close, Ms. Johnson escorted Respondent to FCNH's library, which was located on the second floor of the same building. Respondent examined the materials that had been provided to her until roughly 5:00 p.m., at which time Ms. Johnson advised her to return the following morning "to study for another day." Ms. Johnson also instructed Respondent bring funds to cover the licensure application fee and FCNH's tuition. As instructed, Respondent returned the next morning to FCNH's library, where she continued her studies until mid-to late-afternoon. At that point, Ms. Johnson had Respondent sign an application for a Florida massage therapy license, wherein Respondent truthfully disclosed, among other things, that she had completed 500 hours of study at Royal Irvin; that Royal Irvin was not approved by the Board; and that she had not attended an apprenticeship program. Upon her collection of the license application fee (as well as "tuition" for FCNH——more on this in a moment), Ms. Johnson furnished Respondent with a portfolio that contained several items, including an FCNH document titled "Certificate of Completion – Therapeutic Massage Training Program (Transfer of Licensure)" that bore Ms. Johnson's signature. In the days that followed, Ms. Johnson furnished Respondent's application for licensure to the Department. The application was accompanied by various supporting documents, which included: the "Certificate of Completion" identified in the preceding paragraph of this Order; a "Transfer of Credit Form" signed by Ms. Johnson, which indicates that FCNH accepted Respondent's credits from Royal Irvin, and, further, that Respondent's coursework at Royal Irvin included two credit hours involving the prevention of medical errors and three credit hours relating to HIV/AIDS; an FCNH transcript (signed by Ms. Johnson and bearing the school's seal) showing that Respondent had completed a 500-hour program titled "Therapeutic Massage Training Program (Transfer of Licensure)"; Respondent's transcript from Royal Irvin; and a copy of Respondent's national certification as a massage therapist. Subsequently, on March 13, 2007, the Department notified Respondent that her application had been granted and that she would be mailed her license in four to six weeks. Six weeks came and went without a license, at which point Respondent contacted the Department and learned that certain documentation was missing. Unsure of what records the Department still required, Respondent contacted Ms. Johnson, who, in turn, furnished the Department with an FCNH document titled "Certificate of Completion – 2 Hours of Prevention of Medical Errors." This certificate bore FCNH's seal, as well as Ms. Johnson's signature. Collectively, the credit transfer form, the FCNH certificates, and the FCNH transcript "signify satisfactory completion of the requirements of an educational or career program of study or training or course of study" and constitute a "diploma" within the meaning of that term as defined in section 1005.02(8), Florida Statutes. (These documents, which Respondent's FCNH diploma comprises, will be referred to hereafter, collectively, as the "Diploma.") Although the Department seeks to characterize the issuance of Respondent's license as a "mistake" on its part, such a contention is refuted by the final hearing testimony of Anthony Jusevitch, the executive director of the Board. Mr. Jusevitch testified, credibly, that Respondent's application materials contained no facial irregularities or flaws that would have justified a denial: Q. Okay. Now, based on both your experience, and your review of this application file, is there anything in that application file that you would see that would be an apparent error or omission in this file? A. No, there's nothing in this file that's an apparent error or omission. Final Hearing Transcript, p. 20. Subsequent Events In December 2011, an individual with the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork ("NCB") placed a telephone call to Melissa Wade, an FCNH managerial employee, to report that the NCB had received a number of applications to sit for the National Certification Examination (which the NCB administers) from FCNH graduates whose transcripts seemed irregular. What these applicants had in common was that they had earned their massage therapy diplomas from Royal Irvin, and that the same member of FCNH's administration——i.e., Ms. Johnson——had accepted their transfer credits. The NCB sent copies of the suspicious credentials to FCNH. Ms. Wade reviewed the materials and detected some anomalies in them. She was unable to find records in the school's files confirming that the putative graduates in question had been enrolled as students. Ms. Wade confronted Ms. Johnson, who admitted that she had created and signed the problematic certificates, but denied——untruthfully, at least with respect to her dealings with Respondent——ever having taken money for doing so. (Ms. Johnson provided the rather dubious explanation that she had been merely trying to "help" people.) Ms. Johnson's employment with FCNH was terminated a short time later. Thereafter, Ms. Wade notified the Department that some of FCNH's diplomates might not have fulfilled the requirements for graduation. This caused the Department to launch an investigation, with which FCNH cooperated. The investigation uncovered approximately 220 graduates, including Respondent, whose credentials FCNH could not confirm. At present, Respondent has neither surrendered her Diploma, nor has she otherwise acceded to the allegation that the credentials FCNH conferred upon her are invalid. Although the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Johnson should not have awarded Respondent an FCNH Diploma (because, among other reasons, Respondent had not completed two hours of board- approved coursework in the area of medical error prevention), there is no evidence that FCNH has initiated a legal proceeding to revoke or withdraw Respondent's Diploma. At present, therefore, there is no legally binding or enforceable determination that the Diploma is void or that Respondent is without rights and privileges thereunder. Further, and just as important, it has not been shown that Respondent provided Ms. Johnson (or any other FCNH employee) with false information, nor does the evidence support a finding that Respondent knew or should have known that Ms. Johnson's issuance of the Diploma was anything but routine and in accordance with FCNH's academic policies. Under the circumstances, it was entirely reasonable for Respondent to rely upon Ms. Johnson's representations, as Respondent was entitled under the law to receive accurate information from FCNH concerning, among other things, the transferability of credits to FCNH, as well as the relationship between FCNH's academic program and the state's licensure requirements for massage therapists.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the offenses charged in the Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 6th day of August, 2013.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED as follows: That the license to practice massage issued to Joan Celeste Jalbert, Massage License #2345, be suspended for a period of 30 days. ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1975 in Tallahassee, Florida. G. Steven Pfeiffer Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida COPIES FURNISHED: Owen McGovern, Jr., Esquire John S. Miller, Jr., Esquire Florida Board of Massage Post Office Box 20148 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and Rule 64B7-26.010(1) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, by engaging in sexual misconduct with a massage client, and thereby violated Section 480.046(1(k), Florida Statutes; and, if yes, what penalty should be imposed on his license to practice massage therapy.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (Department), is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of massage therapy in the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 480, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Miodrag Visacki (Respondent), was at all times material hereto, a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA23741. A. R. is a female who resides in Rhode Island. At the times material to this proceeding, A. R. was 18 years old and was on vacation with members of her family in Florida. During this vacation, A. R. and her family were staying in a condominium unit at the Long Boat Key Resort in Longboat Key, Florida. While on vacation in Longboat Key, Florida, A. R. and her aunt decided to obtain massages. They looked at advertisements for massage therapy in the newspaper, and then called telephone numbers listed in several different advertisements. After calling several of the telephone numbers, A. R. and her aunt decided to order massage services from one of the advertisements. On April 21, 2000, A. R.'s aunt called the number listed in one of the advertisements to set up appointments for April 22, 2000. On April 22, 2000, Respondent went to the condominium unit in which A. R. and her aunt and parents were staying to perform the massages. When Respondent arrived there, he identified himself as Michael. Prior to beginning the massages, Respondent requested that A. R. and her aunt fill out client intake forms that elicited information about the purpose or the reason for the massage, the "areas requiring specific attention," and the "areas preferred not to be worked on." On the client intake form, A. R. indicated that she wanted a relaxation massage. With regard to areas requiring special attention, A. R. noted, "legs, neck, and back." A. R. indicated that the areas she preferred not to be worked on were her face and head. Respondent set his table up in the living room of the condominium unit and began the massage of A. R. When Respondent began the massage, A. R.'s aunt was in the kitchen, which was adjacent to the living room. Soon after Respondent began with the massage of A. R., her aunt left the kitchen and went to a bedroom in the condominium unit. At the beginning of her massage, A. R. was wearing a bra and her underwear, was lying on her back, and was covered by a sheet. Approximately 15 minutes after the massage began and after A. R.'s aunt left the kitchen and went to one of the bedrooms, Respondent pulled down A. R.'s bra and proceeded to massage her breasts and nipples. Respondent then asked A. R. if she enjoyed his massaging her breast and nipples to which she responded "no." After A. R. told Respondent that she did not want him to massage her breasts and nipples, he began massaging her ankles, working his way up her legs, vagina, and stomach. Respondent removed A. R.'s underwear during the massage although he never asked for her permission to do so and she never consented to his doing so. In an attempt to stop Respondent from massaging her vagina, A. R. turned over on her stomach. While A. R. was laying on her stomach, Respondent penetrated A. R.'s vagina and anus with his finger while alternately massaging her back, shoulders, and buttocks. During A. R.'s massage, two sheets were used to cover her. Throughout the massage, A. R. was covered from the waist up by one of the sheets. However, Respondent continually moved or adjusted the sheet that was to cover A. R. from the waist down so that it was "half on, half off." At no time prior to or during the massage did A. R. give her consent to Respondent to remove the sheet draping her body so as to expose her buttocks and genitalia. When Respondent finished the massage of A. R., she spoke to her aunt briefly and indicated that something was wrong, but she did not reveal the full details of what had occurred during the massage. Respondent then proceeded to massage A. R.'s aunt. While her aunt was receiving her massage, A. R. went to the bathroom, washed up, changed, and waited for Respondent to finish her aunt's massage. A. R. was in "total confusion" and after Respondent completed her aunt's massage, A. R. urged her to pay Respondent so he could leave the condominium. After Respondent left the condominium, A. R. divulged to her aunt some, but not all, of the details of what had occurred during the massage. A. R. and her aunt then left the condominium and went to the nearby beach area where A. R.'s parents were and informed them about what had occurred during the massage. A. R.'s mother immediately called the Longboat Key Police Department and police officers were dispatched to the condominium that day. When Officer Heidi Blake Micale arrived at the condominium, A. R. confided in and reported to her the conduct engaged in by Respondent during the massage. As part of its investigation of the April 22, 2000, incident, the Longboat Key Police Department contacted Respondent and scheduled an interview with him. On April 24, 2000, Lieutenant Detective Christina Roberts interviewed Respondent regarding the incident. During the interview, Respondent admitted to massaging A. R.'s breasts, including the nipple area. As justification, in explaining his actions, Respondent indicated that he massaged A. R.'s breasts because they were not listed on the intake form as one of the "areas preferred not to be worked on." As evidence of this, Respondent provided Lieutenant Detective Roberts with a copy of the intake form that A. R. had completed prior to the massage. Prior to her encounter with Respondent, and while in Rhode Island, A. R. had received numerous massages for sports related injuries and she continues to receive such massages. However, A. R. has never encountered sexual conduct by any massage therapist other than Respondent. Respondent's actions with regard to massaging A. R.'s breasts and/or nipples may or were likely to cause erotic arousal. Furthermore, this conduct by Respondent constitutes sexual activity and is outside the scope of the practice of massage. Respondent's actions of penetrating A. R.'s vagina and anus may or were likely to cause erotic arousal. This conduct by Respondent constitutes sexual activity and is outside the scope of the practice of massage.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 480.046(1)(k), Florida Statutes, Section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and Rule 64B7-26.010(1) and (3), Florida Administrative Code; imposing a $1000.00 fine against Respondent; and revoking Respondent's license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Miodrag Visacki 454 North Jefferson Avenue Sarasota, Florida 34237 Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Lori C. Desnick, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Ft. Knox Building 3, Mail Station 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
