The Issue An administrative complaint dated January 5, 1998, charges that Respondent violated rules governing the practice of massage by failing to have a current establishment license and failing to have a fire extinquisher on the premises maintained in good working condition. The issues for resolution are whether those violations occurred and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Keith Richard Goldsmith, is now and has been at all relevant times a massage therapist licensed by the State of Florida with license no. 0011202. In 1996, Respondent's massage establishment, Bio-Spirit Bodywork Therapy, was licensed and located at 1089 Choke Cherry Road in Winter Springs, Seminole County, Florida. The property was sold and Respondent had to relocate in a move which he describes as "chaotic." At some point during or after the move Respondent sent his facility transfer fee to the Board of Massage. He apparently sent a letter, but not the proper application form. On July 31, 1997, after obtaining Respondent's phone number from telephone information and calling to get an appointment, investigators Dawn Witte and J. C. Russell conducted an inspection of Respondent's facility now located at 265 Stoner Road in Winter Springs, Florida. The inspection determined that all requirements were met, except for the following: No current establishment license; No establishment license displayed; and No fire extinquisher maintained on the premises. At the time of the inspection Respondent had not obtained the license for the new facility and did not display the license for the prior facility. His fire extinquisher was still packed away somewhere. In a follow-up visit from the inspectors, Respondent declined the option to accept a disciplinary citation and $250 fine for the violations. Respondent subsequently formally applied for, and was granted a temporary establishment license for the Stoner Road facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is hereby recommended that the Board of Massage Therapy enter its final order finding that Respondent committed two violations of Section 480.046(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and assessing a fine of $350. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee. Leon County, Florida. MARY 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. Garwood, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 1580 Waldo Palmer Lane Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Keith Richard Goldsmith 265 Stoner Road Winter Springs, Florida 32708 Joe Baker, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Linda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4092
The Issue The issues are whether the Respondent, a licensed massage therapist, violated section 480.046(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2015),1/ by pleading nolo contendere to one count of prostitution; whether she violated section 456.072(1)(x), Florida Statutes, by failing to report the plea to the Board of Massage Therapy within 30 days, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in Florida under section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes (2017). At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent was licensed to practice massage therapy in Florida, having been issued license number MA 76935 by the Board of Massage Therapy. On January 14, 2016, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere in case 15-CM-019206-A in Hillsborough County, Florida, to one count of prostitution in violation of section 796.07(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2015), a second-degree misdemeanor. Adjudication was withheld, and the Respondent was required to pay $270 in court costs. The Respondent did not report her plea in that case to the Board of Massage Therapy within 30 days of entering the plea. The Respondent stipulated that the crime of prostitution is directly related to the practice of massage therapy, and that offering to perform a sexual act on a massage client during the course of a massage by a licensed massage therapist is outside the scope of the practice of massage therapy. Despite her nolo contendere plea, the Respondent testified in this case that she was not guilty of prostitution. She also testified that she entered the plea without fully understanding its meaning and consequences, and without legal counsel, and that she would not have entered the plea had she known its meanings and consequences. She introduced no other evidence to corroborate or support her claims.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: finding the Respondent guilty of violating section 480.046(1)(c) and section 456.072(1)(x); fining her $1,000; revoking her license to practice massage therapy; and awarding costs of investigation and prosecution of this matter to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2017.
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, a massage therapist, obtained a license: (a) by means of fraudulent misrepresentations; (b) which she knew had been issued in error; and/or (c) without having completed a course of study at an approved school, as Petitioner alleges. If so, it will be necessary to determine an appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued Hao license number MA 60237, which authorized her to practice massage therapy in the state of Florida. The Department and the Board of Massage Therapy ("Board") have regulatory jurisdiction over licensed massage therapists such as Hao. The Department provides investigative services to the Board and is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint, as it has done this instance, when cause exists to suspect that a licensee has committed a disciplinable offense. The Florida College of Natural Health ("FCNH") is an incorporated nonpublic postsecondary educational entity. FCNH holds a license by means of accreditation that authorizes its operation in Florida as an independent college. The Florida Commission for Independent Education ("CIE"), which regulates nonpublic postsecondary institutions, issued the necessary license to FCNH pursuant to section 1005.32, Florida Statutes. In addition to being duly licensed by the state, FCNH is accredited by the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges and by the Commission on Massage Therapy. Finally, FCNH is a "Board-approved massage school" within the meaning of that term as defined in section 480.033.2/ At the times relevant to this proceeding, the minimum requirements for becoming and remaining a Board-approved massage school were set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7- (Apr. 25, 2010), which provided in pertinent part as follows: In order to receive and maintain Board of Massage Therapy approval, a massage school, and any satellite location of a previously approved school, must: Meet the requirements of and be licensed by the Department of Education pursuant to Chapter 1005, F.S., or the equivalent licensing authority of another state or county, or be within the public school system of the State of Florida; and Offer a course of study that includes, at a minimum, the 500 classroom hours listed below . . . . Apply directly to the Board of Massage Therapy and provide the following information: Sample transcript and diploma; Copy of curriculum, catalog or other course descriptions; Faculty credentials; and Proof of licensure by the Department of Education. As an institution holding a license by means of accreditation, FCNH must comply with the fair consumer practices prescribed in section 1005.04 and in the rules of the CIE.3/ Regarding these required practices, section 1005.04, Florida Statutes (2009), provided during the relevant time frame as follows: Every institution that is under the jurisdiction of the commission or is exempt from the jurisdiction or purview of the commission pursuant to s. 1005.06(1)(c) or (f) and that either directly or indirectly solicits for enrollment any student shall: Disclose to each prospective student a statement of the purpose of such institution, its educational programs and curricula, a description of its physical facilities, its status regarding licensure, its fee schedule and policies regarding retaining student fees if a student withdraws, and a statement regarding the transferability of credits to and from other institutions. The institution shall make the required disclosures in writing at least 1 week prior to enrollment or collection of any tuition from the prospective student. The required disclosures may be made in the institution's current catalog; Use a reliable method to assess, before accepting a student into a program, the student's ability to complete successfully the course of study for which he or she has applied; Inform each student accurately about financial assistance and obligations for repayment of loans; describe any employment placement services provided and the limitations thereof; and refrain from promising or implying guaranteed placement, market availability, or salary amounts; Provide to prospective and enrolled students accurate information regarding the relationship of its programs to state licensure requirements for practicing related occupations and professions in Florida; Ensure that all advertisements are accurate and not misleading; Publish and follow an equitable prorated refund policy for all students, and follow both the federal refund guidelines for students receiving federal financial assistance and the minimum refund guidelines set by commission rule; Follow the requirements of state and federal laws that require annual reporting with respect to crime statistics and physical plant safety and make those reports available to the public; and Publish and follow procedures for handling student complaints, disciplinary actions, and appeals. In addition, institutions that are required to be licensed by the commission shall disclose to prospective students that additional information regarding the institution may be obtained by contacting the Commission for Independent Education, Department of Education, Tallahassee. (emphasis added). At the time of the events giving rise to this proceeding, the CIE's rule relating to fair consumer practices provided in relevant part as follows: This rule implements the provisions of Sections 1005.04 and 1005.34, F.S., and establishes the regulations and standards of the Commission relative to fair consumer practices and the operation of independent postsecondary education institutions in Florida. This rule applies to those institutions as specified in Section 1005.04(1), F.S. All such institutions and locations shall demonstrate compliance with fair consumer practices. * * * (6) Each prospective student shall be provided a written copy, or shall have access to an electronic copy, of the institution's catalog prior to enrollment or the collection of any tuition, fees or other charges. The catalog shall contain the following required disclosures, and catalogs of licensed institutions must also contain the information required in subsections 6E- 2.004(11) and (12), F.A.C.: * * * (f) Transferability of credits: The institution shall disclose information to the student regarding transferability of credits to other institutions and from other institutions. The institution shall disclose that transferability of credit is at the discretion of the accepting institution, and that it is the student's responsibility to confirm whether or not credits will be accepted by another institution of the student's choice. If a licensed institution has entered into written articulation agreements with other institutions, a list of those other institutions may be provided to students, along with any conditions or limitations on the amount or kinds of credit that will be accepted. Such written agreements with other institutions must be valid and in effect at the time the information is disclosed to the student. The agreements shall be kept on file at all times and available for inspection by Commission representatives or students. Any change or termination of the agreements shall be disclosed promptly to all affected students. No representation shall be made by a licensed institution that its credits can be transferred to another specific institution, unless the institution has a current, valid articulation agreement on file. Units or credits applied toward the award of a credential may be derived from a combination of any or all of the following: Units or credits earned at and transferred from other postsecondary institutions, when congruent and applicable to the receiving institution's program and when validated and confirmed by the receiving institution. Successful completion of challenge examinations or standardized tests demonstrating learning at the credential level in specific subject matter areas. Prior learning, as validated, evaluated, and confirmed by qualified instructors at the receiving institution. * * * (11) An institution is responsible for ensuring compliance with this rule by any person or company contracted with or employed by the institution to act on its behalf in matters of advertising, recruiting, or otherwise making representations which may be accessed by prospective students, whether verbally, electronically, or by other means of communication. Fla. Admin. Code R. 6E-1.0032 (July 23, 2007)(emphasis added). As a duly licensed, accredited, Board-approved massage school, FCNH was, at all relevant times, authorized to evaluate the transferability of credits to FCNH from other massage schools, so that credits earned elsewhere——including from schools that were not Board-approved——could be applied toward the award of a diploma from FCNH. In making such an evaluation, FCNH was obligated to follow the standards for transfer of credit that the Board had established by rule.4/ Further, when exercising its discretion to accept transfer credits, FCNH was required to complete, sign, and attach to the student's transcript the Board's Transfer of Credit Form, by which the school's dean or registrar certified that the student's previously earned credits, to the extent specified, were acceptable in lieu of the student's taking courses at FCNH. At all relevant times, FCNH's registrar was Glenda Johnson. As registrar, Ms. Johnson had apparent authority, at a minimum, to evaluate the transferability of credits, and she possessed actual authority to generate and execute the Transfer of Credit Form certifying to the Board that an applicant's previously earned credits were acceptable to FCNH. In December 2011, an individual with the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork ("NCB") placed a telephone call to Melissa Wade, a managerial employee of FCNH, to report that the NCB had received a number of applications to sit for the National Certification Examination from FCNH graduates whose transcripts seemed irregular. (Hao's application was not among these; she had taken, and passed, a national licensing examination in February 2010.) What these applicants had in common was that they had earned their massage therapy diplomas from Royal Irvin College in Monterey Park, California, and they had fewer credit hours on their transcripts than FCNH's typical students. The NCB sent copies of the suspicious credentials to FCNH. Ms. Wade reviewed the materials and detected purported anomalies in them. She was unable to find records in the school's files confirming that the putative graduates in question had been enrolled as students. Ms. Wade confronted Ms. Johnson with the problematic transcripts and certificates. Ms. Johnson admitted that she had created and signed them. Shortly thereafter, in December 2011, FCNH terminated Ms. Johnson's employment. Ms. Wade later notified the Board that some of FCNH's diplomates might not have fulfilled the requirements for graduation. This caused the Department to launch an investigation, with which FCNH fully cooperated. The investigation uncovered some 200 graduates whose credentials FCNH could not confirm. One of them was Hao. Hao was born in China and at some point immigrated to the United States. In 2007 Hao studied massage therapy at Acupuncture and Massage Institute of America ("AMIA") in Hacienda Heights, California. At AMIA, Hao successfully completed a 750-hour curriculum in massage therapy, graduating on December 18, 2007. Thereafter, Hao relocated to Florida intending to work as a massage therapist. Before she could begin working, however, Hao needed to obtain a Florida license. Because AMIA was not a Board-approved massage school, Hao needed to complete either a course of study at an approved school or, alternatively, an apprenticeship program. In June 2010, Hao went to the Pompano campus of FCNH, where she met with Ms. Johnson. Hao decided to enroll in FCNH, and Ms. Johnson prepared the necessary documents. Hao gave Ms. Johnson copies of her educational credentials from AMIA. In her capacity as registrar, Ms. Johnson completed a Transfer of Credit Form, and FCNH's internal Calculation Form for a Graduate From Another Massage Therapy School. Ms. Johnson took Hao's FCNH enrollment forms and collected $400.00 in cash as the fee for handling the transfer of Hao's credits and her registration as a student of FCNH. Having collected the money, Ms. Johnson furnished Respondent with several items, including an FCNH document titled "Certificate of Completion — 15 Hours of Therapeutic Massage Training Program (Transfer of Licensure)" that bore Ms. Johnson's signature and the school's seal; an FCNH document titled "Certificate of Completion — 2 Hours of Prevention of Medical Errors," which bore FCNH's seal, as well as Ms. Johnson's signature; the Transfer of Credit Form signed by Ms. Johnson, which indicates that FCNH accepted Hao's credits from AMIA; and an FCNH transcript (signed by Ms. Johnson and bearing the school's seal) showing that Hao had completed a 500- hour program titled "Therapeutic Massage Training Program (Transfer of Licensure)." Collectively, the credit transfer form, the FCNH certificates, and the FCNH transcript "signify satisfactory completion of the requirements of an educational or career program of study or training or course of study" and constitute a "diploma" within the meaning of that term as defined in section 1005.02(8), Florida Statutes. The several documents comprising Hao's FCNH diploma will be referred to hereafter, collectively, as the "Diploma." Ms. Johnson produced a Department of Health application for a massage therapy license and helped Hao fill it out. Hao then signed the three-page application, which is dated June 17, 2010. The application which Hao executed states, truthfully, that she obtained a massage therapy certificate in December of 2007 from AMIA and that the school is not Board approved. The application states, correctly, that Hao completed 750 hours of study at AMIA. The evidence does not establish that Hao knowingly made a false statement of material fact in the application or otherwise intended to perpetrate a fraud on the Department. Ms. Johnson forwarded Hao's application and supporting documents to the Department, and soon afterward the Department issued Hao a license to practice as a massage therapist. The evidence fails to support a finding that Hao misrepresented her educational attainments when she met with Ms. Johnson. The evidence, moreover, does not support a finding that Hao knew or should have known that Ms. Johnson's evaluation of her credits was anything but routine and in accordance with FCNH's academic policies. The evidence does not support a finding that Hao knew or should have known that FCNH, as the transferee school accepting her AMIA courses, would award her academic credit or credentials which she had not legitimately earned. Hao was not shown to have had any prior familiarity with FCNH forms and documents; its recordkeeping practices; or its internal policies regarding the registration and enrollment of students, the evaluation of transcripts for the purpose of transfer of credits, or the issuance of certificates and other educational credentials. Hao was not shown to have had any reason to suspect that the FCNH Enrollment Agreement she signed would not be properly entered into the school's records, or to believe that the FCNH transcript issued for her benefit purported to award her any credits other than those she rightfully had earned. To sum up Hao's transaction with FCNH, she went to the Board-approved, state-licensed massage school in June 2010, where she met with the registrar, Ms. Johnson, a member of the school's administration who she had no reason to believe would deceive her. It was reasonable under the circumstances for Hao to rely upon Ms. Johnson, and she was entitled under the law to receive accurate information from the registrar regarding, among other things, the transferability of credits to FCNH, and the relationship between FCNH's academic program and the state's licensure requirements for massage therapists. Further, Ms. Johnson, who at all times was acting within the course and scope of her employment as the school's registrar, had actual authority to prepare and certify educational credentials on behalf of FCNH. The evidence does not establish that Hao was or should have been aware of any limitations on Ms. Johnson's authority, nor does the evidence show that Hao gave Ms. Johnson false information. From Hao's perspective, Ms. Johnson had apparent authority, at least, to accept Hao's credits from AMIA and to prepare, execute, and issue such transcripts and certificates as would be appropriate to the situation. Hao has not surrendered her Diploma or otherwise acceded to the allegation that the credentials FCNH conferred upon her are invalid. FCNH has not initiated a legal proceeding to revoke or withdraw Hao's Diploma. At present, therefore, there is no legally binding or enforceable determination that the Diploma is void or that Hao is without rights and privileges thereunder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding Hao not guilty of the offenses charged in the Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 20th day of August, 2013.
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 The issue is whether Respondent's license as a massage therapist should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: 1. In this disciplinary action, Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (Board), seeks to impose disciplinary action against the license of Respondent, James Whited, Jr., a licensed massage therapist, on the ground that he knowingly failed to disclose on his application for licensure a no contest plea to a misdemeanor in 1993. Respondent denies that the omission was intentional and requested a hearing to contest the proposed action. 2. Respondent has been licensed as a massage therapist since October 8, 1999, having been issued license number MA 29917. On August 12, 1999, Respondent submitted his application for licensure to the Board. Question 6A asks for the following information: Have you ever pled guilty or no contest to a crime, or have you ever been convicted of a crime in any jurisdiction? You must include all misdemeanor and felonies even if adjudication was withheld. Please include military court martials. Do not include parking or speeding violations. In response to the foregoing question, Respondent answered in the negative. 3. On March 16, 1993, Respondent was arrested in Nassau County, Florida, on a felony charge of battery on a law enforcement officer and a misdemeanor charge of exposure of sexual organs. Shortly thereafter, Respondent retained the services of Vincent P. Gallagher, an attorney who had just been admitted to practice law in September 1992. 4. On an undisclosed date, the felony charge of battery was dropped. This typically means that the prosecutor has insufficient evidence to proceed to trial. At the same time, the original misdemeanor charge was also dropped or dismissed by the prosecutor. Pursuant to an agreement between Respondent's counsel and the prosecutor, at a disposition hearing held on July 6, 1993, Respondent's counsel entered a plea of no contest to a misdemeanor charge of simple battery. Adjudication of guilt was withheld, and Respondent was required to pay $103.00 in court costs. 5. Although a court document entitled Judgment and Sentence reflects that "the defendant, accompanied by his/her attorney, Vincent Gallagher, [was] present in open court" at the time of the plea, this notation by the clerk on the document was incorrect, and Respondent did not attend the disposition hearing. This finding is based on the fact that attorney Gallagher specifically recalled that his client did not attend the disposition hearing, Respondent denied being present, and another attorney who practices criminal law in Nassau County established that the Nassau County Judge who accepted the plea discourages attorneys from bringing their clients to disposition hearings. Unlike defendants in Circuit Court, defendants in County Court are not required to be present at the disposition hearing. Finally, the court records show that attorney Gallagher filed a Notice of Appearance before the County Court, which authorized him to appear on Respondent's behalf, without Respondent's need to personally appear before the Court. 6. Prior to the disposition hearing, Respondent was told by his attorney that if he was willing to pay court costs, "this thing will go away." Although Respondent considered the charges to be meritless, and had told his attorney that he wished to contest the charges, he logically interpreted his counsel's advice to mean that all charges would be dropped if he paid the costs. He was never specifically told by his attorney that a no contest plea was being entered on his behalf. This was confirmed by attorney Gallagher who explained that his customary practice at that time (when he was a new attorney) was to simply advise his clients that a charge "would go away" if court costs were paid, and there would be "no conviction." 7. Before he filed his application for licensure with the Board in August 1999, Respondent spoke with an unidentified representative of the Board and disclosed that he had been arrested in 1993 but that both charges had been "dropped." This representation was consistent with his understanding of the information conveyed to him by his attorney. Respondent asked whether he should disclose this information on his application. Based on advice from that representative, disclosure of the incident was not made. 8. When Respondent filled out his application, he was under the impression that the charges had been dropped. Therefore, when he answered "no" to Question 6A, there was no intent to deceive the Board or to obtain his license by fraudulent circumstances. Indeed, Respondent was unaware that he had actually pled no contest to a misdemeanor until the Board contacted him just prior to the issuance of the Administrative Complaint. Had he been aware of the no contest plea, Respondent would have voluntarily disclosed the plea on his application. 9. When the Board's staff received the application without any reference to the plea, the application "proceeded without being presented to the full [B]loard of [MJassage [T]herapy for review," and a license was administratively issued. Had question 6A been answered in the affirmative, Respondent would have been considered a "history" candidate and required to submit certified copies of the court records. Also, he would have been required to personally appear before the Board for the purpose of “explaining the circumstances around the occurrence" and to answer any questions the members might have. 10. After he received his license, Respondent invested a considerable sum of money in purchasing his current business. He now employs nine persons and has a successful full-service salon providing cosmetologists, massage therapists, manicures/ pedicures, and facial specialists. He also attends the University of North Florida part-time, and is a long-time member of the U. S. Naval Reserve, serving as a hospital corpsman. 11. More than likely, a plea of no contest to a misdemeanor charge of simple battery would not be serious enough to disqualify Respondent from licensure had the incident been disclosed on his application. This is because the isolated incident occurred some eight years ago, and it can be reasonably inferred that the charge of simple battery was unrelated to the practice of massage therapy or Respondent's ability to practice that profession. The Board apparently reached this same conclusion since it chose not to charge Respondent with this statutory violation. 12. Other than this disciplinary action, Respondent has never been charged with, or prosecuted for, a violation of a Board rule or statute that it administers.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Mail Station 39 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5407 For Respondent: Scott F. Mitchell, Esquire Lester & Mitchell, P.A. One Independent Drive, Suite 2202 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5015
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint, with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 4s day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ew) eR WAAL DONALD R. ALEXANDE 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 (gth day of guly, 2001. il COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Massage 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William L. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Mail Stop 39 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5407 Scott F. Mitchell, Esquire Lester & Mitchell, P.A. One Independent Drive, Suite 2202 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5015
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent has been licensed as a massage therapist in the State of Florida, license no. MA 0007093. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility under Florida law of regulating massage therapists. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Department required that licensees obtain continuing education credits in order to renew massage therapy licenses. The license renewal card sent by the agency to the licensee requires verification that the licensee has met all continuing education requirements. Respondent executed a renewal notice form that represented she had met all requirements for license renewal, including the continuing education commitment. On November 5, 1993, the Department issued a letter to Respondent advising her that her license had been randomly selected for audit for the continuing education requirements for the period January 1, 1991 through January 31, 1993. By such notice, Respondent was requested to complete an audit form and to attach proof of attendance for the continuing education courses attended for the audit period. In order to qualify for acceptance, continuing education courses must be approved by the Department. Courses which have not received approval may not be counted to fulfill continuing education requirements. The Respondent filed a response to the audit including courses which had not been approved by the agency. In follow-up, the Department, by form notice dated December 7, 1993, advised the Respondent that her audit was incomplete. More specifically, the Department advised Respondent that the provider of the continuing education (CE) identified by Respondent was not an approved provider and that the number of courses of approved CE did not show attendance of at least twelve hours. To date, the Respondent has not provided proof of compliance with the CE requirements of the Department. Courses which Respondent attended in connection with another license held by Respondent (nurse), do not comply with the criteria for her license as a massage therapist. Respondent is aware of the different Boards and regulations pertaining to the licenses she holds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Massage, enter a final order revoking Respondent's license as a massage therapist and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of August, 1995, 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 29th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0148 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Lindgard Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Diana Wentworth 1500 Pelican Lane Vero Beach, Florida 32963-2644 Anna Polk Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
