The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether the Petitioner should receive a passing grade on the September 1997 Hearing Aid Specialist examination.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: In September 1997, Petitioner was a trainee and candidate for licensure as a hearing aid specialist, pursuant to Chapter 484, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 64B6-8, Florida Administrative Code. A trainee studying hearing aid dispensing must do so under the direct supervision of a “sponsor” who is an active Florida licensed hearing aid specialist with an established place of business. Section 484.0445, Florida Statutes; Rule 64B6- 8.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner’s sponsor was Gerald Amato, a hearing aid specialist of over 20 years’ experience. Mr. Amato was a franchisee of Beltone, a manufacturer of audiometric equipment, including hearing aids and audiometers. Beltone supplied all of the equipment used by Petitioner. An “audiometer” is a piece of equipment that measures a person’s ability to hear, and is regularly used by hearing aid specialists and trainees. Petitioner testified that, shortly before he commenced his training program, Beltone converted from manual audiometers to computerized audiometers. Petitioner contends that he was placed at an unfair disadvantage because the examination proctors would not allow him to plug in his computerized audiometer for use during the examination. Petitioner argued that the older, manual audiometers provide visual cues such as dials and meters even when they are not plugged in, cues that assist the trainee to successfully complete the examination. The computerized audiometer, on the other hand, presents nothing but a blank screen when it is not plugged in. Petitioner acknowledged that no one taking the exam was allowed to plug in an audiometer. However, he contended that this was a situation in which technology had outpaced the testing procedures, and that Respondent should have made provisions for persons with computerized equipment to take the exam on an even footing with persons using manual equipment. Ms. Wilma Ferrer, a psychometrician familiar with the hearing aid specialist examination procedures, testified that candidates were informed they could not plug in their audiometers at least three times before they sat for the exam. The “Candidate Information Booklet,” sent by mail to candidates about a month before the exam, expressly states: “Each candidate is required to bring an audiometer with recorded speech and/or live voice capability to be used during the candidate’s examination. Do not plug in audiometer during examination.” During the hands-on portion of the exam, candidates demonstrate proper procedures, using the proctors as their subjects. If the audiometers were plugged in, there would be some chance of damaging the proctors’ hearing during the exam. Ms. Mary Lou Lauster, an expert regarding hearing aid specialists, testified that the purpose of the audiometer portion of the exam is to permit candidates to demonstrate they know which buttons to push to perform each audiometer function, and that they know how to properly fit the headset. Ms. Lauster conceded that some of the older audiometers provide visual cues, but stated her opinion that Petitioner would not be disadvantaged by his use of the computerized audiometer, if he knew how to run it. According to Ms. Lauster, the exam is simply an opportunity for the candidate to talk his or her way through the procedures, and it should make no difference whether the audiometer is plugged in. In other words, the candidate should not need visual cues to successfully negotiate the examination. Ms. Lauster denied the implication that the examiners and the agency itself were unprepared to deal with Petitioner’s new equipment. She testified that other candidates have used the same computerized equipment with success and without incident. At the hearing, Petitioner suggested that a better policy might be to require all candidates to be tested on a single, standard audiometer, so that no candidate could be perceived to have an unfair advantage. Ms. Lauster disagreed with this suggestion, stating that candidates are generally more comfortable using the audiometers with which they were trained. It is found that Respondent’s decision not to allow candidates to plug in their audiometers during the examination was rational and supported by legitimate concerns for the proctors’ hearing. Petitioner was given ample notice that he would not be allowed to plug in his audiometer. Other candidates using the same or similar equipment have successfully completed the examination. All candidates were treated equally in this regard, and Petitioner was not entitled to a special exemption from Respondent’s clearly stated testing policy. Respondent was well aware of the trend in the industry away from manual audiometers, and considered the existence of newer, computerized equipment in deciding to maintain its testing policy of not allowing audiometers to be plugged in during the examinations. Petitioner suggested that his equipment presented a brand new situation that Respondent had not anticipated, but this suggestion was not supported by the evidence presented at hearing. Petitioner also claimed that the proctor engaged him in unnecessary conversation regarding his audiometer, and that this conversation distracted him during the examination. Even crediting Petitioner’s version of events, this conversation cannot be found to have caused Petitioner’s poor performance on the practical portion of the examination. For reasons that cannot be attributed to Respondent, Petitioner entered the examination anticipating that he would be allowed to plug in his audiometer. The undersigned does not doubt Petitioner’s assertion that his performance on the examination was adversely affected when he was not allowed to plug in his audiometer. However, the fault lies with Petitioner, not with Respondent. Petitioner is not entitled to the award of any additional points in the practical portion of the examination. In his challenge letter, Petitioner also contested Questions 1 and 20 of the written, multiple choice portion of the examination. At hearing, Petitioner withdrew his challenge of Question 20. Each of the written questions was worth one point. Petitioner failed the examination by three points. Thus, even if it were found that he should be awarded one point for Question 1, Petitioner would not achieve a passing score. Petitioner’s challenge of Question 1 will nonetheless be addressed, to ensure a complete record in this proceeding. Question 1 referred to the effect that the addition of an “air” vent would have on an earmold. Petitioner chose the answer that it would “accentuate the low frequencies.” The correct answer was that it would “reduce the feeling of pressure in the ear canal.” Ms. Lauster testified that, while venting may accentuate frequencies, it does not necessarily relate to high or low frequencies. A vent may accentuate high or low frequencies, depending on the size of the vent. The general tendency is for a vent to enhance high frequencies. Ms. Lauster's opinion was supported by a standard textbook on hearing instrument science and fitting practices. It was undisputed that the addition of an air vent does relieve pressure in the ear canal. Thus, the best answer to Question 1 was “reduce the feeling of pressure in the ear canal.” Respondent correctly found that Petitioner’s response to Question 1 was not the best answer, and correctly denied him credit for that question. Petitioner alleged that Question 1 was of such difficulty that it should either not be counted, or his answer should be counted as correct. Respondent demonstrated that 26 out of 50 candidates answered the question correctly, thus negating Petitioner’s contention in this regard. Question 1 was properly graded as a question of medium difficulty, and is a valid and acceptable item on the examination.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Health, Board of Hearing Aid Specialists, enter a final order denying Petitioner’s challenge to the grade assigned him for the September 1997 Hearing Aid Specialist licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 11th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry L. Allman, pro se 110 St. Lucia Loop Apollo Beach, Florida 33572 Anne Marie Williamson, Esquire Florida Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building Six, Room 240 1309 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building Six, Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Kent A. Broy, committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed with by Petitioner, the Department of Health, on April 11, 2003, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving hearing aid specialists licensed to practice in Florida. Respondent, Kent A. Broy, is, and was at the times material to this matter, a hearing aid specialist licensed to practice in Florida, having been issued license number AS2169 on April 13, 1989.5 The Administrative Complaint. On April 11, 2003, an Administrative Complaint, DOH Case No. AS 2001-19941, was filed with the Department against Mr. Broy. Mr. Broy disputed the issues of fact alleged in the Administrative Complaint and requested a formal administrative Hearing by a Request for Formal Hearing filed with the Department on Mr. Broy's behalf by counsel. The remaining four counts of the Administrative Complaint, Counts I, II, III, and V, allege violations of subsections of Section 484.056(1), Florida Statutes: Section 484.056(1)(g) (Count I); (j) (Count II); (w) (Count III); and (m) (Count V). All four counts include the following introductory sentence: "Petitioner realleges and incorporates herein by reference the facts alleged in paragraphs 1-16 [of the Administrative Complaint]." Paragraphs 1 through 6 are general allegations which were admitted by Mr. Broy. Patient G.H. Patient G.H., who was 88 years of age at the time, visited a business known as Audibel Hearing Care Center (hereinafter referred to as "Audibel")6 and located at 1620 North U.S. Highway 1, Jupiter, Florida, on October 24, 2001, a Tuesday. G.H. was accompanied by his wife, J.H. G.H. went to Audibel to determine whether he needed hearing aids. Mr. Broy, who G.H. assumed was a licensed hearing aid specialist, assisted G.H.7 As alleged in the Administrative Complaint, G.H. agreed to purchase a pair of "in the ear" hearing aids for $6,810.00. Mr. Broy attempted to make molds of the G.H.'s ear canals so that the hearing aids G.H. had agreed to purchase could be ordered. Molding material was placed in G.H.'s ear, but when it was removed it was found to be covered with wax. Mr. Broy attempted to remove the wax from G.H.'s ear with some type of instrument. This caused pain in G.H.'s ear, so the effort was discontinued. Mr. Broy then gave G.H. some oil to use to attempt to soften the wax, and he scheduled G.H. to return the next week. In furtherance of the sale and purchase of the hearing aids, G.H. signed a Purchase Agreement. The Agreement states that G.H. was purchasing 2 "Merc CIC Dig" hearing aides at $4,200.00 each ($8,400.00 total) less a 20% discount, leaving a discounted price of $6,720.00 plus a $90.00 administration fee. The Purchase Agreement includes, in part, the following regarding return of the hearing aids: Return Policy - . . . . Purchaser may return the hearing aid(s), so long as the hearing aid(s) is returned to the seller within the 30 day trial period in good working condition. A return claim form may be obtained from the distributor at the location checked on the face of this agreement. A request for return must be submitted in writing, within 30 days. . . . . The distributor identified on the face of the Purchase Agreement was Audibel. The Purchase Agreement did not identify the guarantor for the refund. No hearings aids, however, were delivered to G.H. at the time he signed the Purchase Agreement or anytime subsequent thereto. G.H. paid the full purchase price, charging the full price to a credit card. Shortly after executing the Purchase Agreement, G.H. decided that he did not want the hearing aids8 and he returned to Audibel. He told Mr. Broy that he no longer wanted the hearing aids.9 G.H., not receiving satisfaction from Mr. Broy, ultimately challenged the amount he paid for the hearing aids with his credit card company. He was refunded the $6,810.00 charge. On January 9, 2002, Mr. Broy charged $630.00 to G.H.'s credit card. That amount has not been refunded. During the investigation of this matter, Neil Bailes, an investigator for the Agency for Health Care Administration, who had never met or spoken to Mr. Broy in person, spoke to someone whom he believed was Mr. Broy. The individual he spoke with told him that records relating to G.H.'s purchase and subsequent return of hearing aids were in G.H.'s possession, and, therefore, he could not provide those records.10
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Hearing Aid Specialist dismissing the April 11, 2003, Administrative Complaint against Kent A. Broy. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 5th day of February, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Donna A. Benoit, is a candidate for licensure as a hearing aid specialist. Her examination date was September 10-12, 1993. There were two sections to the examination for licensure: a practical portion that consisted of several subparts, and a written portion for which the minimum passing grade was 75.00. In order to achieve an "overall examination status" of passing, Petitioner was required to pass both sections. While Petitioner obtained a passing grade on the practical section, her grade on the written section was 74.00. Upon receipt of her test scores, Petitioner timely challenged the examination results. Initially, Petitioner listed twenty-two questions for which she received no credit as those to be challenged. At hearing, however, Petitioner elected to only challenge one: Question 10. The format for the written examination was multiple choice, and the instructions directed candidates to choose the best answer from among those suggested. Approximately 79 percent of the candidates taking the examination got Question 10 correct. Therefore, for statistical purposes, Question 10 should not be considered vague or ambiguous. An audiometric evaluation is required before a hearing aid can be fitted or sold. An audiometric evaluation consists of the following: puretone testing by air and bone conduction, effective masking when indicated, speech reception thresholds, speech discrimination scores, MCL and UCL, and selection of best fitting arrangement. An otoscopic examination of the ear is performed before the audiometric evaluation can be performed. An otoscopic examination does not, of itself, allow a hearing aid to be fitted or sold. Once the otoscopic examination is successfully completed such that a hearing aid may be fitted and sold, the audiometric evaluation must be performed. An audiometric evaluation as described in Section 484.0501, Florida Statutes, provides the minimal procedures in the fitting and selling of hearing aids. Petitioner's answer to Question 10, "D", was not the best selection from those available; consequently, the Department correctly scored Petitioner's response.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Hearing Aid Specialists, enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to Question 10 of the hearing aid specialists examination administered September 10-12, 1993. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 21st day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-0303 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Petitioner's one page letter filed March 28, 1994, has been considered argument and not in a format to allow rulings on specific facts. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1 through 3, and 6 are accepted. The first two sentences and the last sentence of paragraph 4 are accepted; the remainder is rejected as irrelevant. The last sentence of paragraph 5 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna A. Benoit 100 St. George Boulevard Apt. 402 Savannah, Georgia 31419 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Suzanne Lee, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the parties pre-hearing stipulation and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. By its Administrative Complaint filed November 5, 1982, Petitioner seeks to suspend the Respondent, Robert L. Devlin, from the right to operate and practice the fitting and selling of hearing aids for a period of thirty days and to place his license on probation for a period of one year with the licensee's customer record subject to monthly audit by the Petitioner. Alternatively, Petitioner seeks to impose any other penalty authorized by law. During times material, Robert L. Devlin, Respondent, was the holder of a Certificate of Registration (number 244-10-68) for the fitting and selling of hearing aids. On December 3, 1981, Respondent was employed by Better Hearing Aid Services located at 2430 East Commercial Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. William Jellison was tested for a hearing aid on December 3, 1981, at the Ft. Lauderdale location of Better Hearing Aid Services. Someone in a position of authority accepted fifty dollars ($50.00) cash from William Jellison as a deposit on a hearing aid and gave him a receipt therefor on December 3, 1981. (stipulated facts) Phillip C. Kribbs 1/ is not licensed to test, fit or sell hearing aids the Petitioner during times material herein. William F. Jellison visited the offices of Better Hearing Aid Services on December 3, 1981 for the purpose of purchasing a hearing aid mold. Jellison spoke to Kribbs who advised him that he needed a hearing aid test. Kribbs called out certain words and requested Jellison to repeat the words that Kribbs called out. During that testing procedure, the Respondent was present, although he was taking care of other chores in the Better Hearing Aid Services office. Kribbs gave Mr. Jellison a receipt which reflected that it was a new hearing aid to be purchased; a customer discount of one hundred ($100.00) dollars was reflected on that receipt; a cash downpayment of fifty ($50.00) dollars was reflected and a balance due of five hundred forty nine (549.00) dollars was shown as the amount remaining due. On the following day, Mr. Jellison was curious as to what he could purchase the hearing aid for at another company and determined that he could purchase the same hearing aid at another store for approximately two hundred ($200.00) dollars less. With that knowledge, Mr. Jellison attempted to cancel his purchase of the hearing aid from Better Hearing Aid Services by serving notice of his intent to cancel in the form of a telegram on the offices of Better Hearing Aid Services which was followed that same day by a telephone communique. Mr. Jellison did not take delivery of the hearing aid which he was tested for by Better Hearing Aid Services on December 3, 1981. Phillip Kribbs was employed as an apprentice by Better Hearing Aid Services during the period June, 1980 through February, 1983. During his employment as an apprentice for Better Hearing Aid Services, part of his duties included giving a "pure tone and word test" Kribbs twice sat for the registration examination and was unsuccessful on both sittings. Kribbs conducted all of his duties respecting testing under the direction and supervision of the Respondent while employed as an apprentice for Better Hearing Aid Services. Finally, Kribbs acknowledged tendering Mr. Jellison a receipt for the deposit for a hearing aid which was completely written by him (Petitioner's Exhibit Number 3).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's license for the fitting and selling of hearing aids and his right to operate and practice thereunder be placed on probation for a one (1) year period with the licensee's customer records subject to monthly audit by the Department. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact George Selis holds certificate of registration Number 695-04-73 to fit and sell hearing aids in the State of Florida, and this certificate of registration was issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On August 9, 1976, George Selis did fit and sell a hearing aid to Daisy Binder. On that date George Selis examined the ears of Daisy Binder prior to giving her a hearing test and according to his testimony observed a quantity of cerumen, or ear wax, in her ears. At that time, according to Selis, the ear canal was not blocked or impacted by the cerumen. In accordance with his experience and training, it was not improper for Selis to test an individual's hearing when cerumen was observed in the ear canal as long as the ear canal was not blocked. On August 24, 1976, Daisy Binder was examined by Dr. Herbert King, M.D., who determined that both of her ears were impacted with cerumen. In Dr. King's medical opinion, from the quantity of wax present on August 24, 1976, an excessively large quantity of wax would have been present on August 9, 1976, when Daisy Binder's ears were examined by George Selis. Dr. King's medical opinion is buttressed by the medical records of Binder which show she had had her ears irrigated and impacted cerumen removed roughly every two years for four years prior to August, 1976. George Selis sold and fitted a hearing aid to Augusta Miller on or about August 24, 1975. Regarding the testing of hearing of his client, Selis explained that prior to every test he explained to the client the way the test was conducted and what the results meant. The handwritten lines and annotations on the hearing test of Augusta Miller, Exhibit 20, had a diagram on the back of this test relating to Selis' explanation of the test and its operation on the ear. In this explanation Selis explained that a hearing loss of 30 decibels or less is normal, that a hearing loss between 30 decibels and 80 decibels may not be correctable. Selis also explained the fact that hearing aids cannot help certain hearing losses and that certain types of hearing losses can be treated medically. Regarding the type of loss which a hearing aid can help, Selis explained that the use of the hearing aid does not stop the loss and that the loss may continue to the extent that the hearing aid will no longer offer any assistance. Selis represented that it was this explanation which he gave to Augusta Miller on August 24, 1975, when he fitted and sold her a hearing aid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the certificate of registration of George Selis be suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Eisenberg, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417 F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Louis Ossinsky, Jr., Esquire Ossinsky and Krol 411 Main Street Post Office Drawer E Daytona Beach, Florida 32018
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since February 15, 1993, a Florida-licensed hearing aid specialist. He holds license number AS2453. For the past seven years, Respondent has owned Advanced Hearing Center, Inc. (Advanced Hearing), a hearing aid business located in North Palm Beach, Florida. W. J. is a hearing impaired hearing aid wearer. He and his wife of 32 years, F. J., reside in Florida (on Singer Island in Palm Beach County) part of the year (generally, January through the middle of April) and in New Jersey the remainder of the year. In late March of 1997, toward the end of their stay in Florida that year, W. J. contacted Respondent by telephone at Advanced Hearing to inquire about getting the hearing aid for his left ear repaired. W. J. had not had any previous dealings with Respondent. He had learned that Respondent was a hearing aid specialist upon reading the advertisement for Advanced Hearing in the Yellow Pages, and was "impressed" that Respondent had a Ph.D. During their telephone conversation, Respondent invited W. J. to visit Advanced Hearing with his wife. He told W. J. that, during the visit, he would look at the hearing aid that needed repair and, in addition, give W. J. a free hearing test. W. J., accompanied by his wife, visited Advanced Hearing on Tuesday, April 1, 1997. While waiting to see Respondent, W. J. was asked to read written "testimonials" from satisfied patients of Respondent's. W. J. and his wife were subsequently escorted to Respondent's office, where they remained for the duration of the visit. While in Respondent's office, W. J. filled out a medical history form. The information that W. J. provided on the form indicated that he did not have any significant medical problems warranting referral to a medical doctor. Respondent then used a video otoscope to examine W. J.'s ear canals. The ear canals were "normal looking" and, although there was some wax buildup, the eardrums were visible. As he performed the otoscope examination, Respondent explained to the J.s what he saw. He told them about the wax buildup and cautioned that the lack of adequate "cerumen management" could lead to "abnormalities or infections or a fungus c[ould] grow," conditions which would require medical attention. Inasmuch as W. J. had not reported any recent history of infection and the otoscope examination had not revealed any observable abnormality, Respondent proceeded to test W. J.'s hearing. He performed pure tone audiometric testing by air and by bone and recorded the results of such testing. Respondent's office, where the testing was done, was a "certified testing room," within the meaning of Section 484.0501(6), Florida Statutes. The air and bone tests revealed no significant difference or "gap" between W. J.'s air conduction hearing and his bone conduction hearing. After the testing, Respondent informed the J.s that he was unable to repair W. J.'s old hearing aid (for his left ear), and he suggested that they purchase new, "upgrade[d]" hearing aids for W. J. if they could afford to do so. Respondent recommended the Starkey Sequel Circuit, the "pinnacle product" of "one of the largest [hearing aid] manufacturers in the world" (Starkey), because he believed that it would help alleviate the "problems with distortion and loud noise" that W. J. had reported that he was experiencing. Respondent informed the J.s that he could sell them this Starkey product at a "great price." The J.s told Respondent that they were reluctant to purchase new hearing aids in Florida because they were planning on returning to their residence in New Jersey shortly, and that, in any event, they were interested in Siemens Music, not Starkey Sequel Circuit, hearing aids. Respondent replied that the Starkey Sequel Circuit was comparable to the Siemens Music and that any Starkey dealer would be able to service Starkey Sequel Circuit hearing aids purchased from his business. After considering Respondent's comments and discussing the matter with his wife, W. J. signed a written agreement to purchase Starkey Sequel Circuit hearing aids from Advanced Hearing for $3,800.00. W. J. paid the full purchase price, by credit card, before leaving. On the credit card receipt that W. J. received were written the words, "no refunds." The "purchase agreement" that W. J. signed had a "guarantee date" of "2 yrs." and contained the following provisions: Within a period of one year after delivery patient may have these instruments serviced at Advanced Hearing Center, Inc. without any cost under the terms of the guarantee issued by the manufacturer. As the degree of satisfaction is dependent upon user, motivation, diligent adherence to instructions, and proper use of this prosthesis, all warranties are confined to those issued by the manufacturer. Examination, test, and other representations are non-medical and for the sole purpose of fitting hearing aids. I hereby acknowledge that I have been provided information concerning the advantages of telecoils, "t" coils, or "t" switches; which included the increased access to telephones and assistive listening systems. I have been provided in writing with the terms and conditions of the 30-day trial period and money back guarantee; with notice of my right to cancel the purchase within 30 days of receipt of the hearing aid(s) for a valid reason based on a failure to achieve a specific measured performance such as sound improvements or improved word discrimination. It shall be the responsibility of the person selling the hearing aid(s) to maintain the audiometric documentation necessary to establish the measured improvement. If the hearing aid must be repaired, or adjusted during the 30- day[] trial period, the running of the 30- day trial period is suspended one day for each 24 hour period that the hearing aid is not in the purchaser's possession. A repaired, remade, or adjusted hearing aid must be claimed by the purchaser within three working days after notification of availability. In the event of cancellation within the 30-day trial period, the seller may retain a charge not to exceed $150.00 on a monaural fitting (one hearing aid) and $200.00 on a binaural fitting (two hearing aids) for earmolds and services provided to fit the hearing aids. In addition, the purchaser may be charged a cancellation fee not to exceed 5% of the total purchase price. If the hearing system improves word discrimination, which the seller has the right to test and document, no refund will be issued. If a problem arises you should return immediately to the office listed above. In the event a complaint concerning a hearing aid and/or guarantee cannot be reconciled, you may contact the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0783. Telephone Number (904) 488-6602. I understand that this purchase agreement comprises the entire agreement and no other agreement of any kind, verbal understanding or promise whatsoever will be recognized or be binding upon Advanced Hearing Center, Inc. THE USE OF A HEARING AID WILL NOT RESTORE NORMAL HEARING, NOR WILL IT PREVENT FURTHER HEARING LOSS. After the "purchase agreement" was signed, Respondent made earmolds to send to Starkey. The earmolds, along with a manufacturer's order form that Respondent had completed, were subsequently sent to Starkey. On the order form, Respondent provided information concerning the results of the air conduction testing, but not of the bone conduction testing, he had performed on W. J. The J.s left Advanced Hearing following their April 1, 1997, visit without taking a copy of the signed "purchase agreement" with them. At their request, Respondent mailed them a copy of the "purchase agreement," which they received sometime on or about Saturday, April 5, 1997, along with the following cover letter, dated April 1, 1997: Thank you both for coming to Advanced Hearing Center and mutually deciding to purchase your new hearing system. I am confident that the Starkey Sequels will improve your hearing, especially since it minimizes distortion of louder sounds as we thoroughly discussed. Your custom order is being processed and we will notify you when it comes in to set an appointment for the fitting and pick up of your new instruments. Also enclosed please find another copy of the purchase agreement. It was not long after the J.s had left Advanced Hearing on April 1, 1997, that they started having second thoughts about the purchase they had made. The next morning (April 2, 1997), they telephoned Respondent and advised him of their "doubts" and concerns regarding the purchase. Respondent "talked it out" with them, and, at the end of the conversation, the J.s expressed their willingness to "accept the delivery" of the hearing aids. W. J., again accompanied by his wife, returned to Advanced Hearing on Tuesday, April 8, 1997, to be fitted with the new hearing aids. He had not seen a medical doctor since his last visit to Advanced Hearing. When Respondent first fitted W. J. with the new hearing aids, W. J. told Respondent that he heard a whistling noise. Respondent thereupon removed the hearing aids and, using a "metal probe," took wax out of both of W. J.'s ears. He then again fitted W. J. with the new hearing aids. This time W. J. did not hear any whistling noise or other feedback. Respondent proceeded to test and measure W. J.'s hearing. The audiometric test results, which were reduced to writing and placed in the patient file Respondent maintained on W. J., revealed that, with the new hearing aids, W. J. enjoyed a significant improvement in hearing. Following the testing, the J.s accepted delivery of new hearing aids. Respondent provided the J.s with a copy of the "purchase agreement" that W. J. had signed during his previous visit to Advanced Hearing, on which Respondent had added the serial numbers of the new hearing aids and the date of delivery (April 8, 1997). W. J. left Advanced Hearing on April 8, 1997, wearing the new hearing aids. Sometime after leaving Advanced Hearing, W. J. began hearing the same whistling noises that he had heard when Respondent had first fitted him. After returning to New Jersey on April 9, 1997, the J.s brought the new hearing aids to a New Jersey audiologist to be serviced. The New Jersey audiologist told the J.s that to correct the whistling problem new earmolds would have to be made. She further advised the J.s that she "would have to charge [them] a considerable amount of money" to make these earmolds. Respondent was not furnished a signed written request from W. J. requesting that Respondent release to the New Jersey audiologist the records in the file Respondent maintained on W. J. Accordingly, Respondent never sent the New Jersey audiologist these records. On May 1, 1997, the J.s shipped the new hearing aids back to Respondent, along with a letter (dated that same day, May 1, 1997), in which they demanded a "full refund" based upon their claim that the hearing aids neither fit nor worked properly. On May 5, 1997, Respondent refused delivery of the package containing the hearing aids and the letter. Thereafter, on or about May 6, 1997, W. J. filed a complaint against Respondent with Petitioner. The J.s re-sent to Respondent the May 1, 1997, letter requesting a "full refund." The letter was delivered to Respondent on May 9, 1997. Respondent refused to provide the refund that the J.s had demanded because he believed that, inasmuch as he had the audiometric documentation necessary to establish that the hearing aids significantly improved W. J.'s hearing, the J.s did not have a "valid reason," under the existing law, to void their purchase of the hearing aids. Respondent did agree, however, to pay for a qualified person in New Jersey to make earmolds for W. J. so that the problem with the hearing aids could be corrected. He also offered to take the hearing aids back and exchange them for Siemens Music hearing aids. Neither of these offers, though, was acceptable to the J.s. Unsuccessful in their efforts to obtain a refund from Respondent, the J.s sought redress from their credit card company. The credit card company sent the J.s the following letter, dated May 30, 1997: This is in reference to the billing error from ADVANCED HEARING CTR in the amount(s) of $3,800.00. Based on the information you have provided, we have removed the item(s) from dispute and issued a credit to your current account. Please be advised that the merchant has the opportunity for rebuttal. If this occurs, we may need to contact you for further information if deemed necessary to support your case. However, if the merchant can provide documentation that proves the charge(s) to be valid, we will have no alternative but to place the charge(s) back on your account. If this is necessary, we will send you a written explanation. . . . Respondent, on behalf of Advanced Hearing, took advantage of the "opportunity for rebuttal" provided by the credit card company. The matter was finally resolved in October of 1997, with the credit card company siding with the J.s. The end result of the dispute resolution process was that the J.s were made whole and $3,800.00 was "charged back" to Advanced Hearing's account. In early December of 1997, Respondent discovered that there were several files missing from his office. He suspected a disgruntled former employee whom he had recently terminated. (The employee's personnel file was among the missing files.) Respondent contacted the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, which investigated the matter. The deputy that conducted the investigation found no signs of forced entry. No arrests were made as a result of the investigation. Following the completion of the investigation, Respondent found that there were other files, including W. J.'s patient file, that were missing. Respondent made an effort to recreate the documentation that was in W. J.'s file. He contacted Starkey and obtained, over the telephone, the test result information that he had included on the manufacturer's order form he had sent to Starkey. He recorded this information on an Audiometric Case History and Tests form that he uses in his practice. On the form, he wrote that this was "partial information obtained from manufacturer." In January of 1998, Respondent's secretary inadvertently charged the J.s' credit card account $3,800.00. The mistake was subsequently rectified. Sometime in 1998, the J.s mailed to Respondent the hearing aids they had purchased from Advanced Hearing the year before. This time Respondent accepted delivery. The hearing aids were "not in working order" when they were received by Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 29th day of May, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Until August 24, 1974, Petitioner was holder of Certificate of Registration No. 173-06-68, and Renewal Certificate No. 466, which authorized him to act as a hearing aid fitter and salesman in the State of Florida. In 1974, as a result of investigations and conferences conducted by representatives of HRS, it was determined that Petitioner had falsified his application for the above referenced licenses in 1968 when he failed to reveal that in 1955 he had been arrested and convicted of armed robbery, and had served one year in confinement for that offese. Petitioner was duly served with notice (Hearing Officer's Exhibit #3) that proceedings had been commenced to revoke his license to fit and sell hearing aids. In the course of proceedings to revoke his license, Petitioner and HRS entered into a Consent Order (Hearing Officer's Exhibit #1) dated March 19, 1974. In that order, Petitioner agreed to a suspension of his license for a period commencing February 1, 1974, and ending May 2, 1974, and further agreed that thereafter he would be "on a period of supervision for a five-year period. The conditions of this "supervisory period were that Petitioner would submit quarterly reports to HRS containing copies of all contracts for hearing aids sold by him in the State of Florida, the name and address of his employer, and Petitioner's residence address. Under the terms of the Consent Order, any failure by Petitioner to comply with the terms of the agreement constituted grounds for cancellation of his license. Petitioner failed to file the necessary report due on August 1, 1974, with HRS, and, on August 21, 1974, HRS served a Notice of Revocation (Hearing Officers Exhibit #2) advising him that his license had been cancelled for noncompliance with the Consent Order. At the time Petitioner's initial report was due under the terms of the Consent Order he had left Florida to seek other employment in California. At the time of the entry of the Consent Order, Petitioner was employed by Lunex, Inc. in St. Petersburg. He left that position shortly after entry of the order, and was unemployed for a period of approximately six months. Since Petitioner was unemployed, and had made no sales of hearing aids during the period covered by the report which was to have been filed August 1, 1974, his only technical violation of the Consent Order was failure to report his residence address to HRS. Even so, when the August 1, 1974, report became due, Petitioner had no permanent residence address in Florida or elsewhere in that he was actively engaged in seeking employment, both in Florida and in California. Petitioner is now a legal resident of the State of Florida, and has had over ten years experience in the fitting and selling of hearing aids. He is presently employed by Ray Black, Inc., a company qualified to engage in the fitting and selling of hearing aids in Florida. Since his license was revoked in 1974, Petitioners's activities with his present employer are necessarily limited to hiring and training hearing aid salesmen. Ray Black, Inc. is an established hearing aid business, open during normal business hours with a permanent business address at 8001 North Dale Mabry, Tampa, Florida. A representative of Petitioner's current employer testified that his work had been very satisfactory since joining Ray Black, Inc. in March, 1978. Petitioner is now 42 years old. The reasons for the initial revocation of his license were his failure to disclose an arrest and conviction for armed robbery which occurred when he was 18 years old, and his subsequent failure to abide by the terms of the Consent Order (Hearing Officer's Exhibit #1). There has been no evidence of any violation of the laws of this or any other state since his conviction in 1955, and his failure to disclose that conviction in 1968. Neither is there any evidence that Petitioner''s performance as a fitter and seller of hearing aids prior to revocation of his license, and as a teacher of salesmen since that time has been less than satisfactory.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the administrative complaint dated May 16, 2003, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Leeds has been a licensed hearing aid specialist practicing in Coconut Creek, Florida. In 1997, Leeds, then age 77, contracted with patient M. M. to dispense and deliver patient M. M. a hearing aid. The hearing aid failed to perform in a satisfactory manner. The failure occurred because Leeds failed to discharge his professional duties in accordance with minimum performance standards for persons providing hearing aid services in Florida. In particular, Leeds failed to take an appropriate patient history; failed to conduct a physical examination which conformed to the minimum standards and procedures called for by the statutes and rules regulating persons licensed to dispense hearing aids; and failed to create and maintain an adequate patient record. By way of defense, Leeds testified that he performed certain tests which were not reflected in his patient records. This testimony was not credible. Even if Leeds had performed the tests he claimed to have performed, his failure to document them is, standing alone, a serious departure from minimal professional standards. Respondent has been reprimanded by the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists on three prior occasions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's license to dispense hearing aids. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 5th day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialist Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Diane L. Guillemette, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Barry L. Halpern, Esquire Law Offices of Barry L. Halpern 2650 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in three Administrative Complaints, and, if so, what appropriate disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received in evidence and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant facts are made: At all times relevant to the issues herein, the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists has been the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of hearing aid specialists and regulation of hearing aid providers in Florida. Section 455, Florida Statutes (1999). Respondent, Robert F. Davidson, has been a licensed hearing aid specialist in this state, holding license number 0000740. From sometime in April and continuing through sometime in December 1998 Respondent was employed as a salaried store manager at Hearite Audiological ("Hearite"), a hearing aid establishment located at 2700 East Bay Drive, Largo, Florida, 33771, and owned by George Richards and Paula Rogers. Respondent engaged in testing the hearing of individuals and engaged in selling hearing aids to individuals for Hearite Audiological, Inc. To each individual Respondent sole a hearing aid, he provided that person with a written notice of the 30-day money back guarantee. Case No. 01-3536PL Patient C. L. D., a hearing impaired-person, visited Hearite on September 9, 1998, and entered an agreement to purchase a pair of hearing aids for $1,795.00, paying $500.00 deposit at that time. Patient C. L. D. was provided a sales receipt for her deposit signed by Respondent. On September 21, 1998, Respondent delivered the hearing aids to patient C. L. D. at Hearite and signed the receipt as the person who delivered the hearing aids to the patient. Patient C. L. D., after using the hearing aids, became dissatisfied with them and returned the hearing aids to Respondent at Hearite on October 8, 1998. Respondent accepted the hearing aids from Patient C. L. D. and, pursuant to the terms of the sales contract, Respondent promised Patient C. L. D. a full refund of her $500.00 deposit. Despite repeated phone calls to Respondent and repeated attempts to obtain the refund, Patient C. L. D. has never received her refund as promised, and Hearite was later sold to a new owner in January 1999. Case No. 01-3537PL On May 26, 1998, hearing-impaired Patient J. C. aged 95 years, and now deceased, along with his daughter, Chris Vidalis, visited Hearite and purchased a hearing aid for $1,345.00, paying $500.00 deposit upon execution of the sales contract. On June 5, 1998, Patient J. C. paid the remaining $845.00 and received his hearing aid. On June 12, 1998, being dissatisfied with its use Patient J. C. returned the hearing aid and requested a refund. Respondent accepted the hearing aid and promised Patient J. C. a refund of $1,345.00 within 120 days. Patient J. C.'s daughter, Chris Vidalis, who was with her father every time he visited Hearite, made numerous telephone calls and visits to Hearite in attempts to obtain the refund. The refund was never paid and Hearite was sold to a new owner in January 1999. Case No 01-3538PL On or about June 10, 1998, Patient R. L., after several unsolicited telephone calls from someone representing Hearite, visited Hearite for the purpose of having his hearing tested and possibly purchasing a hearing aid. After testing, Patient R. L. purchased a pair of hearing aids at Hearite for $3,195.00. A paid in full receipt signed by Al Berg was given to Patient R. L. On or about July 10, 1998, Respondent delivered the hearing aids to Patient R. L. and signed the sales receipt as the licensee who delivered the hearing aids. Upon being dissatisfied with using the hearing aids Patient R. L. returned them to Hearite on July 13, 1998. Kelly Dyson, audiologist employed at Hearite, accepted the hearing aids and promised Patient R. L. a full refund of $2,840.00, pursuant to the terms of the contract. Patient R. L. made repeated attempts to obtain his refund as promised but has not received one. Hearite was sold to a new owner in January 1999. Respondent's position, that each of the three patients herein above was aware or should have been aware that the sale of hearing aids, and, therefore, the guarantor of the refunds was Hearite Audiological, Inc., and, not himself, is disingenuous.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists enter a final order requiring Respondent to pay the following amounts: to Patient C. L. D., $500.00, DOAH Case No. 01-3536PL; to Patient J. C. (or his estate) $1,345.00, DOAH Case No. 01-3537PL, and to Patient R. L., $2,840.00, DOAH Case 01-3537PL. Further that Respondent be fined $1,000.00 and be required to pay the appropriate costs of investigation and prosecution. Further, ordered that Respondent's license be suspended and not reinstated until after all payments herein ordered are paid in full, and thereafter place Respondent on probation for a period of not less than one year under the terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 1st day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Station 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 E. Raymond Shope, II, Esquire 1404 Goodlette Road, North Naples, Florida 34102 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialist Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way 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
