The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the 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 August 1, 2007, the Department issued Respondent license number MA 50975, which authorized her to practice massage therapy in the state of Florida. Respondent's address of record is 3558 Silver Lace Lane, Boynton Beach, Florida 33436. 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. In or around September 2005, Respondent immigrated to the United States and became a citizen of the state of Massachusetts. Some six months later, Respondent relocated to Florida, where she resided until December 2006; at that point, Respondent moved to California to attend Royal Irvin College ("Royal Irvin"), an institution that offered massage therapy instruction. On March 14, 2007, upon Respondent's successful completion of a course of study comprising 500 hours, Royal Irvin awarded her a degree. Subsequently, on July 12, 2007, Respondent passed the National Certification Examination for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork. At or around that time, Respondent relocated to Pompano Beach area to seek employment as a massage therapist. 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. At the suggestion of an acquaintance, Respondent decided to contact the Florida College of Natural Health ("FCNH"), a Board-approved massage school located in Pompano Beach. An initial inquiry of FCNH was made by Respondent's ex-husband, who, at Respondent's request, telephoned the institution and spoke with one of its employees. Thereafter, on or about July 27, 2007, Respondent and her ex-husband traveled to FCNH's campus and met with the institution's registrar, Glenda Johnson. Respondent's ensuing dealings with Ms. Johnson and her 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).2/ 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 246, F.S. [now Ch. 1005, Fla. Stat.], 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.3/ 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. Units or credits applied toward the award of a credential may be derived from a combination of any or all of the following: Units or credits earned at and transferred from other postsecondary institutions, when congruent and applicable to the receiving institution's program and when validated and confirmed by the receiving institution. Successful completion of challenge examinations or standardized tests demonstrating learning at the credential level in specific subject matter areas. Prior learning, as validated, evaluated, and confirmed by qualified instructors at the receiving institution. * * * (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.4/ 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 FCNH's registrar, Ms. Johnson, on July 27, 2007. Notably, Ms. Johnson possessed actual authority, on that date and at all relevant times, to generate official transcripts and diplomas on behalf of FCNH.5/ 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 Pompano Beach campus. Upon Respondent's arrival at the main entrance, a receptionist summoned Ms. Johnson, who, a short time later, appeared in the lobby and escorted Respondent (and Respondent's ex-husband) to her office. During the meeting that ensued, Respondent reiterated, with her limited English skills, her desire to obtain licensure in Florida as a massage therapist. To that end, Respondent presented Ms. Johnson with various documents, which included her diploma and transcript from Royal Irvin, as well as proof of her national certification. At one point during the meeting, and in response to a question from Respondent's ex-husband, Ms. Johnson informed Respondent——erroneously——that her existing coursework was sufficient for licensure and that Respondent could simply transfer her previously-earned credits to FCNH. (Among other things, Ms. Johnson should have advised Respondent that Board- approved coursework in "HIV/AIDS," which Respondent did not complete until after6/ the Complaint was filed in this matter, was required for licensure.) All Respondent needed to do, Ms. Johnson incorrectly explained, was read an FCNH-prepared booklet concerning the prevention of medical errors. Consistent with Ms. Johnson's instructions, Respondent took the booklet7/ home and reviewed its contents. As the meeting progressed, Ms. Johnson collected $468.00 in fees from Respondent and helped her complete a three- page form titled, "State of Florida Application for Massage Therapist Licensure." In the application, 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. (Although the evidence establishes that Respondent failed to review the rules and statutes pertaining to massage therapy prior to signing the application——the plain language of which requires applicants to certify that the rules and statutes have been read——the Department failed to charge this conduct in the Complaint.) Thereafter, and on Respondent's behalf, Ms. Johnson submitted to the Department Respondent's application for licensure. The application was accompanied by a number of supporting documents, including two "Certificates of Completion," both of which bore Ms. Johnson's signature and FCNH's official seal. The first such certificate reflected that Respondent had satisfied a two-hour course relating to the prevention of medical errors, while the second indicated the completion of a "Therapeutic Massage Training Program (Transfer of Licensure)." The application package prepared and submitted by Ms. Johnson also contained: a "Transfer of Credit Form" signed by Ms. Johnson, which indicated that FCNH accepted Respondent's credits from Royal Irvin, and, further, that Respondent's coursework at Royal Irvin included a three-credit course concerning "HIV/AIDS"; an FCNH transcript that bore Ms. Johnson's signature and indicated that Respondent had completed a 500-hour program titled "Therapeutic Massage Training Program (Transfer of Licensure)"; Respondent's diploma and transcript from Royal Irvin; and proof of Respondent's national certification as a massage therapist. 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.") Subsequently, on August 1, 2007, the Department issued Respondent her license to practice massage therapy. With the exception of the instant proceeding, there is no evidence that Respondent's license has been the subject of prior disciplinary action. 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, a managerial employee of FCNH, 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. 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 with the problematic transcripts and certificates. Ms. Johnson admitted that she had created and signed them, but she denied——falsely, 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.) Shortly thereafter, in December 2011, FCNH terminated Ms. Johnson's employment. 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 240 graduates, including Respondent, whose credentials FCNH could not confirm. Respondent has not surrendered her Diploma or otherwise acceded to the allegation that the credentials FCNH conferred upon her are invalid. Although Ms. Wade credibly testified at hearing that Ms. Johnson should not have awarded Respondent an FCNH Diploma based on Respondent's Royal Irvin credits, 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 18th day of July, 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 18th day of July, 2013.
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.
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 June 18, 2009, the Department issued Respondent license number MA 56426, which authorized her to practice massage therapy in the state of Florida. Respondent's address of record is 7027 West Broward Boulevard, Box 278, Plantation, Florida 33317. The Events Respondent was born in China and, at all times relevant to this proceeding, was a citizen of China. In 2006, Respondent immigrated to the United States and, some two years later, enrolled at Royal Irvin College ("Royal Irvin"), an institution located in Monterey Park, California, that offered massage therapy instruction. In March 2009, upon Respondent's successful completion of a course of study comprising 500 classroom hours, Royal Irvin awarded her a degree. Subsequently, on May 22, 2009, Respondent passed the National Certification Examination for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork. At or around that time, and in response to a help- wanted advertisement, Respondent relocated to Florida to pursue a career in massage therapy. Upon Respondent's arrival in Florida, her potential employer, Woody McLane, advised her that she needed to obtain a Florida license in order to be hired as a massage therapist. Owing to the fact that Royal Irvin was not a Board-approved massage school, only two paths to licensure were available to Respondent: complete a course of study at an approved institution; or, alternatively, satisfy the requirements of an apprenticeship program. On May 26, 2009, Respondent and Mr. McLane traveled to the Pompano Beach campus of the Florida College of Natural Health ("FCNH"), a Board-approved massage school. Respondent's ensuing dealings with FCNH's registrar 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- 32.003 (Oct. 30, 2007), 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 (2008), 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. Units or credits applied toward the award of a credential may be derived from a combination of any or all of the following: Units or credits earned at and transferred from other postsecondary institutions, when congruent and applicable to the receiving institution's program and when validated and confirmed by the receiving institution. Successful completion of challenge examinations or standardized tests demonstrating learning at the credential level in specific subject matter areas. Prior learning, as validated, evaluated, and confirmed by qualified instructors at the receiving institution. * * * (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 such as Royal Irvin, which are 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 FCNH's registrar, Glenda Johnson, on May 26, 2009. Notably, Ms. Johnson possessed actual authority, on that date and at all relevant times, to generate official transcripts and diplomas on behalf of FCNH.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 Pompano Beach campus. Upon Respondent's arrival at the main entrance, a receptionist summoned Ms. Johnson, who, a short time later, appeared in the lobby and escorted Respondent and Mr. McLane (as noted previously, Respondent's potential employer) to her office. During the meeting that ensued, Respondent reiterated (with her limited English skills) her desire to obtain licensure in Florida as a massage therapist. To that end, Respondent presented Ms. Johnson with various documents, which included her diploma and transcript from Royal Irvin, as well as proof of her national certification. From what can be fairly inferred from the record, it appears that Ms. Johnson led Respondent to believe, erroneously, that her existing coursework and credentials were sufficient for licensure and that all Respondent needed to do was transfer her previously-earned credits to FCNH. (Among other things, Ms. Johnson should have informed Respondent that Board-approved coursework in "HIV/AIDS" and the "prevention of medical errors"——neither of which Respondent completed until after7/ the Complaint was filed in this matter——was required8/ for licensure.) As the meeting progressed, Ms. Johnson made copies of Respondent's records and asked her to sign an FCNH enrollment agreement, which Respondent did. The agreement reflects (and Respondent's credible testimony confirms) that, on the date of their meeting, Ms. Johnson collected a cash payment from Respondent totaling $418.98.9/ Ms. Johnson also furnished Respondent with a receipt, the face of which indicated that the payment was for a "transfer of [licensure]." In addition to the enrollment agreement, Respondent signed a three-page form titled, "State of Florida Application for Massage Therapist Licensure." In the application, 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. At the end of the meeting, Ms. Johnson advised Respondent that no further action on her part was required and that all she need do was "go home and wait." Thereafter, and on Respondent's behalf, Ms. Johnson submitted to the Department Respondent's application for licensure. The application was accompanied by a number of supporting documents, including two "Certificates of Completion," both of which bore Ms. Johnson's signature and FCNH's official seal. The first such certificate reflected that Respondent had satisfied a two-hour course relating to the prevention of medical errors, while the second indicated the completion of a "Therapeutic Massage Training Program (Transfer of Licensure)." The application package prepared and submitted by Ms. Johnson also contained: a "Transfer of Credit Form" signed by Ms. Johnson, which indicated that FCNH accepted Respondent's credits from Royal Irvin, and, further, that Respondent's coursework at Royal Irvin included a two-credit class involving the prevention of medical errors and a three-credit course concerning "HIV/AIDS"; an FCNH transcript that bore Ms. Johnson's signature and indicated that Respondent had completed a 500-hour program titled "Therapeutic Massage Training Program (Transfer of Licensure)"; Respondent's diploma and transcript from Royal Irvin; proof of Respondent's national certification as a massage therapist; and a copy of Respondent's permanent resident card. Notably, of the FCNH documents listed above, Respondent was aware only of the "Transfer of Credit Form" prior to the initiation of the current proceeding. 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.") Subsequently, on June 18, 2009, the Department issued Respondent her license to practice massage therapy. With the exception of the instant proceeding, there is no evidence that Respondent's license has been the subject of prior disciplinary action. In December 2011, an individual with the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork ("NCB") placed a telephone call to Melissa Wade, a managerial employee of FCNH, 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 with the problematic transcripts and certificates. Ms. Johnson admitted that she had created and signed them, but she 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.) Shortly thereafter, in December 2011, FCNH terminated Ms. Johnson's employment. 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 numerous graduates, including Respondent, whose credentials FCNH could not confirm. Respondent has not surrendered her Diploma or otherwise acceded to the allegation that the credentials FCNH conferred upon her are invalid. While Ms. Wade testified at hearing that Ms. Johnson should not have conferred Respondent an FCNH Diploma based on Respondent's Royal Irvin credits, 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.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the offenses charged in the Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 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 26th day of June, 2013.
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 issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated sections 456.072(1)(h), 456.072(1)(w), and 480.041(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes (2013). At all times relevant to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 63711. Respondent is a native of China, and immigrated to the United States in approximately 2007. She speaks limited English. Respondent wanted to become a massage therapist. To that end, Respondent attended the massage therapy training program offered at Healing Hands Institute for Massage Therapy (Healing Hands) and completed her training program on or about October 17, 2010. The program at Healing Hands consisted of a 600-hour curriculum. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Healing Hands was a school accredited by the Commission on Massage Therapy Accreditation (COMPTA) and approved by the New Jersey Board of Massage Therapy. It was not, however, a Florida board-approved school for purposes of obtaining licensure in Florida. After Respondent’s attendance at Healing Hands, the school closed in good standing with COMPTA. Healing Hands had campuses in Flushing, New York, as well as in New Jersey. Respondent completed most of her course work at the Flushing campus because there were people there who spoke Chinese, making it easier for her to understand the curriculum. While still a student at Healing Hands, Respondent took and passed the National Certification Examination for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork. She received notification that she had passed the examination by letter dated June 8, 2010. It is unclear from the letter whether it is actually dated June 8, 2010, or is referring to an examination given that date. In any event, after receiving notice that she had passed the necessary examination, Respondent applied for and received a license to practice massage therapy in the State of New Jersey. Her original license was issued February 24, 2011, and her current license in New Jersey is valid through November 30, 2014. Respondent received assistance in filling out the paperwork related to her New Jersey application from a friend named “Mike” who is a lawyer. Mike did not charge her for his assistance. According to Respondent, Mike completed the application forms for her and she reviewed them and signed them. There are no allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint to indicate that her educational program at Healing Hands was not legitimate; that she did not take and pass the National examination; or that any actions taken to obtain her New Jersey license were fraudulent. Respondent was not required to provide any additional coursework or certifications beyond her Healing Hands transcript and proof of passing her national certification exam in order to obtain her New Jersey license. Respondent wished to move to Florida because she had heard that there are good jobs in massage therapy here. She knew that she would have to obtain a Florida license in order to work in Florida. To that end, she sought assistance from a person at Healing Hands that she identified as “Sean.” Although she referred to Sean as one of her instructors who taught the majority of her courses, there is no instructor listed on her transcript whose first name is identified as Sean. Although there is no direct evidence other than Respondent’s testimony regarding Sean, it seems more likely that, rather than being an instructor, Sean was an interpreter for the students who spoke Chinese. Respondent asked Sean to assist her with the process for getting a Florida license because other students had told her he had assisted them in obtaining licenses from other states. She paid Sean $1,000.00 to cover the cost of applying for her Florida license. Some of the money was paid in cash, and some was in the form of a money order. Respondent could not remember how much of the total was in money order form. The application fee and initial license fee are significantly less than $1,000. Respondent received her license to practice massage therapy in Florida on June 5, 2011. However, what actually happened between the time she asked Sean for help and when she got her license is unclear at best. On or about March 17, 2011, Respondent’s State of Florida application for licensure as a massage therapist was submitted to the Florida Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy. The application was submitted electronically, and does not include Respondent’s signature. Respondent testified that she never filled out the application and never saw it before it was submitted to the Department of Health. While it is clear that Respondent did not personally submit the application, it is not clear who did. There is no competent evidence to demonstrate who completed the application and submitted it to the Board office. Respondent’s application indicated that she did not attend an apprenticeship program. It also indicates that, at the time of the application, she has never held a license or certificate, regardless of status, to practice any licensed profession; that she has not completed a 10-hour Florida laws and rules course; that she has not completed a two-hour course in the prevention of medical errors; and that she has not completed a three-hour HIV/AIDS course. On or about May 9, 2011, a transcript from the Florida College of Natural Health (FCNH) was submitted to the Department of Health in support of Respondent’s application. Also submitted were a Transfer of Credit Form and FCNH Certificates of Completion for 12 hours of Therapeutic Massage Training Program and two hours of Prevention of Medical Errors. Also submitted that day were a transcript from Healing Hands and a copy of the Official Candidate Score Report for the National Certification Examination for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork, indicating that Respondent had achieved a passing grade. FCNH is an incorporated, nonpublic, post-secondary educational entity which holds a license issued by the Florida Commission for Independent Education, which regulates nonpublic post-secondary institutions pursuant to section 1005.32, Florida Statutes. FCNH is also accredited by the Accrediting Commission of approved schools and Colleges and by the Commission on Massage Therapy. FCNH is a board-approved massage school as that term is defined in section 480.033. In order to be a board-approved massage school, a school is required to offer a course of study that includes, at a minimum, 500 class hours, and is also required to supply to the Board as part of its application a sample transcript and diploma; a copy of curriculum, catalog or other course descriptions; faculty credentials; and proof of licensure by the Department of Education. Fla. Admin. Code Rule 64B7-32.003. As a licensed, accredited, and board-approved massage school, FCNH was and continues to be authorized to evaluate the transferability of credits from another institution to FCNH, including schools that are not board-approved. Any transferred credits could then be applied by FCNH toward the award of a diploma from FCNH, provided that FCNH adhered to the standards in rule 64B7-32.004, and completed, signed, and attached to the school’s transcript, the Board’s Transfer of Credit form, certifying the extent to which a student’s previously-earned credits were acceptable for transfer to FCNH. While the minimum number of class hours for licensure is 500 hours, the program at FCNH consists of 768 hours. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Glenda Johnson was FCNH’s registrar. Ms. Johnson had been employed by FCNH since 1996, and had the apparent authority to evaluate the transferability of credits from other educational institutions to FCNH, and to execute a Transfer of Credit Form certifying to the Board that a student’s credits earned at another institution would be acceptable to FCNH. The Transfer of Credit form stated that FCNH had evaluated Respondent’s transcript from Healing Hands and that the evaluation was conducted on April 18, 2011. The form indicated that Respondent needed ten hours of Florida laws and rules and two hours of medical errors instruction in order to qualify for licensure. The form, which was signed by Glenda Johnson as Registrar of FCNH, accepted a total of 488 hours from Healing Hands, including three hours for HIV/AIDS education. The FCNH transcript, signed by Glenda Johnson as registrar of FCNH, indicated completion of 500 program hours, including three hours for HIV/AID education as of April 22, 2011. It indicates completion of coursework regarding prevention of medical errors or Florida laws and rules. Like the transcript and the Transfer of Credit form, the certificates of completion for Therapeutic Massage Training Program (Transfer of Licensure) and for Prevention of Medical Errors were signed by Glenda Johnson. Respondent’s transcript from Healing Hands was also submitted with the documents received by the Board office on May 9, 2011. The transcript indicates that Respondent completed a 600-hour program at Healing Hands, including three hours for HIV/AIDS awareness. It appears that the documents submitted on May 9, 2011, were most likely submitted to the Board office by Glenda Johnson, as many of them are signed by her and appear to be documents from FCNH, where she worked. As registrar of the school, Ms. Johnson had the apparent authority to evaluate Respondent’s hours at Healing Hands for transfer, and that evaluation can be performed electronically. In other words, a student did not have to visit a FCNH campus in order for his or her prior credits to be evaluated for transfer. Neither Ms. Johnson nor Sean testified at hearing. Respondent testified that she never met Ms. Johnson and never set foot on any of FCNH’s campuses. While it was assumed at hearing that Sean conspired with Ms. Johnson to create false documents in order for Respondent to obtain a Florida license, there was no competent evidence from which such a finding can be made. There is no evidence from which it can be determined whether Sean was complicit in fraud or being duped by Ms. Johnson. The only finding that can be made based on the evidence presented is that someone submitted, on Respondent’s behalf, documents that indicate that sufficient credits were transferred from Healing Hands to FCNH, a board-approved school; completion of all required courses; successful completion of the national examination; and that those documents on their face were sufficient to demonstrate Respondent met the requirements for licensure. Melissa Wade is a managerial employee of FCNH. At some point after Respondent received her license, Ms. Wade received a telephone call from someone from the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork (NCB) to report that NCB had received several applications to sit for the national certification examination from purported FCNH graduates whose transcripts seemed irregular. Respondent was not among those individuals identified as having suspicious credentials, as she had taken the examination prior to any purported contact with FCNH. Ms. Wade reviewed the credentials for those applicants identified by NCB, and found several things in the documents that she considered to be suspicious. While these irregularities may have been red flags for Ms. Wade and those who routinely review transcripts, it is not clear that these irregularities would be apparent to a casual observer. However, the students for whom the transcripts and Transfer Forms were prepared were not found in FCNH’s records as actually being students of the school. Ms. Wade confronted Ms. Johnson regarding the irregular transcripts and certificates. Ms. Johnson was terminated by FCNH in December 2011. Ms. Wade notified the Board of Massage that some people who had applied for licensure as graduates of FCNH might not have met the requirements for graduation. The Department initiated an investigation, with which FCNH cooperated. This investigation uncovered approximately 200 graduates, including Respondent, whose credentials FCNH could not confirm. Although Ms. Wade reviewed Respondent’s documents that comprise Respondent’s application for licensure and testified that Ms. Johnson did not have the authority to evaluate the hours from Healing Hands for transfer to FCNH, she did not testify that the courses which were purportedly accepted for transfer would in fact be unacceptable. Anthony Jusevitch, Executive Director for the Board of Massage Therapy, testified that typically it is the school, as opposed to the applicant, that submits transcripts and certificates regarding completion of curriculum requirements. There was no credible, competent evidence to indicate exactly who decided to create the documents submitted to the Board of Massage on Respondent’s behalf, or that Respondent knew of or authorized their creation. What is clear, however, is that Respondent did not know of their creation or their submission to the Board office. Once Respondent was notified of the alleged deficiency in her credentials for her Florida license, she took two home- study courses through Life Education of Florida on the subjects of Medical Errors and HIV/AIDS, for two and three hours, respectively. She also took a Florida Laws and Rules course for 10 hours through Advanced Massage Techniques’ online program. The use of continuing education courses is valid for obtaining initial licensure. Respondent currently meets all of the requirements for licensure in the State of Florida. She continues to live in New Jersey. It was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent had any intent to defraud the Department or the Board. However, at the time her licensure application was processed by the Board staff, Respondent did not meet the requirements for licensure because she had not taken the required prevention of medical errors and Florida Laws and Rules courses.
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 dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 9th day of September, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Hae Suk Bornholdt, committed the offense alleged in an Amended Administrative Complaint issued June 12, 2000, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed upon Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), is the state agency charged with the authority and duty to regulate the practice of massage therapy in the State of Florida. Chapters 20, 456, and 480, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Hae Suk Bornholdt, applied for licensure as a massage therapist in the State of Florida on December 1, 1999. Ms. Bornholdt's application for licensure was approved and she was licensed as a massage therapist in the State of Florida effective December 28, 1999. Respondent's license number is MA 30419. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Bornholdt was employed by Fame Limited, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Fame"). Fame is located at 4799 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida. Fame is a massage establishment. On December 2, 1999, an undercover policy investigation was begun of Fame in response to anonymous complaints of sexual activities between massage therapists and male clients of Fame. Robert F. Flechus, a detective with the Boca Raton Police Department, entered Fame posing as a client. Detective Flechus paid $80 for a massage. He was greeted by Ms. Bornholdt, who identified herself as "Tina." Ms. Bornholdt led Detective Flechus to a locker room where he undressed, left his clothes in a locker, and wrapped a towel around himself. Detective Flechus took a sauna and was then led by Ms. Bornholdt to a shower room where he showered. Ms. Bornholdt washed Detective Flechus, including his buttocks, with a sponge. After showering, Ms. Bornholdt led Detective Flechus into a room where she gave him a massage. During the massage, Ms. Bornholdt suggested that Detective Flechus masturbate while she massaged his stomach. When he refused, Ms. Bornholdt took Detective Flechus' hand and attempted to place it on his penis. Detective Flechus immediately pulled his hand away. Ms. Bornholdt then removed the towel that was partially covering Detective Flechus' genitalia and began to stroke his penis. Detective Flechus stopped Ms. Bornholdt and got up off the massage table. Ms. Bornholdt failed to properly drape Detective Flechus when she allowed his penis to be exposed to her during the shower and while he was on the massage table. Ms. Bornholdt was not licensed as a massage therapist on December 2, 1999. Ms. Bornholdt acted as a massage therapist with Detective Flechus and other clients prior to receiving her license on December 28, 1999. Detective Flechus' testimony in this matter was clear, consistent, and credible. Ms. Bornholdt's testimony on the other hand was inconsistent, unconvincing, and not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Massage Therapy finding that Hae Suk Bornholdt committed the offense alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued on June 12, 2000; it is further RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage revoke Ms. Bornholdt's license to practice massage therapy and assess the costs of investigating and prosecuting this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis G. King, Esquire Rudolph C. Campbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Lawrence K. Fagan, Esquire LaValle, Brown, Ronan & Soff 750 South Dixie Highway Boca Raton, Florida 33432 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
