The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy, in violation of section 480.0485, Florida Statutes; engaged in improper sexual activity, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7-26.010; or failed to appropriately drape a client, in violation of section 480.046(1)(i); and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department, Board of Massage Therapy, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy within the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. Mr. Pruneda is a licensed massage therapist within the state of Florida, having been issued license number MA 63779. Mr. Pruneda's current address and address of record is 18 Walcott Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida 33426. On or about November 13, 2016, Mr. Pruneda was employed at Shanti Ohm Spa at 321 Northeast Second Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444. On or about November 13, 2016, Patient L.G., a 29-year- old female, received a massage from Mr. Pruneda. Patient L.G. had received massages about 20 times before, and had received a massage from Mr. Pruneda on one prior occasion. The spa was normally closed on Sundays, but Patient L.G. called and requested massage appointments for massages for herself and her fiancé for Sunday, November 13, 2016. Mr. Pruneda testified that when an appointment for a massage is made, the receptionist gives the names of the massage therapists and the patient chooses among them. However, Patient L.G. testified that she did not request Mr. Pruneda. In any event, the spa made special arrangements for Mr. Pruneda and another massage therapist to come in to the spa on that Sunday. On November 13, 2016, Patient L.G. said that after filling out some paperwork, Mr. Pruneda came into the reception area and that was when she first learned he would be her massage therapist. Before the massage began, Patient L.G. disrobed and lay face-down on the massage table and covered herself with a large draping. Patient L.G. was wearing her underwear but no bra. Patient L.G. testified that at the beginning of the massage, Mr. Pruneda spent an excessive amount of time massaging the backs of her legs and that the strokes were coming very close to her buttocks, making her feel uncomfortable. After he moved on to her lower back, the massage went quickly, and she said that she remembered wishing he would spend more time on her back. After her back, he massaged her arms. Then Mr. Pruneda asked Patient L.G. to turn over onto her back, and Patient L.G. complied. Patient L.G. credibly testified that when she turned over, Mr. Pruneda did not avert his eyes and that he then failed to properly drape her, so she had to cover her breasts with the blanket herself. She did not give consent for him to leave her undraped. Patient L.G. testified that Mr. Pruneda again spent an excessive amount of time massaging the tops of her legs and that she felt his hand going under the strap of her underwear. She testified that he then moved her underwear aside and touched her genital area. She testified that she told him "no, no, no, no." She said that her eyes were closed and that she was in shock and fear. Patient L.G. testified that he had his hand on her shoulder and said to her, "If you say no it is no, if you say yes it is yes." She said that he did not try to improperly touch her again. She said that she felt uncomfortable and she adjusted the blanket. She testified that Mr. Pruneda continued the massage on her arms, up to the top, and then massaged her shoulders. Patient L.G. did not give informed consent for Mr. Pruneda to remove the draping from her breasts. Patient L.G. did not give informed consent for Mr. Pruneda to adjust or remove her underwear. Mr. Pruneda agreed that he had performed a massage on Patient L.G. on one prior occasion, but his testimony was otherwise contrary to that of Patient L.G.'s in every relevant aspect. He denied that he exposed Patient L.G's breasts, failed to appropriately drape her breasts, pulled aside her underwear, or touched her genital area. He testified that he simply performed a deep tissue massage with the appropriate level of care and professionalism. Mr. J.N., Patient L.G.'s fiancé, testified that although he and Patient L.G. each had an appointment for a 60-minute massage, his massage was completed first, and he had to wait for 10 to 15 minutes for his fiancé to complete hers. He said that when she came out, he noticed discomfort on her face and asked her if everything was okay. She replied that it was. On the way home, he asked her two more times if everything was okay, receiving the same response. He testified that when they had almost arrived at the house, she finally told him that she had been the victim of sexual misconduct. Patient L.G. confirmed this account, explaining that she said nothing to her fiancé in response to his questioning until they were close to the house to avoid an incident at the spa. Patient L.G. testified that after she returned to the house, she called the spa to report what had happened and, a couple of days later, also contacted the police. Mr. Pruneda introduced Exhibit R-3, a "Square Sales List" from Shanti Ohm Spa, which contained entries dated November 13, 2016, showing a tip of $20 from Patient L.G. to "Jorge," and a tip of $20 from J.N. to his therapist. The list also shows a single line drawn through the tip of $20 from Patient L.G. There was speculation at hearing that this was because the tip was later returned to Patient L.G., but no evidence from spa personnel was offered to explain the entries on the list. Mr. Pruneda argues that Patient L.G. would not have left a tip had she actually been sexually assaulted. Patient L.G. admitted at hearing that she did leave a $20 tip for Mr. Pruneda. She stated that she believed if she failed to do so, her fiancé would realize something was wrong and that she wished to avoid an incident while at the spa. Mr. Pruneda introduced into evidence a copy of a November 14, 2016, posting from a social media internet site belonging to a business specializing in cosmetic makeovers. The document showed Patient L.G. after a cosmetic makeover and contained her comment stating, "Thank you so much . . . I had so much fun today and feel amazing!! Off to rock this photo shoot thanks to you ladies!!" While Mr. Pruneda argues that this social media posting showed that Patient L.G.'s attitude on November 14, 2016, was completely inconsistent with that of a person who had actually suffered a sexual assault on the previous day, this argument is not accepted. Patient L.G. admitted the posting, but explained that the appointment had been made some time before, could not be rescheduled, and that she was obliged to go on with the session in order to meet deadlines for her upcoming wedding. Both the original and the Amended Administrative Complaint also charged that Mr. Pruneda touched Patient L.G.'s breasts without her consent. Further, Ms. Mason, expert witness of Petitioner, testified by deposition, based in part upon her review of the administrative report that had been prepared, that she was of the opinion that Mr. Pruneda's improper touching of Patient L.G.'s breasts constituted sexual misconduct. Yet at hearing, no evidence of Mr. Pruneda improperly touching or trying to massage Patient L.G.'s breasts was presented.1/ At that time, Patient L.G., the only person who could have made such an accusation, testified: Q: Did Mr. Pruneda ever try to massage anywhere on your chest? A: He was massaging my shoulder area. But no. Patient L.G. testified that after the incident, she was very upset for a very long time. Mr. J.N. testified that Patient L.G. felt nervous and had breakdowns. He testified that their relationship had changed a little bit, but that they were working to make it better and improve it going forward. Patient L.G.'s testimony as to the events that took place at the Shanti Ohm Spa on November 13, 2016, was precise, clear, and convincing. Ms. Mason credibly testified that she was familiar with the standards of practice of massage therapists in Florida and that the failure to properly drape a patient without express permission falls below those standards. Mr. Pruneda was fired from Shanti Ohm Spa.2/ He was restricted from the practice of massage therapy on female patients and, at the time of hearing, was no longer working as a massage therapist. Ms. Escalas testified that she has been married to Mr. Pruneda for 20 years and had been with him several years before they were married. She testified that the charges against him have damaged their lives and that it has been shameful to have to admit that he was being investigated. She testified that he was now working in a cleaning company, and eventually, would be working at a shower door company, but was making less money than he made as a massage therapist. Ms. Lima testified that although Mr. Pruneda is not her biological father, he has been just like her father for 20 years. She said that he has always demonstrated high values as a person and that he has never acted badly in all of that time. She testified that the accusations have greatly damaged the family. Mr. Pruneda has been licensed as a massage therapist for 30 years. Mr. Pruneda has never had any prior discipline imposed in connection with his massage therapy license. The case management system of the Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, contains no record of felony, criminal traffic, or misdemeanor charges involving Mr. Pruneda.
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 Jorge L. Pruneda in violation of sections 480.0485 and 480.046(1)(i) and rule 64B7-26.010; imposing a fine of $3,500; revoking his license to practice massage therapy; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 480, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Joyce Ann Borcina, is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 0011685. Respondent was, at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of Joy Therapeutic Massage, Inc., which was, at those times, a licensed massage establishment, license number MM 0002999, located at 2298 Northwest Second Avenue, office number 21, Boca Raton, Florida. As of the date of hearing, Joy Therapeutic Massage, Inc., was not licensed as a massage establishment. On or about July 15, 1993, an officer of the City of Boca Raton Police Department, operating undercover, received massage services from "Debby" at Joy Therapeutic Massage, Inc. The Officer paid $40 for the massage, tipped Debby $10, and asked her whether there "were any other services available?" Debby replied that she would be able to massage him both topless and bottomless for $100. On July 19, 1993, the Officer, again acting undercover, received massage services from respondent at Joy Therapeutic Massage, Inc. During the course of that massage, the Officer told respondent that the prior massage therapist had "said that I could get a massage and that she would be topless and bottomless." Respondent replied that "she couldn't do that unless she got to know me a little better." Notwithstanding, when the Officer turned over on his back to continue the massage, respondent began disrobing until she was naked and, as she began to massage him again grabbed his penis. The Officer declined, what he perceived and apparently was, an attempt to masturbate him, but inquired, as he was preparing to leave, whether "there [was] anything else we can do?" Respondent replied, "that maybe next time, as long as I could get to know her a little better." The Officer then paid respondent $50 for the massage and left. On July 27, 1993, the Officer, still operating undercover, kept an appointment for a massage with respondent at Joy Therapeutic Massage, Inc. At the commencement of that session, while she was disrobing, respondent agreed to engage in "regular sex" with the Officer for $100. Shortly thereafter, when she had finished disrobing, the Officer identified himself as a police officer and placed respondent under arrest. According to the court records filed in this case [Petitioner's exhibit 4], respondent pled nolo contendere to a one-count violation of Section 480.047(1)(c), Florida Statutes, which renders it unlawful for any person to "[p]ermit an employed person to practice massage unless duly licensed," a first degree misdemeanor. In response to such plea, the court withheld adjudication of guilt, placed respondent on probation for a term of six months, with the special condition that she perform thirty-five hours of community service, and imposed court costs of $105. Respondent offered no proof at hearing to explain the circumstances surrounding her plea of nolo contendere.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding respondent guilty of the charges set forth in Counts Two through Four of the administrative complaint, dismissing Count One of the administrative complaint, and revoking respondent's license as a massage therapist. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of March 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March 1995.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy, in violation of section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (Petitioner or Board), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43, and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. Stipulated Facts At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed massage therapist in the state of Florida, holding license number MA48984. Respondent’s current address of record is 4069 Old Mill Cove Trail West, Jacksonville, Florida 32277. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent worked for Massage Envy, a massage establishment in Jacksonville, Florida. On or about August 28, 2020, Respondent performed a massage on A.M., a 32-year-old female. In preparation for her massage, A.M. undressed, laid down on a massage table, and covered herself with a draping. In the course of the massage, Respondent uncovered A.M.'s right leg and massaged her quadricep. Sexual misconduct is outside the scope of generally accepted practices of massage therapy. No massage therapist may engage in sexual misconduct with his or her patient. Facts Adduced at Hearing Respondent was educated in massage therapy, and has practiced massage therapy for roughly 13 years. As part of his education, he received education in ethics and professional conduct. He has also received continuing education as part of his Florida licensure. His education included instruction that sexual misconduct is not allowed. Respondent worked for Massage Envy at two of its Jacksonville branches, though he was released after the report of the August 28, 2020, incident. He also works as a massage therapist for the Jacksonville Jaguars professional football team. Respondent indicated that if a client raises a sexual issue during a massage, a massage therapist is instructed to give the client every opportunity to correct their pattern of behavior and/or try to divert the behavior back to the massage. If the client persists, the therapist may ask the client to stop or leave the room. Respondent testified that prior to August 28, 2020, he had not been accused of misconduct of any form in connection with his practice of massage therapy, nor had a client objected about his touching them inappropriately during a massage. There was no evidence to the contrary. A.M. was a regular client of Respondent on a generally month-to- month basis, having become a member at Massage Envy in July 2015. She received massages on a monthly basis until services were suspended for an undisclosed period due to Covid-19. The Massage Envy facility had reopened at some time prior to August 28, 2020. Respondent was A.M.’s primary massage therapist, though she was treated by another massage therapist, Ross, when Respondent was unavailable or when A.M. saw him by choice to provide specialty service. Ross was regarded as being particularly skilled in treating the neck area. A.M. and Respondent had no interaction, professional, social, or otherwise, outside of Massage Envy. A.M. and Respondent would talk during treatment. The subject matter previously varied, and A.M. may have occasionally strayed into areas that could be perceived as inappropriate, but there was nothing to cause concern on Respondent’s part that would have resulted in termination of a session. A.M. typically kept her eyes closed during treatment, occasionally falling asleep. The massages generally had their desired effect of relaxation such that A.M. was often in a “massage daze” afterwards. At some time prior to the events at issue, Respondent wrote his telephone number on the back of a Massage Envy tip envelope and gave it to A.M. The reason for Respondent providing his number to A.M. was, as is the case with many of the facts of this case, disputed. A.M. testified that due to the Covid-19 outbreak, Massage Envy had closed. She stated that Respondent told her that he had been seeing clients at their homes, and gave her his number in case she wanted him to give her a massage at her home. Respondent, on the other hand, testified that he had a favorite pair of “massage pants” that were in need of repair, and that he had given them to A.M., who is a seamstress, to have her take a look at them. Respondent stated that he gave A.M. his telephone number so that she could call him to let him know if they were worth trying to fix. A.M. acknowledged that at some point during her professional relationship with Respondent, they discussed whether she could repair the pants. However, A.M. denied that he had provided her with his number when he gave her the pants, stating that it made her uncomfortable that she was not able to contact him regarding the work that it would entail. The events of August 28, 2020, could not be more contested. This is not a case of nuanced behavior. Sexual activity occurred, or it did not occur. The testimony of each is summarized as follows:1 A.M.’s Testimony A.M. testified that she appeared at Massage Envy at 9:00 a.m. on August 28, 2020, for a scheduled 90-minute massage. She undressed and laid face down on the massage table, covered by a sheet. There was no evidence as to whether A.M. completely disrobing was her routine, but neither A.M. nor Respondent indicated it to be outside of the norm. The massages with Respondent were “mostly the same order of operation,” but on the 28th, since A.M. was sore from a workout, she asked that Respondent not do a deep massage. Respondent massaged A.M.’s back, legs, and arms without incident. During the first part of the massage, A.M. engaged in conversation with Respondent. She did not believe the discussions were sexual in nature. She told Respondent about her new fitness routine and the workouts involved. Respondent noted that that he had noticed, and that she looked really good, to which A.M. replied “oh, thanks.” In the second conversation, A.M. asked Respondent to weigh in with his thoughts about a situation in which a client asked if he should take A.M. to dinner after the completion of a job. A.M. stated that she told the client “look, I'm down to go to dinner with you, but I have to let you know that I do have a partner and he will know about this.” She stated that the prospective 1 The recitation of testimony that follows is graphic and unfiltered. In a case dependent entirely on the testimony of the only two witnesses to the event, it seems necessary to consider, in full, the testimony of the only two witnesses to the event. client said “Oh, no you got me all wrong,” decided not to go through with the work, and never spoke with her again. A.M. was curious as to Respondent’s speculation as to the client’s intentions. She also indicated that although she was in a relationship, she was open to dating other men, as long as her partner knew about it. Roughly halfway through the massage, A.M. turned over so Respondent could massage the front of her body, as was normal. Respondent began to massage the quad at the front of A.M.’s upper right leg. A.M. testified that, when Respondent started massaging her quad, instead of downward strokes along the quad towards her feet, he started to massage upward and around the top of her quad behind her upper thigh until he was touching her buttocks and her vulva. As Respondent began to touch A.M., she clenched her buttocks, and asked, “Is this a thing that's happening?” Respondent started to finger A.M.’s vagina and asked, “Is this okay?” to which A.M. replied “yes, that's fine.” Respondent continued to insert his finger into A.M.’s vagina. She remembered Respondent saying, “Damn, it's so wet and tight,” to which she replied “And smooth.” A.M. testified that as Respondent fingered her vagina with one hand, he had the other on her clitoris, but would intermittently massage the nipple and areola of her right breast. A.M. testified that Respondent again remarked about how tight her vagina was, and that she responded, “My asshole is, too.” A.M. later testified that she was shocked that the event was happening, but that “when it happened I tried to enjoy it,” and put her hands over her head and moaned. A.M. testified that she did not run or resist because “I didn't know what would happen if I did. Like, I felt very vulnerable, and, I thought, you know, like, I'll just lay here and let it finish.” Although Respondent had never given A.M. reason to believe he was violent, she testified that “he is still tall and bigger than me and muscular and I was naked. I'm 4' 11. I was very vulnerable.” At no point during the incident did A.M. tell Respondent to stop. Rather, A.M. recounted that after a while, she ultimately said, “look, I'm not going to cum from this, can you please just make sure my muscles are even,” to which Respondent stated, “I guess I have to go back to doing my job.” She remembered him continuing to finger her vagina for a bit longer before he stopped and said, “I’m sorry. I'm sorry,” to which she “thanked him” and said, “Don't be sorry. I guess people just like touching me.” As Respondent concluded, A.M. asked Respondent if he had a crush on her, and told him she “would try to be better prepared the next time.” A.M. testified that Respondent then proceeded to massage her low back from underneath. She thought he may have been wiping his hands on her. He then moved to massage her shoulders, at which time A.M. said, “oh, great, I'm going to smell like pussy juice now.” She testified that Respondent then said, “you're going have guys hawking all over you from all the pheromones.” A.M. testified that as Respondent concluded, she said a few more things because it seemed awkward, and remembered Respondent saying “I wanted to do that for a long time, but, you know, had to keep it professional.” A.M. testified that after the sexual act was concluded, she told Respondent that “I actually had a sex dream about you once, but it was no big deal.” He asked “was it one of those when you felt like you were really there?” A.M. said, “yeah,” and Respondent said, “That's awesome.” She also indicated that she asked “is this why girls at the front desk are like, oh, you were with Mike, he's so amazing,” to which he just kind of laughed. A.M. also stated to Respondent “I've always honestly come here for a massage,” to which he replied “I think my clients come back to me because I use a lot of pressure.” A.M. also testified that, again after the sexual act was concluded, she told Respondent “that one time while I was receiving a massage from Ross that he had his hands on my neck and I just wondered to myself what it would be like if he choked me.” She recounted that Respondent replied that “[w]e often wonder what our clients are thinking.” Respondent finished the massage and left the room, closing the door behind him as was normal. A.M. got dressed and headed for the front desk. She noticed a clock that read 10:59 a.m., well beyond the scheduled 90- minute massage. A.M. testified that she saw Respondent in the hallway, and said “Bye. See you next time.” She testified that she was in a “massage daze” as she walked to the front desk to check out. She spoke with the manager, telling her that she felt very relaxed. She paid for the massage, and left a tip for Respondent. She did not say anything else to anyone about the massage before she left the premises. As to the reason for not alerting anyone at Massage Envy to the incident, A.M. testified that “I was confused. You know, like, obviously, I said I wasn't injured. So, maybe, you know, I thought to myself, oh, maybe that's a thing that happened and I can get over it.” Respondent’s Testimony A.M. had a 9:00 a.m. appointment with Respondent on August 28, 2020. A.M. went to the massage room alone, undressed, and laid face down on the massage table. She was draped with a sheet. Respondent testified that the appointment was normal. He greeted A.M., asked if there was anything that needed particular attention, and tried to get an understanding of what she was looking for in the massage that day. A.M. was sore from exercise, and did not want a deep massage, as she typically received. She did request a full body massage. From what he could recall, Respondent performed a “normal service,” with no specific out of the ordinary requests. Respondent has an established routine when performing massage, working around the body in a clockwise pattern to ensure that he does not skip a body part or miss something along the way. Patients typically start lying on their stomachs and, about halfway through a session, turn over. The general pattern is the same on both sides. That has been his practice since therapy school. Respondent testified that A.M.’s massage as she was positioned on her stomach was uneventful, and conversation routine. About midway through the massage, A.M. turned over, which was the normal course for a full body massage. Respondent testified that “the conversation quickly changed and it went into one of that was off the topic of massage of what we had been talking about.” He recounted three topics of conversation during the course of A.M.’s massage that started to get “off track.” First was the discussion, also a topic of A.M.’s testimony, regarding a client she had done some work for. Respondent stated that A.M. wanted his advice because “you're a guy, you might understand why he reacted this way.” Purportedly, to Respondent’s recollection, after A.M. completed the work, the client asked A.M. to dinner “and other things.” Respondent indicated that A.M. told the client “yeah, I'm cool with that, but I have to ask my boyfriend,” which caused the client to be taken aback. A.M. was curious about the client’s reaction, and wanted Respondent’s opinion as to his reaction. Respondent testified that “I guess it's because he wasn't expecting the response about your boyfriend.” Respondent testified that the question was off the topic of massage, and “a little strange and a little weird.” However, it was not to the point of what he perceived as “crossing that line.” Respondent testified that he redirected the conversation, with mixed success, back to what was needed in terms of the massage, but did not report the conversation to any other employee or manager at Massage Envy. Respondent testified that at another point in the massage, A.M. advised him that she had “a wet dream” in which Respondent performed oral sex on her. Respondent testified that he again tried to redirect the conversation to one of massage. A.M. had been a client quite a long time, and he was giving her every opportunity to continue to be a client. Finally, Respondent testified that when he started to work on A.M.’s neck, she advised him that when she was worked on by Ross, a massage therapist known for his neck work, she wondered what it would be like for him to choke her. Respondent perceived the choking to be for sexual gratification. As “shocking” as he perceived the comment to be, Respondent testified that “I tried to redirect it towards massage,” saying “Ross is good at neck work and a lot of his clients see him for neck work.” He was close to the end of the massage, tried to quickly finish the massage and said, “okay, hey, that's it, we're done.” Respondent testified that as he went to walk out of the room, A.M. noted that he forgot to work her pectoralis muscles on the upper part of her chest. Although he was already running over the scheduled time, he came back, massaged both sides for a few minutes, and left the room. It is Respondent’s normal custom to leave the room after a massage so the client can dress in privacy. Respondent testified that as A.M. left, “she said bye to me, and she goes I'll see you later.” She left him a “generous” tip -- over $30. Respondent testified that he found the nature of the conversations with A.M. to be “shocking.” However, he did not mention them to either his coworkers or management at Massage Envy. He testified that, in retrospect, he should have left the room and gone directly to management. He indicated that clients discussing topics that may be inappropriate -- politics, religion, things of a sexual nature -- are not uncommon. He tries to act professional and go about his business. He stated that, as he goes from client to client to client throughout the day, “[y]ou never think it's going to go to something like this or this point.” Respondent denied touching on or near A.M.’s vagina. Respondent denied touching A.M.’s breasts, though he did massage her pectoralis muscles along the collarbone and the upper path of the muscle tissue. Respondent denied that he experienced any type of sexual arousal during A.M.’s massage. Post-Incident Events - A.M. On August 31, 2020, while A.M. was masturbating, the events of August 28, 2020, came back to her. She came to the conclusion that what happened was wrong. Up until that point, A.M. had not told any other person about the alleged incident. The next day, September 1, 2020, A.M. went to Massage Envy to cancel her membership. She did not tell the representative about her allegations regarding Respondent. Massage Envy did not permit A.M. to cancel her membership that day. However, they allowed her to freeze her account. She could then cancel within the time needed to cancel without having to pay for another month.2 That same day, after her effort to cancel her membership proved unsuccessful, A.M. sent two text messages to Respondent. In her first, sent at 12:59 p.m., she said “Hey Mike, it’s A.M.,” to which Respondent replied at 2:12 p.m. “How are you?” A.M. then responded at 4:43 p.m.: I’m not okay I’m sad and angry over what happened Friday. I feel taken advantage of regardless of anything I said. None of what I said was an invitation to do that to me. I was in a very relaxed state of being. I’m disappointed that I built trust with you and that I paid you to do this to me. This was something I routinely made part of my fitness 2 Despite having frozen her membership, her next month’s dues were still withdrawn from her account. Massage Envy was apologetic and cancelled the membership. A.M. did not ask for a refund, and it is unclear, and ultimately irrelevant, whether she received one. and wellness the past several years. I had to cancel my membership today. I really hope you don’t do this with anyone else. A.M. then blocked Respondent from her contacts, though Respondent indicated that he did not try to reply. On September 2, 2020, A.M. discussed the incident with her friend, Dr. Ferrer-Bruker. The initial contact between A.M. and Dr. Ferrer-Bruker occurred that afternoon, when A.M. asked to discuss something “heavy.” They spoke around 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. Dr. Ferrer-Bruker recalled that A.M. told her that she received a massage from her regular massage therapist, and that he “fingered her,” and that she regretted that she did not do something different as a reaction at the time. Dr. Ferrer-Bruker tried to comfort A.M., and recommended that she go to the police, a discussion confirmed by A.M. Dr. Ferrer-Bruker remembered little else of the conversation. After having spoken with Dr. Ferrer-Bruker, A.M. filed a police report with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office (“JSO”) later in the evening on September 2, 2020. At 8:53 p.m., A.M. texted Dr. Ferrer-Bruker that “[t]hey are sending a police officer to me now.” The JSO conducted an investigation of the August 28 incident. A.M. testified that she recalled telling the police that she was shocked and terrified and scared at the time the incident was going on. However, she testified that Respondent had never previously given her reason to believe he was violent, nor had he made her feel threatened in a physical manner. Between the time A.M. made the police report and the date she reported the incident to Massage Envy, she stated that she discussed the incident with other persons. None of those persons testified and there is no other evidence of any such discussions. On September 14, 2020, A.M. reported the incident to Massage Envy. She advised the manager, Katherine Petrino, that she had a massage with Respondent on August 28, 2020. She reported that the massage started as normal, but as Respondent starting to massage her quad, he instead fingered her vagina. Later that day, A.M. emailed Ms. Petrino with an account of the incident that, despite her statement that her “[m]emory is foggy on the sequence of what else was done and said,” differed little, if at all, from her testimony. A.M. was then contacted by Redirect, a third-party investigator for Massage Envy. She restated the events to the representative. Post-Incident Events - Respondent About two weeks after August 28, 2020, Ms. Petrino, the clinic manager for Massage Envy - Harbor Village, advised Respondent that there was a complaint against him for inappropriate touching. She did not give details. Respondent was placed on suspension until further notice. A couple of days later, Respondent was contacted by the third-party investigator, and gave a statement. He testified that he told the investigator how the massage went, what body parts were worked on, and described the conversation. He advised of having received both of A.M.’s text messages on September 1, 2020, and that he did not respond to her second, lengthier message. He indicated that his discussion with the investigator was consistent with his statements at the hearing and otherwise. Social Media Starting around December 4, 2020, A.M. posted her thoughts regarding the incident on Instagram. The posts, with a few exceptions, were not dated. The text of the first post was as follows: TW: Sexual Assault I keep thinking about how the scariest thing I feel like I did this year was pick up the phone to report my abuser. I felt the most shame because I didn't think anyone would believe me because a) I'd known them so long b) they were well-loved at the place and c) I'm a sex pot so maybe it would just be “on-brand” to have “let it happen and regret it” (second quotes are actual words from a JSO officer in 2020). Please, the “brand” is pleasure. The brand is consent. The brand is joy, not confusion and fear and freezing and trying to just say anything to get through a situation. The brand is context and that it never should have happened in the first place. How sad is it that I just said the scariest thing was reporting my abuser and not the fact that it happened at all? Life is not happy and positive as a default. I've never been fake about anything, just learned that people love to see joy on here. Anyway, I am very grateful for this escape and the support I have gotten from my beautiful partner, friends, and family. Most of all grateful for myself because I'm mf-ing that bitch. A second post, also undated, provides that: TW: Sexual Assault I was gonna blame a man for molesting me and stressing me the fuck out and sending me into uncontrollable depression for setting me behind on all of my work but the reality is I'm actually just celebrating the fact that I've made it, I pushed through, and I am THAT bitch who was able to crush three custom wedding gowns in a week so ??????????? Try not to fuck with me THANKS!!! ?? Unlike the JSO investigation, the question here is not one of consent. If the acts alleged occurred between A.M. and Respondent, acting in the course of his licensed profession, they constitute a violation of section 480.0485, whether they were engaged in between two consenting adults, or whether they were forced upon the client entirely without consent. In short, if the acts occurred, they violated the massage therapy practice act. The testimony of Dr. Ferrer-Bruker, who was not a witness to any of the alleged acts of Respondent, played no direct role in the determination of the outcome in this matter. A.M.’s testimony was forceful and emotional. Despite her self- perceptions and her “brand,” she was precise about the facts, and adamant as to the role of consent in a sexual encounter. Respondent’s testimony was equally forceful, but more reserved in delivery. He testified that he loved his family and his job, that he had built a reputation and a career over many years, and performed at a high level. He stated that he would not jeopardize his work, his reputation, and his clients’ trust -- in short that he “would never do that, to sit there and throw it away on something like this.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Michael E. Maloy, L.M.T. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S GARY EARLY 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 16th day of March, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: T. A. Delegal, III, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Ryan Sandy, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kama Monroe, JD, Executive Director Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 James C. Poindexter, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kristen M. Summers, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Louise St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Did Respondent, Jianping Liu, L.M.T. (Ms. Liu), induce patients N.D. and J.H. to engage in sexual activity or engage in sexual activity outside the scope of practice or the scope of generally accepted examination or treatment? Did Ms. Liu massage patient N.D. at a location not licensed as a massage establishment and without exemption? Did sexual misconduct occur in Respondent, Queen Spa, Inc.’s (Queen Spa), massage establishment? Did Queen Spa’s backpage.com and anyitem.org advertisements induce or attempt to induce, or engage or attempt to engage, clients in unlawful sexual misconduct? Did Queen Spa fail to include its license number in its backpage.com and anyitem.com advertisements?
Findings Of Fact Section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 464, Florida Statutes, charge the Department with licensing and regulation of massage therapy. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Ms. Liu was a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida. She holds license MA 68834. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Queen Spa was a licensed massage therapy establishment in the State of Florida. It holds license MM 32567 registered at 10915 Bonita Beach Road, Unit 1121, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135, and license MM 32546 registered at 51 9th Street South, Naples, Florida 34102. Patient N.D. was a criminal investigation detective for the narcotics and vice division of Lee County Sheriff’s Office. On March 27, 2014, N.D., as part of an undercover investigation, scheduled an appointment for a massage at Ms. Liu’s home, 9951 Utah Street, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135. During the massage, Ms. Liu touched N.D.’s penis and asked if he wanted it massaged. N.D. offered an additional $50.00 tip and Ms. Liu began masturbating his penis. Ms. Liu was charged with prostitution. On April 30, 2014, Ms. Liu entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Lee County State Attorney’s Office. Ms. Liu’s home on Utah Street has a home occupational license issued by the city for a massage therapy administration office. It is not a licensed massage establishment. J.H. is a police officer in the crime suppression unit for the City of Naples, Florida. On May 9, 2014, the Naples Police Department began investigating Ms. Liu’s massage parlor. On July 24, 2014, J.H., as part of an undercover investigation, scheduled a massage appointment with Ms. Liu at the Queen Spa in Naples. After the massage, J.H. gave Ms. Liu a $20.00 tip and she gave him a separate business card. She explained this card was for “special customers” and had a different phone number than her regular card. J.H. scheduled a second massage for July 29, 2014. At some point near the end of that massage, J.H. asked if Ms. Liu offered special or extra services. Ms. Liu replied by asking if he was trouble or a cop. J.H. asked how much it would cost, but Ms. Liu did not take additional payment. Ms. Liu then began masturbating J.H.’s penis until he ejaculated. Ms. Liu contends that penis manipulation is part of a “full body” massage. But she testified during the hearing that this was an additional service to the full body massage. Further, she testified that she only conducted each “extra service,” because J.H. and N.D. requested it. This establishes that masturbation was not part of the massage. It was a sexual service. Testimony of the expert witness Jennifer Mason also proves this fact. Backpage.com is a classified advertising website that contains listings explicitly for prostitution. The adult entertainment section of backpage.com is linked to the majority of the Naples police investigations into prostitution. Ms. Liu posted ads for Queen Spa on backpage.com and anyitem.org. The backpage.com ad titled “erotic pleasure” was listed in the adult services section. The anyitem.org ad titled “erotic pleasure” was listed in the escort section. Ms. Liu contends the postings did not advertise sexual services and that the application on her phone mistranslated the word erotic from Mandarin to English. However, the character of backpage.com and posting the advertisements as adult services, rather than as massage services, supports the conclusion the postings advertised sexual activities. The backpage.com and anyitem.com advertisements did not include the license number of Queen Spa. Touching of the genitalia is not within the scope of a full body massage. Stimulation of the genital area is considered sexual misconduct. It is not part of an ethical massage. There is no therapeutic value to massaging a client’s penis. Sexual innuendo or stimulation is a problem in massage therapy. The industry has worked to remove it from the practice to create a safe and therapeutic environment. Training of massage therapists requires them to “decline, leave the room, terminate the massage” when sexual stimulation is requested by a patient. When discussing “extra services,” Ms. Liu told J.H. about her friend who got into trouble after performing certain acts and that the friend had lost her license; “no license, no job”. Ms. Liu engaged in sexual misconduct with J.H. just three months after she signed a deferred prosecution agreement disposing of the Lee County charges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order: finding that Respondent, Jianping Liu, L.M.T., violated sections 480.0485 and 480.046(1)(o), Florida Statutes; revoking her license; requiring the payment of an administrative fines in the amount of $2,750.00; and awarding costs for the investigation and prosecution of this case to the Department. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is also RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order: finding that Respondent, Queen Spa, Inc., violated sections 480.046(1)(e) and 480.0465, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7-26.010; revoking its license; requiring the payment of an administrative fine in the amount of $4,000.00; and awarding costs for the investigation and prosecution of this case to the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 2015.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy, in violation of provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7- 26.010 and sections 480.046(1)(o) and 480.0485, Florida Statutes; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Xu was a licensed massage therapist in the state of Florida, holding license number MA56426. During all times relevant to the complaint, Ms. Xu was employed by Massage Elite, located at 800 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard in Hallandale Beach, Florida. On November 22, 2010, Officer F.C., working in an undercover capacity with Officer C.T., went to Massage Elite, where they were greeted by Ms. Xu, who introduced herself as Diana. Ms. Xu stated that a one-hour full body massage was $70.00. They each paid, and Officer F.C. was taken to a separate room and told to disrobe and lie face down. Minutes later, Ms. Xu came into the room and began a massage. After some time, Ms. Xu asked Officer F.C. to turn over. After he did so, Ms. Xu began touching Officer F.C. on his penis, asking, "Do you want me to massage this?" Officer F.C. asked her, "How much?" Ms. Xu replied, "Sixty dollars." Officer F.C. said he only had $30.00, and Ms. Xu replied, "No, not for thirty, maybe next time." The massage was then completed. On November 23, 2010, Officer F.C. returned to Massage Elite. Other arrests were made at that time, but Ms. Xu was not on the premises. On November 30, 2010, Officer F.C. returned to Massage Elite with Officer R.A. He asked for Diana, and they called her from the back. Ms. Xu came in. Officer F.C. made a positive identification, based upon her appearance, that Ms. Xu was the same woman who had earlier introduced herself to him as Diana, and had given him the massage. She was placed under arrest. Ms. Xu's contrary testimony, to the effect that she was not at work on November 22, 2010, that she had never seen Officer F.C. before November 30, 2010, is not credible, and is rejected. Ms. Wei Zhou, Ms. Xu's daughter, testified through deposition that she came to Florida for Thanksgiving in 2010, and that her mother stayed with her the entire time in a hotel. She said she could not remember exactly when she was there or if she arrived before or after Thanksgiving Day. At another point in her testimony, she said she arrived around the 19th or 20th of November. She said she couldn't remember if her grandmother traveled with her or not. She indicated that she did not know what kind of work her mother did. Her testimony, to the extent it was intended to establish that Ms. Xu did not work at Massage Elite on November 22, 2010, was not credible. Her vague account of events did not cast doubt on Officer F.C.'s clear and convincing testimony. As noted in the deposition testimony of Ms. Jennifer Mason, there is no reason for a licensed massage therapist to ever touch the genitalia of a patient. Officer F.C. paid for a massage, and Ms. Xu began to give him a massage. She was governed by the requirements of the massage therapist-patient relationship. Ms. Xu's actions on November 22, 2010, were outside the scope of generally accepted treatment of massage therapy patients. Ms. Xu used the massage therapist-patient relationship to attempt to induce Officer F.C. to engage in sexual activity and to attempt to engage him in sexual activity. Ms. Xu engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy. There is no evidence that Ms. Xu has ever had any prior discipline imposed against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order finding Ms. Ranjie Xu in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7-26.010 and section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, constituting grounds for discipline under section 480.046(1)(o), Florida Statutes; revoking her license to practice massage therapy; imposing a fine of $1000.00; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2017.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy, in violation of chapter 480, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the testimony presented at the final hearing, exhibits accepted into evidence, and admitted facts set forth in the pre-hearing stipulation. Petitioner is the State agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes; chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and chapter 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the Complaint, Respondent was licensed to practice massage therapy in Florida since April 27, 2016, having been issued license number MA81902. Respondent’s address of record is 3830 Williamsburg Park Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32257. She also maintains an address of 121 East Norwood Avenue, Apartment C, San Gabriel, California 91776. Respondent moved from her native country, China, to the United States in 2012. Respondent’s native language is Mandarin Chinese and her ability to communicate in English is very limited. The JSO Vice Unit is the law enforcement office which investigates prostitution at massage therapy establishments in Jacksonville. Detective N.E. has been a civilian law enforcement officer for approximately 13 years. He was working in the JSO Vice Unit on June 29, 2017. As a member of the vice unit, Detective N.E. has conducted approximately 10 to 20 undercover prostitution investigations of massage therapy establishments. On or about June 29, 2017, JSO conducted an undercover prostitution investigation at Luxury Massage located at 3830 Williamsburg Park Road, Suite 4, Jacksonville, Florida. Detective N.E. entered Luxury Massage undercover, posing as a client. Detective N.E. requested a 30-minute massage from Respondent, for which he paid Respondent $50. Respondent escorted Detective N.E. to a massage room where Detective N.E. completely disrobed and laid face down on the massage table. As Detective N.E. lay on his stomach, Respondent began performing a massage on him. A towel was covering him as he lay on his stomach. Respondent massaged Detective N.E.’s back, and she later asked him to flip over onto his back, which he did. While Detective N.E. was on his back, Respondent began massaging his chest. At some point, Respondent pointed to Detective N.E.’s penis. Then Detective N.E. asked Respondent “is $60 good?” Respondent nodded her head indicating, “yes.” Detective N.E. continued to ask Respondent questions, for example, whether Respondent would use oil and Respondent verbally responded, “yes.” When asked whether she had towels to avoid making a mess, Respondent again verbally responded, “yes.” Although Respondent did not testify at hearing, Respondent’s verbal responses were recorded on a concealed recording device as part of the investigation. At hearing, Detective N.E. testified that Respondent grabbed his penis after she pointed to it. However, there was no allegation that Respondent touched Detective N.E.’s penis in the police report, which was prepared following Respondent’s arrest. On cross-examination, Detective N.E. explained that Respondent’s touching of his penis is not routinely included in the police report. The undersigned finds it unusual that touching of genitalia would be excluded from a police report when conducting a prostitution investigation. Detective N.E.’s testimony on this point is not accepted. Respondent denied that she engaged in any sexual activity in her response to the Complaint. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the undersigned finds that Respondent offered to massage Detective N.E.’s penis for $60.00. After the encounter, Detective N.E. gave a signal and Respondent was arrested by other law enforcement officers who came on the scene. Respondent was positively identified by Detective N.E. on the scene and at the final hearing. Katelin Reagh is a licensed massage therapist and based on her education, training, and experience, she is accepted as an expert in massage therapy. Ms. Reagh opined that offering to massage a patient’s genitalia is not within the scope of practice for massage therapy. As noted in the deposition testimony of Ms. Reagh, there is no accepted practice within the scope of licensed massage therapy that allows a therapist to ever touch, or offer to touch, the genitalia of a patient. Respondent’s actions on June 29, 2017, were outside the scope of generally accepted treatment of massage therapy patients. Respondent used the massage therapist-patient relationship to attempt to engage Detective N.E. in sexual activity when she offered to massage Detective N.E.’s penis, by pointing at the detective’s penis and agreeing to accept $60 payment for the service. There is no evidence that Respondent has had any prior discipline imposed against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order finding the following: Ms. Fengyan Liu, L.M.T. in violation of section 480.0485 and rule 64B7-26.010; Revoking her license to practice massage therapy; Imposing a fine of $2,500; and Assessing costs in an amount to be determined by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 2018.
