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
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, 339 Health Studio, Inc., was licensed as a massage establishment, having been issued license number MM0005810, and conducted business at 339 Northeast 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. On December 19, 1995, Denise Quintela, an inspector employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulations, visited the licensed premises to conduct an inspection. Ms. Quintela identified herself to the "front desk clerk," who allowed her admission ("opened the door") to the premises. (Transcript, page 10). Apparently, in the "office where the front desk clerk was sitting down," there was a sign posted which listed the services, and their prices, offered by the establishment, including a massage for $80.00. (Transcript, page 17). Following admission, Ms. Quintela "started opening the curtains to make sure there was people working," and, upon opening one of the curtains, she observed "a lady working there with a gentleman," "the lady was standing, and the gentleman was lying down, and she was performing a massage." (Transcript, pages 10 and 11). Observing such activity, Ms. Quintela asked the lady for her massage license, but received no response. Thereupon, the "front desk clerk" volunteered that "she doesn't have a license."1 (Transcript, page 11). By examination of the lady's driver's license, Ms. Quintela identified her as You Won Park. According to the Department's records, You Won Park was not then, nor had she ever been, licensed as a massage therapist in the State of Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Apart from any inferences that could be drawn from the foregoing findings, the only proof offered regarding You Won Park's relationship with the Respondent was the following testimony of Ms. Quintela: DIRECT EXAMINATION * * * Q. And did you determine whether Ms. Park was employed at the 330 Health Studio? A. Yes. * * * CROSS-EXAMINATION * * * Q. Were there any documents showing that that lady was employed there that you saw? A. No. Q. Was the sole basis for your determining that she was employed there your seeing her there? A. She was working there, yes. Q. Do you know if she was paid a salary? A. At the moment, I didn't see any money exchanged, no. Q. Not just at the moment, I mean in the whole world: Have you any indication that she received payment -- either cash, checks -- A. No. Q. Anything of that nature? A. No. * * * Q. . . . So is the answer you don't know if she was employed there or not? A. Well, she was employed because she was working there. Q. Well -- A. And the lady -- the front desk clerk told me that she was an employee there. And I believe I put down how long she worked there. Did I? Q. You noted in the report three weeks. But you don't know that she was an employee, do you? A. (No response.) Q. I mean, you don't have any evidence that she was an employee or that she was being paid other than the fact that she was there; is that true? A. Right. * * * Q. You do not know, do you, whether any money was exchanged between the supposed patron or the person allegedly getting the massage and the lady supposedly giving the massage? A. No. * * * REDIRECT EXAMINATION * * * Q. Was there any discussion with regard to a fee? A. No. Q. In your investigative report, there's a reference to the amount of time that Ms. Park was working there. How did you make a determination how long Ms. Park was working at the establishment? A. I asked the person in charge -- the front desk clerk. . . . (Transcript, pages 13 through 16, and 18). Apart from the statements attributed to the "front desk clerk," the results of Ms. Quintela's inspection, as evidenced by her testimony, are ambiguous, and are not sufficiently detailed to provide a reliable foundation on which to base a conclusion, with any degree of confidence, as to what relationship, if any, existed between the Respondent and You Won Park. Notably, based solely on Ms. Quintela's observations, You Won Park's presence and activities were equally consistent with what one would expect of an employee practicing massage or a non-employee who Respondent was permitting to practice massage on the licensed premises.2 You Won Park's activities were also consistent with those of a volunteer, as where one would accord an acquaintance a rub down. As for the comments Ms. Quintela attributes to the "front desk clerk" regarding You Won Park's status on the premises, they too are ambiguous and lacking in adequate detail. In this regard, it is observed that the statements of the "front desk clerk" may have simply meant that You Won Park had "worked" on the premises for three weeks, which is not necessarily the same as being engaged as an "employee." Apart from the ambiguity of the statements attributed to the "front desk clerk," they are also hearsay, and not subject to a hearsay exception.3 Consequently, the clerk's comments cannot support the conclusion that You Won Park was Respondent's employee. In sum, it must be concluded that, due to the paucity of proof, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that You Won Park was Respondent's employee.4
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be rendered which dismisses the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 480.46(1)(h),(k), Florida Statutes, and Rule 64B7-30.001(1)(d) (formerly 61G11- 30.001(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (Department), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy pursuant to Chapter 480, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Morton Wexler (Wexler), is and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 0021664. In November, 1996, Wexler began working at Beauty Dynamics as a massage therapist. Wexler is 71 years old and has been blind since approximately 1990 due to glaucoma; however he can make out shapes and forms. On or about, January 10, 1997, C. C. went to Beauty Dynamics to receive a massage. Wexler was assigned to perform the massage on C. C. Wexler massaged the back of C. C.'s legs and arms and C. C.'s back. He asked C. C. to turn and lie on her back. A towel covered C. C.'s body from her shoulders to her feet. Wexler began to massage the back of her neck. C. C. told Wexler that she had a knot in her neck area and asked him to work on the knot. Instead of working on the knot, Wexler slipped his hands under the towel, down C. C.'s chest and touched her breasts. C. C. told him not to do that. Wexler again put his hands on and around C. C.'s breasts, pinched her nipples, and moaned. At that juncture, C. C. pulled the towel up and told him to get out of the room. Wexler did not leave at that time. He apologized and said that he did not know what came over him. He said, "I couldn't help myself. I stopped being a massage therapist and became a man." Wexler still did not leave the room, but started to massage C. C.'s feet. C. C. got face to face with him and told him to get out. Wexler went to his employer, Darlene Heckelmoser Sanders, and told her not to charge C. C. for the massage because there had been a misunderstanding. He did not fully explain the situation at that time. C. C. was not charged for the massage. After C. C. left Beauty Dynamics, Wexler told Ms. Sanders that he had touched C. C.'s breasts. He explained that the towel fell off, exposing C. C.'s breasts and that he could not help himself. He told her, "I guess I became a man instead of a massage therapist." Later in the day, C. C. called Ms. Sanders and told Ms. Sanders that Wexler had touched her breasts, squeezed her nipples and moaned. Ms. Sanders terminated Wexler's employment with Beauty Dynamics. At the final hearing, Wexler acknowledged that it was not appropriate for a massage therapist to touch the erectile tissue of a client, including the client's nipples.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Morton Wexler guilty of violating Sections 480.046(1)(h), (k), Florida Statutes, and Rule 64B7-30.001(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, and suspending his massage therapist license for two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Baker, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 1998. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 136 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Craig A. McCarthy, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Division of Medical Quality Assurance Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32319-4229 Morton Wexler, pro se 171 South Hampton Drive Jupiter, Florida 33458
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations in a three-count Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint alleges violations of Paragraph (f), (h), and (i) of Section 480.046(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent has been licensed to practice massage therapy, having been issued license number MA0006547. At all times material to this case, the Respondent has also held a massage establishment license, having been issued establishment license number MM000556833. In or around September of 1993, a Mr. J. V. T. 1/ read a newspaper article to the effect that the Respondent had successfully treated children suffering from attention deficit disorder by using vitamins and health supplements in lieu of drugs such as Ritalin. At that time Mr. J. V. T. had a minor son, D. T., who was suffering from attention deficit disorder and was taking Ritalin pursuant to a prescription written by the son's pediatrician. Shortly after reading the newspaper article, Mr. J. V. T. took his son to see the Respondent for the purpose of determining whether his son's condition could be treated without Ritalin. Mr. J. V. T. and his son saw the Respondent at a facility named Advanced Health Center. At that location Mr. J. V. T. saw a massage therapy license for the Respondent. Mr. J. V. T. is not certain that was the only license. The purpose of Mr. J. V. T.'s visit was to obtain nutritional counseling with regard to his son's attention deficit disorder. He did not ask the Respondent to perform a massage on his son. In or around January of 1994, the Respondent recommended that J. V. T.'s son undergo a blood test. The blood test was performed by someone else at another facility. Eventually, someone gave Mr. J. V. T. a videotape that was described to him as being a video tape of his son's blood test. Shortly thereafter, Mr. J. V. T. met with the Respondent to discuss the results of the blood test. The Respondent told Mr. J. V. T. that the blood test showed that Mr. J. V. T.'s son had tape worms and that the tape worms were consuming large quantities of the nutrition and health supplements the son had been taking. The Respondent recommended some treatments to counteract the tapeworms. Mr. J. V. T. lacked confidence in what he was being told by the Respondent and discussed the matter with his son's pediatrician. Based on his discussion with the pediatrician, Mr. J. V. T. did not seek any further services from the Respondent. Mr. J. V. T. paid the Respondent for the services provided by the Respondent. Mr. J. V. T. does not believe that his son received any benefit from the services provided by the Respondent. When questioned by Mr. J. V. T., the Respondent stated that he was self taught and that he was not a doctor.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1997.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Mehdi Safdari, L.M.T., committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued August 8, 2001, and, if so, to what extent should his license be disciplined or should he be otherwise penalized.
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. Pursuant to Subsection 20.43(3)(g), Florida Statutes, the Department of Health has contracted with the Agency for Health Care Administration to provide consumer complaint, investigative, and prosecutorial services required by the Board, as appropriate. Respondent, Mehdi Safdari, was a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida at all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent's license number is MA 11488. He was originally certified on January 14, 1991; his current license will expire on August 31, 2003. The complainant, R.C., a 44-year-old female who has an associate's degree in social services from Hesston College in Hesston, Kansas, is a certified activities director. At all times material to the allegations in this matter, she was employed as an activities director at an assisted living facility, Altera Wynwood. On May 4, 2000, Respondent and another person presented an educational program on occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech and massage therapy for the residents of Altera Wynwood. Incidental to the program, Respondent brought his massage chair and performed massages at the facility. On that day, Respondent performed a chair massage on R.C. R.C. had not known Respondent prior to that day. R.C. advised Respondent that she had been involved in an automobile accident and had injured three discs in her neck. Respondent suggested that she allow him to perform massage therapy on her to alleviate discomfort incidental to the neck injury. On May 15, 2000, R.C. presented herself to Respondent's place of employment for massage therapy. After disrobing, R.C. dressed herself in a hospital gown and towel which was provided. She wore the towel like a diaper. Respondent massaged R.C.'s head and neck and around her breasts. R.C. testified that Respondent "touched her genital area in a very, very subtle manner, almost as if it was an accident." The remainder of the "full body" massage consisted largely of leg stretching. On May 17, 2000, R.C. presented herself for a second massage. On this occasion she found no gown, but was provided a sheet and towel. During this massage, Respondent pulled down the sheet and exposed R.C.'s breasts without her consent. During the massage, Respondent touched R.C.'s breasts, but she was uncertain as to whether the touching was "out of line." Her next massage was on May 19, 2000. She again found only a sheet and towel in which to dress. During this massage, Respondent got up on the massage table and straddled R.C., sitting on her hips and buttocks with his legs on each side of her body. She advised him that the pressure of him sitting on her buttocks was causing her pain in the back, so he got off. At all times she was covered by the sheet and had the towel between her legs. Respondent did not advise her that he was going to straddle her nor did he have her permission to do so. On her fourth and final visit, she dressed herself in the sheet that was provided, but left her underpants on because she was having a menstrual period. After massaging R.C.'s upper body, Respondent turned her over on her stomach. He then got up on the massage table, straddling R.C., and pulled her underwear back. He then unzipped the zipper of his trousers and placed his penis between R.C.'s buttocks. Respondent was leaning up against R.C. and pumping against her. She advised Respondent that he was hurting her and, as a result, he got off. He then told her to lie on her side and face the wall; he then got up on the massage table beside her and with his full body began pushing up against her from behind. She was afraid she was going to be raped and was afraid to say anything. Respondent remained behind R.C. for a short period of time and then left. R.C. went to the bathroom and washed herself but did not discover any semen on herself. She then left, seeking to avoid Respondent. R.C. believed that she had been sexually assaulted and filed a report with an appropriate law enforcement agency. R.C.'s testimony in this matter was clear, consistent, and credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, finding that Mehdi Safdari violated Rule 64B7-26.010(1) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, Section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 455.624(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1999), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued on August 8, 2001; it is further RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, suspend Mehdi Safdari's license to practice massage therapy for a period of three (3) years, during which time he must present himself for examination and/or treatment by a psychiatrist licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida, who, upon conclusion of his examination and/or treatment, shall opine to the Board of Massage Therapy that Respondent is not a threat to his patients as a prerequisite to Respondent returning to the practice of massage therapy; impose an administrative fine against Respondent of $3,000; and assess against Respondent the costs of investigating and prosecuting this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 31st day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott L. Richardson, Esquire 126 East Jefferson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Ruby Seymour-Barr, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Station 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issues to be determined in this matter are whether Respondent, BBK Florida, LLC, a licensed massage business, allowed an unlicensed person to practice massage therapy; and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in Florida. See § 20.43(3)(g)21., and ch. 456 and 480, Fla. Stat. BBK is a licensed massage business in the state of Florida. BBK operates under the name “BBK Massage Spa” and is located in Ocoee, Florida. The Department brings this action alleging that BBK allowed an unlicensed person to practice massage at its establishment. The Department charges BBK with violating section 480.046(1)(f) and (p), Florida Statutes. Section 480.046(1)(f) prohibits the “[a]iding, assisting, procuring, or advising any unlicensed person to practice massage contrary to the provisions of this chapter or to a rule of the department or the board.” The Department’s allegations focus on the activities of Xiaohui Lu at BBK on January 17, 2017. Ms. Lu is not, nor has she ever been, licensed to practice massage in the state of Florida. At the final hearing, the Department presented the testimony of Amy Harmon, a Department Investigation Specialist. Ms. Harmon has served as an Investigation Specialist since 2010. She conducts approximately 700 to 1,000 investigations a year. Ms. Harmon inspects several different types of businesses including massage facilities, optical establishments, and pain management institutions. Her goal is to inspect each business for which she is responsible at least once a year. Ms. Harmon explained that the primary reason for inspecting massage establishments is to safeguard the public against health risks. As stated in section 480.033(3), “massage” involves: [T]he manipulation of the soft tissues of the human body with the hand, foot, arm, or elbow, whether or not such manipulation is aided by hydrotherapy, including colonic irrigation, or thermal therapy; any electrical or mechanical device; or the application to the human body of a chemical or herbal preparation. Consequently, the Florida Legislature has specifically determined that: [T]he practice of massage is potentially dangerous to the public in that massage therapists must have a knowledge of anatomy and physiology and an understanding of the relationship between the structure and the function of the tissues being treated and the total function of the body. Massage is therapeutic, and regulations are necessary to protect the public from unqualified practitioners. It is therefore deemed necessary in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare to regulate the practice of massage in this state. § 480.032, Fla. Stat. In light of this legislative directive, Ms. Harmon explained that when she inspects a massage business, her goal is to ensure that customers are not touched or treated in an inappropriate manner. Ms. Harmon remarked that licensed massage therapists receive extensive training in anatomy and physiology. They are specifically taught how to manipulate soft tissue without damaging a person’s muscles, neck, or spine. Therefore, she ensures that all persons who provide massages are properly licensed in Florida, and that their licenses are appropriately displayed in the business. She also examines the massage facility’s sanitary conditions. On the morning of January 17, 2017, Ms. Harmon conducted a routine inspection of BBK. Ms. Harmon relayed that BBK is located in a strip mall. When she entered the store, she walked into a large lobby area with a reception desk and several chairs. A single hallway led straight back from the lobby and ended in a kitchen space. Several doorways lined the hallway. At least three of these rooms are used for massage services. Curtains partition the massage rooms from the hallway. Ms. Harmon did not find anyone present in the lobby. Therefore, she headed toward the hallway. As she reached the hallway, she saw a woman walk out of one of the massage rooms. Ms. Harmon observed that the woman (later identified as Ms. Lu) was holding her hands out in front of her with her palms up. Her hands were covered in oil. Ms. Harmon announced to Ms. Lu that she was an inspector with the Department. Ms. Harmon then asked Ms. Lu if she had a message therapy license. Ms. Lu responded that she did not have a massage license, but she was not performing a massage. Instead, Ms. Lu produced a body wrapper license issued by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, as well as a New York drivers license. Ms. Harmon then walked into the massage room that Ms. Lu had just vacated. There, she found a man lying on a massage table draped in a sheet. Ms. Harmon did not observe any body wrapping materials or supplies in the room. (Neither did Ms. Harmon subsequently find any body wrapping advertisements on the premises.) Ms. Harmon deduced that the oil on Ms. Lu’s hands was used for massages, not body wrapping treatments. Consequently, Ms. Harmon concluded that the customer was prepared to receive a massage, and that Ms. Lu was going to provide it. Ms. Harmon did not ask Ms. Lu if she was, in fact, giving a massage to the man on the table. Neither did she actually see Ms. Lu physically touch the customer. However, based on her observations, she firmly believed that when she walked into BBK, Ms. Lu was in the process of providing a massage to the man lying on the table in the massage room. At that point, another woman, who identified herself as Min Zhang, emerged from the last room down the corridor (the kitchen). Ms. Zhang produced a Florida massage therapy license for Ms. Harmon, as well as a Florida drivers license. Ms. Zhang then entered the massage room to attend to the customer. Ms. Harmon further recounted that, in another room, she found a suitcase belonging to Ms. Lu by a bed. Ms. Harmon learned from the two women that Ms. Lu had only arrived at BBK that morning. In response to the Department’s allegations, BBK flatly denied that Ms. Lu was practicing massage when Ms. Harmon inspected its business on January 17, 2017. Instead, BBK asserted that Ms. Zhang, who is properly licensed, was the individual massaging the client at the time Ms. Harmon entered the establishment. Ms. Zhang testified at the final hearing. Ms. Zhang was the store manager on the date of the inspection. Ms. Zhang holds a valid massage therapy license with the State of Florida. Ms. Zhang declared that January 17, 2017, was Ms. Lu’s first day at BBK. She had never met or spoken to Ms. Lu before that morning. Consequently, Ms. Zhang claimed that she was unaware that Ms. Lu did not have a massage therapy license when Ms. Harmon arrived at the business. Ms. Zhang understood that BBK hired Ms. Lu through the internet. She did not participate in BBK’s decision to allow Ms. Lu to work at its facility. Ms. Zhang relayed that on the morning of the inspection, she was the first employee to arrive at BBK. Ms. Lu appeared shortly thereafter. Ms. Zhang introduced herself, then showed Ms. Lu around the store. Before long, the client showed up. Ms. Zhang testified that she led the client back to massage room 3 for an hour-long massage. According to Ms. Zhang, she, not Ms. Lu, was massaging the customer when Ms. Harmon entered BBK. Ms. Zhang stated that she heard Ms. Harmon walk in the front door. She then left the massage room and met Ms. Harmon in the lobby. Ms. Zhang testified that Ms. Lu was not in a massage room or the hallway. Instead, she was located back in the kitchen. After Ms. Zhang exited massage room 3, she saw Ms. Lu walking to the lobby to meet Ms. Harmon. Thereafter, both Ms. Zhang and Ms. Lu produced their licenses and identifications for Ms. Harmon. Ms. Zhang expressed that it was at this time that she learned that Ms. Lu was not a licensed massage therapist. Ms. Zhang readily acknowledged that a person is not allowed to practice massage therapy without a license. Ms. Zhang professed that she was well aware that Ms. Lu could not have massaged any BBK clients unless she held a license in Florida. Ms. Zhang emphasized that neither she, nor BBK, would allow anyone to provide massages without a license. Ms. Zhang maintained that Ms. Lu never touched the client. BBK also presented the testimony of Juan Feng. Ms. Feng identified herself as the main manager of BBK. Ms. Feng runs the business, while Ms. Zhang manages the day-to-day operations. Ms. Feng was not present at BBK during Ms. Harmon’s inspection on January 17, 2017. According to Ms. Feng, BBK first communicated with Ms. Lu after it posted a job opening for a massage therapist over the internet. Ms. Feng conveyed that BBK’s advertisement specifically stated that a Florida massage license was required for the position. Ms. Lu, who was living in New York, called BBK about the job. Ms. Feng testified that Ms. Lu represented that she was licensed in both New York and Florida. Because Ms. Lu appeared qualified for the massage therapist job, BBK invited her to come to Florida for a trial employment period. Ms. Lu travelled by bus. She arrived in Florida on the afternoon of Monday, January 16, 2017. She showed up at BBK for the first time on Tuesday morning, January 17, 2017 (the date of Ms. Harmon’s inspection). Ms. Feng remarked that, while she had spoken with Ms. Lu approximately three times over the phone, she never met her in person before the Department’s inspection. Ms. Feng learned about the inspection from Ms. Zhang, who called her just after Ms. Harmon left. Ms. Feng repeated that the first time she, or anyone else at BBK, was aware that Ms. Lu did not have a Florida massage therapy license was during Ms. Harmon’s inspection. Ms. Feng pronounced that she would never have hired Ms. Lu if she had known that Ms. Lu did not have a valid Florida license. Ms. Feng expressed that after the inspection, she explained to Ms. Lu that she would not be allowed to work at BBK without the required massage license. Ms. Feng represented that Ms. Lu never returned to BBK following Ms. Harmon’s inspection. Ms. Feng understood that Ms. Lu went back to New York. (Neither party called Ms. Lu to testify at the final hearing.) Although Ms. Feng was not present at BBK during the inspection, she testified that she has seen the store’s security video recording of Ms. Harmon’s visit. According to Ms. Feng, BBK has four video cameras mounted inside the facility. Two cameras survey the lobby, and two cameras are positioned at either end of the hallway. However, Ms. Feng disclosed that the video recording from January 17, 2017, no longer exists. The video footage is automatically recorded over after seven days. Therefore, while she claimed to have watched the video shortly after Ms. Harmon departed the store, BBK could not produce the video for the Department or at the final hearing. At the final hearing, Ms. Feng described what she watched on the video. Ms. Feng relayed that she saw Ms. Zhang and Ms. Lu arrive in the morning. But, when the client appeared, it was Ms. Zhang who escorted him back to massage room 3. Later, after Ms. Harmon entered the lobby, Ms. Feng testified that Ms. Zhang, not Ms. Lu, exited massage room 3. Ms. Zhang walked across the hall to the bathroom, then went to meet Ms. Harmon in the lobby. At that point, Ms. Feng saw Ms. Lu emerge from the kitchen and approach the front of the store. Ms. Zhang and Ms. Lu met Ms. Harmon in the lobby. Ms. Harmon then sat down in the lobby, wrote her report, and left the store.4/ Ms. Feng declared that contents of the video establish that Ms. Lu never went into massage room 3. Based on her review, Ms. Feng opined that when Ms. Harmon saw Ms. Zhang advancing up the hallway, she mistakenly determined that it was Ms. Lu coming out of the massage room. Based on the competent substantial evidence provided at the final hearing, the clear and convincing evidence in the record establishes that BBK aided, assisted, or advised an unlicensed person (Ms. Lu) to practice massage in violation of section 480.046(1)(f) and (p). Accordingly, the Department met its burden of proving that BBK should subject to an administrative sanction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order: finding that BBK Florida, LLC, violated section 480.046(1)(f) and (p); and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000, as well as a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 2018.
The Issue The issue to be decided is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of massage therapists pursuant to section 20.42 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Giuseppe Chiarizia, was licensed as a massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been licensed on August 26, 2008, and issued license number MA54313. At the time of the alleged incident in this case, his license was clear and active. Teri Ingram and M.C. are close friends who reside, with their respective spouses, in Illinois. In late September, early October of 2008, the two couples were vacationing in Panama City. On or about October 1, 2008, Ms. Ingram and T.C. went to the Salon Baliage and Spa for a massage. Upon arriving at the spa, the women were led to a room to fill out paper work, and offered some refreshments, which they declined. Each woman was then taken back for the services they were receiving. Ms. Ingram was called back first, and had a facial and a massage. M.C. was having similar services. After Ms. Ingram's massage was finished, she returned to the waiting room to wait for M.C. At some point, an employee at the spa came to her and told her that M.C. was in another room and wanted to see her immediately. As Ms. Ingram approached the room, M.C. came out. She was dressed, but was shaking and crying hysterically. Ms. Ingram described her as "all hunched over, more like hugging herself." M.C. wanted to call the women's husbands and leave the spa. Ms. Ingram notified the manager that something had happened but she was not sure what, and that they were leaving the spa. Ms. Ingram paid for her services; she did not know if M.C. did so as well. The two women went outside, and while waiting for their husbands, M.C. told Ms. Ingram that the massage therapist, Respondent, had touched her. Ms. Ingram asked her what she meant by that statement, and M.C. told Ms. Ingram that the massage therapist had rubbed his genitals across her hands and her shoulders during her massage, and that once he began the massage he slipped his finger inside her vagina. M.C. stated that she told him to leave the room and to leave her alone, and in response, he held her down and told her he was sorry. She asked him repeatedly to leave the room and he finally did so. Once their husbands arrived, the two couples drove to the Panama City Beach Police Station to report the incident. Deputy Andrew LoTurco was employed by the Bay County Sheriff's Office. He was dispatched to the Panama City Beach Police Department to respond to M.C.'s complaint of sexual battery. When he encountered M.C., she was very distraught and embarrassed. After hearing her complaint and speaking with M.C., her husband and a lady, presumably Ms. Ingram, Deputy LoTurco transported M.C. to the Bay Medical Center for examination, and turned over the investigation to Deputy Jason Larson. Deputy Larson met with M.C. and also observed that she was extremely upset and had been crying. During the interview, she was withdrawn. M.C. related to Deputy Larson an account of what happened that was essentially the same as what she had stated to Ms. Ingram. She identified the massage therapist as Respondent. At some point, Respondent was taken to the Sheriff's Office, and Deputy Larson interviewed him and advised him of his Miranda rights. Respondent declined to give a taped statement, but did speak with Officer Larson. Initially, he denied M.C.'s report, but as the interview continued, he stated that it was possible he may have accidentally penetrated M.C.'s vagina with the tip of his finger. He also stated that if he was in his country, M.C. would have given him a tip and thanked him. At the hospital, a rape kit was administered. M.C. continued to be very upset by the incident, and the two couples shortened their planned vacation to return home as a result. Respondent claims that M.C. was a difficult client to massage because she was heavy-set. By contrast, Ms. Ingram testified that she thought M.C. was approximately five feet, four inches tall, and weighed approximately 140 pounds. Respondent also testified that during the massage, M.C. brought her hands out too far, making it difficult for him to continue massaging her and also avoid intimate contact with her hands. Finally, he claimed, essentially, that M.C. was masturbating during the massage. Respondent's testimony is not credited. Massage therapy training often involves blindfold massage, and teaches that massage in the vicinity of the genital area is to be conducted very carefully. If a massage therapist properly draped a patient consistent with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7-30.001, it would not be possible to inadvertently touch a client's genital area. The placement of a massage therapist's finger into the vagina of a massage client is outside the scope of the professional practice of massage therapy and is below the standard of care.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating sections 456.063(1); 456.072(1)(v); 480.046(1)(h) and(o); and 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7-26.010; finding Respondent not guilty of violating rule 64B7-30.001(5); and imposing a fine of $1,000 and revoking his license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 2011, 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 1st day of September, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Greg S. Marr, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Manshi Shah, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Giuseppe Chiarizia P.S.C. 451, Box 490 FPO, AE 09834 (giuseppechiarizia@hotmail.com) Nicholas W. Romanello, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32299-1701 Anthony Jusevitch, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32299-1701
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and Rule 64B7-26.010(1) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, by engaging in sexual misconduct with a massage client, and thereby violated Section 480.046(1(k), Florida Statutes; and, if yes, what penalty should be imposed on his license to practice massage therapy.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (Department), is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of massage therapy in the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 480, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Miodrag Visacki (Respondent), was at all times material hereto, a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA23741. A. R. is a female who resides in Rhode Island. At the times material to this proceeding, A. R. was 18 years old and was on vacation with members of her family in Florida. During this vacation, A. R. and her family were staying in a condominium unit at the Long Boat Key Resort in Longboat Key, Florida. While on vacation in Longboat Key, Florida, A. R. and her aunt decided to obtain massages. They looked at advertisements for massage therapy in the newspaper, and then called telephone numbers listed in several different advertisements. After calling several of the telephone numbers, A. R. and her aunt decided to order massage services from one of the advertisements. On April 21, 2000, A. R.'s aunt called the number listed in one of the advertisements to set up appointments for April 22, 2000. On April 22, 2000, Respondent went to the condominium unit in which A. R. and her aunt and parents were staying to perform the massages. When Respondent arrived there, he identified himself as Michael. Prior to beginning the massages, Respondent requested that A. R. and her aunt fill out client intake forms that elicited information about the purpose or the reason for the massage, the "areas requiring specific attention," and the "areas preferred not to be worked on." On the client intake form, A. R. indicated that she wanted a relaxation massage. With regard to areas requiring special attention, A. R. noted, "legs, neck, and back." A. R. indicated that the areas she preferred not to be worked on were her face and head. Respondent set his table up in the living room of the condominium unit and began the massage of A. R. When Respondent began the massage, A. R.'s aunt was in the kitchen, which was adjacent to the living room. Soon after Respondent began with the massage of A. R., her aunt left the kitchen and went to a bedroom in the condominium unit. At the beginning of her massage, A. R. was wearing a bra and her underwear, was lying on her back, and was covered by a sheet. Approximately 15 minutes after the massage began and after A. R.'s aunt left the kitchen and went to one of the bedrooms, Respondent pulled down A. R.'s bra and proceeded to massage her breasts and nipples. Respondent then asked A. R. if she enjoyed his massaging her breast and nipples to which she responded "no." After A. R. told Respondent that she did not want him to massage her breasts and nipples, he began massaging her ankles, working his way up her legs, vagina, and stomach. Respondent removed A. R.'s underwear during the massage although he never asked for her permission to do so and she never consented to his doing so. In an attempt to stop Respondent from massaging her vagina, A. R. turned over on her stomach. While A. R. was laying on her stomach, Respondent penetrated A. R.'s vagina and anus with his finger while alternately massaging her back, shoulders, and buttocks. During A. R.'s massage, two sheets were used to cover her. Throughout the massage, A. R. was covered from the waist up by one of the sheets. However, Respondent continually moved or adjusted the sheet that was to cover A. R. from the waist down so that it was "half on, half off." At no time prior to or during the massage did A. R. give her consent to Respondent to remove the sheet draping her body so as to expose her buttocks and genitalia. When Respondent finished the massage of A. R., she spoke to her aunt briefly and indicated that something was wrong, but she did not reveal the full details of what had occurred during the massage. Respondent then proceeded to massage A. R.'s aunt. While her aunt was receiving her massage, A. R. went to the bathroom, washed up, changed, and waited for Respondent to finish her aunt's massage. A. R. was in "total confusion" and after Respondent completed her aunt's massage, A. R. urged her to pay Respondent so he could leave the condominium. After Respondent left the condominium, A. R. divulged to her aunt some, but not all, of the details of what had occurred during the massage. A. R. and her aunt then left the condominium and went to the nearby beach area where A. R.'s parents were and informed them about what had occurred during the massage. A. R.'s mother immediately called the Longboat Key Police Department and police officers were dispatched to the condominium that day. When Officer Heidi Blake Micale arrived at the condominium, A. R. confided in and reported to her the conduct engaged in by Respondent during the massage. As part of its investigation of the April 22, 2000, incident, the Longboat Key Police Department contacted Respondent and scheduled an interview with him. On April 24, 2000, Lieutenant Detective Christina Roberts interviewed Respondent regarding the incident. During the interview, Respondent admitted to massaging A. R.'s breasts, including the nipple area. As justification, in explaining his actions, Respondent indicated that he massaged A. R.'s breasts because they were not listed on the intake form as one of the "areas preferred not to be worked on." As evidence of this, Respondent provided Lieutenant Detective Roberts with a copy of the intake form that A. R. had completed prior to the massage. Prior to her encounter with Respondent, and while in Rhode Island, A. R. had received numerous massages for sports related injuries and she continues to receive such massages. However, A. R. has never encountered sexual conduct by any massage therapist other than Respondent. Respondent's actions with regard to massaging A. R.'s breasts and/or nipples may or were likely to cause erotic arousal. Furthermore, this conduct by Respondent constitutes sexual activity and is outside the scope of the practice of massage. Respondent's actions of penetrating A. R.'s vagina and anus may or were likely to cause erotic arousal. This conduct by Respondent constitutes sexual activity and is outside the scope of the practice of massage.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 480.046(1)(k), Florida Statutes, Section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and Rule 64B7-26.010(1) and (3), Florida Administrative Code; imposing a $1000.00 fine against Respondent; and revoking Respondent's license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Miodrag Visacki 454 North Jefferson Avenue Sarasota, Florida 34237 Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Lori C. Desnick, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Ft. Knox Building 3, Mail Station 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
