Findings Of Fact On or about September 22, 1994, Byron Charles Todaro (Petitioner) filed an application for licensure as a massage therapist by examination with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Massage (Respondent). On the application, Petitioner responded "yes" to the question that asked, in pertinent part, if he had "ever been convicted or found guilty, regardless of adjudication, of a crime in any jurisdiction", excluding parking and speeding tickets, with a plea of nolo contendere being considered a conviction. On or about September 7, 1982, Petitioner pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (methaqualone) in the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida. The court withheld adjudication and imposed a fine. Also, in 1982, Petitioner pled guilty to driving under the influence/unlawful blood alcohol level and careless driving. On or about May 22, 1987, in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida, Petitioner pled guilty to driving while his license was suspended. The court adjudged him guilty and, among other things, placed Petitioner on one (1) year probation and ordered him to participate in and successfully complete a drug evaluation and rehabilitation program. On or about March 3, 1988, the court vacated the adjudication and adjudication was withheld. On or about May 26, 1989, Petitioner pled guilty to a four-count criminal offense in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida: Count I - possession of cocaine; Count II - possession of a controlled substance; Count III - possession of drug paraphernalia; and Count IV - possession of cannabis. As to Counts I and II, the court withheld adjudication and, among other things, imposed a 3-year probation and drug evaluation and treatment. As to Counts III and IV, the court, among other things, adjudicated Petitioner guilty. On or about November 25, 1992, in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to a five-count criminal offense: Count I - possession of a controlled substance (diazepam); Count II - possession of cannabis; Count III - possession of drug paraphernalia; Count IV - fleeing a police officer; and Count V - reckless driving. Regarding Counts I, II, and IV, the court, among other things, withheld adjudication and imposed a five (5) year and one (1) year drug offender probation (running concurrently). Regarding Counts III and V, the court, among other things, adjudicated Petitioner guilty. Furthermore, the court ordered an evaluation and random urinalysis. Less than one (1) year later, on or about July 20, 1993, in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to a two-count criminal offense: Count I - possession of cocaine with intent to deliver; and Count II - possession of a controlled substance. The court, among other things, withheld adjudication, placed Petitioner on 4 1/2 years of probation, and ordered Petitioner to attend and complete Concept House, followed by Broward Alcohol Recovery Center (BARC) and random urinalysis. The Concept House provides an inpatient drug rehabilitation program. Petitioner had voluntarily begun treatment at the Concept House in June 1993 and the court made it a mandatory part of his probation. Petitioner attended Concept House for six months. For the first three months, Petitioner had to remain at the Concept House, and for the last three months, he was allowed to leave only to seek employment or receive training but returned to the Concept House in the evenings. In December, 1993, Petitioner successfully completed the program at the Concept House. During his treatment at the Concept House, Petitioner was consistently tested by the Concept House, and no test was positive. BARC is an outpatient alcohol abuse program. Petitioner is currently attending BARC. Petitioner's probation officer supervises his treatment at BARC. Petitioner receives weekly drug testing at BARC. No test has been positive. In addition to the weekly testing at BARC, Petitioner receives a monthly urinalysis as part of his probation. No test has been positive. Petitioner received vocational rehabilitation training through the Concept House, and through this training, it was determined that massage therapy was a field which he could pursue. The Concept House funded Petitioner's schooling for massage therapy. On or about January 11, 1994, Petitioner entered the therapeutic massage training program at the Florida Institute. He successfully completed the program on or about June 14, 1994, with a scholastic average of 91.55 percent, using a grading scale of 100 percent. Petitioner's probation officer assisted him in getting admitted to the Florida Institute. Petitioner's drug cases involve personal use and consumption, not the sale or trafficking of drugs or conspiracy to sell or traffic in drugs. Petitioner has been drug free for almost 2 years. Petitioner's current probation is scheduled to end in 1998. He has applied to the court for early termination. Petitioner presented letters of recommendation from his probation officer who has contact with Petitioner on at least a monthly basis regarding his drug abuse and from his vocational rehabilitation counselor employed with the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security. The practice of massage involves a great degree of trust between the client and the practitioner. For a massage, a client disrobes to a point of comfort for the client, and in certain instances completely disrobes, and, therefore, a client must feel that he/she can trust the practitioner. The trust is both physical and psychological. Accompanying the trust is a high level of responsibility for the massage therapist who must guard and protect that trust. An applicant for licensure must demonstrate that he/she possesses that level of responsibility necessary to practice massage. Massage is a part of health care, being placed under the responsibility of the Division of Medical Quality Assurance of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. A substantial number of massage therapists (25 percent to 30 percent) are employed in medical areas such as physical therapy centers, hospitals and doctor's offices. Petitioner has no desire to work in a medical area and has been offered a position in a health spa upon licensure by Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage enter a final order DENYING Byron Charles Todaro licensure as a massage therapist by examination. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of September 1995. ERROL H. POWELL 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 September 1995. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner 1. Rejected as being unnecessary as a finding of fact since no issue of standing exists. 2-4. Rejected as being unnecessary as a finding of fact. Rejected as being unnecessary, or argument. a. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. b. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. c-f. Rejected as being argument, or conclusions of law. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Petitioner admitted that he was currently on probation. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. i-j. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. k-l. Rejected as being argument, or conclusion of law. m-n. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6 and 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6, 8, 9, 15 and 16. Rejected as being argument, or conclusion of law. See Preliminary Statement Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 11. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7, 8, 9 and 14. Respondent 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2 and 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Rejected as being unnecessary, or irrelevant. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Rejected as being argument, or conclusion of law. a. Rejected as being argument, or conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Rejected as being argument, or conclusion of law. NOTE: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, not supported by the evidence, argument, or conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0062 Roger S. Elkind, Esquire 2903 Salzedo Street, Suite 100 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-6618 Lee Ann Gustafson M. Catherine Lannon Assisant Attorneys General Administrative Law The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue Whether Respondent's license to practice massage in the state of Florida should be disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage in the state of Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed massage therapist in the state of Florida, holding license number MA 0007149. At all times material to this proceeding, Frank Calta's Health Connection (Health Connection) was not licensed as a massage establishment in the state of Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent did hold a license for a massage establishment in the state of Florida. In October 1989, the Respondent filed a licensure application with Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, Dietetics and Nutrition Practice Council (Council) for licensure as a Nutritional Counselor. In answering a request for all work experience as a Nutritional Counselor in the application, Respondent listed the Health Connection as an employer from "11/87 to present" (October 1989) and as to the position held, listed "massage therapist". Respondent's answers to questions in the application were under oath wherein he declared under penalty of perjury that his statements were true and correct. As part of this application to the Council, Respondent submitted a notarized statement by Frank Calta of the Health Connection indicating that Respondent had worked as a massage therapist at the Health Connection from "September 5, 1987 to the present" (September 11, 1989). The testimony of both Respondent and Frank Calta at the hearing established that Respondent was not employed by the Health Connection as such in that he was not paid a salary by the Health Connection or that he worked regular hours for the Health Connection. However, this same testimony established that Respondent did perform massages for Frank Calta and members of the Health Connection in between sets of exercises and at the end of the exercises. These massages were conducted at either the Health Connection located at the 4626 Busch Boulevard, Tampa, Florida address or the Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida address during the period from September 5, 1987 through September 11, 1989. The Respondent was compensated for these massages by the individual members or by Frank Calta through the use of the Health Connection. Other than the individual members of the Health Connection, the Respondent did not solicit business from the "general public" as such. It was Respondent's contention that these massages were performed at sports events. However, there was no evidence that the individual members or Frank Calta were involved in any type of sport competition at the time of the massages by the Respondent, but only exercising to keep their bodies in shape. There was sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that Respondent was practicing "massage" as that term is defined in Section 480.033(3), Florida Statutes, in an unlicensed "establishment" as that term is defined in Section 480.083(7), Florida Statutes, during the period from September 5, 1987 through September 11, 1989. There was no evidence presented to show that Respondent's license as a massage therapist had ever been disciplined or that any disciplinary action, other than the instant case, had been taken against the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the penalty guidelines set out in Rule 21L-30.002, Florida Administrative Code, it is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 480.036(1)(n), Florida Statutes, and for that violation issue the Respondent a letter of reprimand and assess an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-2613 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in the case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. - 4. Adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order in Findings of Fact 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. 5. - 7. Adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order in Finding of Fact 5. 8. - 9. Adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order in Finding of Fact 6. Neither relevant nor material to this proceeding other than as to Respondent's credibility as a witness. - 13. Adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order in Finding of Fact 7 and 9. 14. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record but in any event, is neither material nor relevant to this proceeding other than as to the extent of the disciplinary action taken. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1. Respondent has submitted what is titled Proposed Finding of Facts. However, it more of a conclusion of law or legal argument than finding of fact. As to the facts set out in paragraph 5 (unnumbered) see Finding of Fact 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Lois B. Lepp, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Aaron Benjamin 8319 Cross Timbers Drive East Jacksonville, FL 32244 Anna Polk, Executive Director Board of Massage 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy and failed to appropriately drape a client as alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint1 (AAC), and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent’s license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a massage therapist in Florida, having been issued license number MA 80545. In the time since Respondent was licensed, no prior disciplinary action has been taken against her license. Respondent was born in the Liaoning Province, North China, and came to the United States in 2005. Respondent is a U.S. citizen. Respondent attended a Beauty School for her massage education and her educational instruction at school was in English. Further, when she took the examination to become a Florida licensed massage therapist, the examination was in English, and no one helped her to translate the material. Respondent’s address of record is 9986 Red Eagle Drive, Orlando, Florida, 32826.4 At all times relevant to the AAC, Respondent practiced massage therapy, as defined in section 480.033(3), at Golden Asian Massage, LLC, doing business as The Wood Massage (Golden Asian). Golden Asian was located at 1218 Winter Garden Vineland Road, Suite 124, Winter Garden, Orange County, Florida. 4 On November 26, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, stipulating that Respondent’s address of record was in New York. At some point after the March 2016 investigation, Respondent moved out of Florida. Then, either before or after November 26, 2019, Respondent moved back to Florida, but failed to advise her counsel or DOH of her address change. Respondent’s counsel stated that he would ensure Respondent filed the appropriate change of address information with DOH. At the time of the investigation, the LEO had been trained at the police academy, had multiple courses in vice-related investigations, human trafficking investigations, and drug trafficking investigations, including prostitution activities. The LEO has participated in “well over a hundred” undercover prostitution operations. The LEO’s investigation assignments “as a whole” include “anything that would be vice-related, drug trafficking or human trafficking.” The MBI is a joint police task force for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, which includes Orange County and Osceola County. MBI routinely investigates vice, human trafficking crimes, and mid-level to upper-level narcotic organizations. Once the MBI receives a complaint about a massage parlor, an undercover investigation is initiated. An undercover investigation team usually consists of five law enforcement personnel: a supervisor-in-charge; the undercover agent (agent); and two to three additional support personnel. An agent goes into the establishment, posing as a customer. Once the agent is on the massage table, the agent waits for the massage therapist to initiate, either via conversation or through an overt act, a predisposition for sexual activity. In some instances, the massage therapist might glide their fingers in the inner thigh, or speak of some sexual activity. Once the massage therapist initiates an actual sex act, the agent then tries to stop the sex act, while engaging in conversation. On March 9, 2016, after receiving a tip or complaint about the establishment, the MBI conducted an undercover investigation of the Golden Asian. The LEO arrived at the Golden Asian, met Respondent at the counter, and in English, asked for a 30-minute massage. Respondent responded in English and told the LEO it would cost $50 for a 30-minute massage. The LEO agreed to the cost, and Respondent led the LEO to a massage room within the Golden Asian. The LEO got completely undressed and positioned himself on his stomach, face-down on the massage table. Upon entering the room, Respondent grabbed a towel and placed it on the LEO’s back midsection. The LEO described the area covered as “pretty much my buttocks to, like, my lower back,” but the towel was not tucked in. Using oil, Respondent massaged the LEO’s back, thighs, and neck. While the LEO was still on his stomach and roughly ten to 15 minutes through the massage, the towel fell off. The LEO did nothing to dislodge the towel while he was on his stomach. Roughly halfway through the 30-minute massage, Respondent “stopped massaging and it was more of a gliding motion from [the LEO’s] back to [the LEO’s] inner thighs.” With this action, the LEO determined that Respondent was predisposed to engage in sexual activity. Respondent directed the LEO to turn over, which he did. The LEO testified that after he turned over his genitals were exposed. Respondent put more oil on her hands and massaged the LEO’s chest to his thigh area. Respondent further testified that Respondent “would glide and touch [the LEO’s] penis and scrotum.” Respondent asked the LEO if he liked it when Respondent “tapped” the LEO’s penis. The LEO answered “yes” to Respondent’s question. The touching of the LEO’s penis and scrotum again provided the predisposition that sexual activity could be engaged. The LEO then asked Respondent for oral sex, i.e. a blow job. Respondent declined to perform oral sex. The two engaged in talking and hand gesturing regarding manual masturbation and its cost. The LEO testified Respondent raised her hand to indicate manual masturbation would be $40.00. Respondent testified that she said “no” and did not state a price. As provided below, Respondent’s testimony was not credible. The LEO told Respondent that $40.00 was too expensive for masturbation. He then grabbed the original towel that had draped him from between his legs, cleaned the oil, dressed, and left the massage establishment. Shortly thereafter, Respondent was arrested.5 5 The dismissal of Respondent’s criminal charges is not probative of whether she committed the regulatory violations. Respondent’s hearing testimony of how the towel fell off during the LEO’s massage differs from her deposition testimony. At hearing, Respondent testified that when the LEO flipped over, the towel fell off and she did not grab it fast enough. Respondent then added it took her “one minute, two minutes” to adjust the towel. Respondent admitted that she exposed the LEO’s genitals without his permission. However, during her deposition, Respondent blamed the type of oil massage that she was administering to the LEO for the towel falling off. Respondent claimed that her hand movement was “pretty hard. So with the movement, the towel shifting a little bit by little bit, and then [the towel] fell off completely.” Respondent also testified that she “saw it [the towel] dropped off, then [she] put it back right away.” In either instance, the LEO’s genitals were exposed without his consent. At the hearing, Respondent’s description of the towel used on the LEO changed from her deposition. During the hearing, Respondent testified the towel was “one to two feet wide . . . the length is about 1.5 meters [over four feet]. I’m not exactly sure.” However, in her deposition, Respondent provided that the towel was “more like a facial towel. It’s not a very big shower towel, but it’s more a facial towel size . . . one [foot] by two [foot].” Respondent’s testimony describing the LEO’s massage is not clear or credible and is rejected. The LEO’s testimony was credible, clear, convincing, and credited. Ms. Buhler is a licensed massage therapist and based on her education, training, and experience, she is accepted as an expert in massage therapy. “Draping” is covering the body while a massage therapist is working on it for the client’s comfort and privacy. Usually, a sheet is used for draping a client (if the room is too cold, a blanket could be added). As a massage therapist works on specific body areas, that body part is uncovered and the towel repositioned when the therapy to that area is completed. Ms. Buhler opined that the size of the towel (“1 [foot] x 2 [foot]” as described by Respondent in her deposition) is “very small,” and is an unusual drape size. Further, she opined that a “1 x 2 towel barely covers anything. It would be almost impossible not to either view something or potentially accidentally bump something with a drape of that size.” If any drape were displaced during a massage, the standard of care requires that the drape be put back in place immediately, not in one or two minutes. Ms. Buhler opined that “anytime a therapist attempts to, either for their own pleasure or for the pleasure of the client, to get any sort of sexual gratification, that is considered sexual misconduct.” A therapist has a choice when any type of sexual activity is suggested or offered. A therapist can redirect someone, state that the activity is not appropriate for the setting, threaten to terminate the massage, or in fact, terminate the massage by leaving the treatment room. Respondent provided that she continued to massage the LEO for one or two minutes after the request for oral sex. Although Respondent claimed she said “No,” she did not take any affirmative action to terminate the session or remove herself from the situation. Respondent’s actions on March 9, 2016, were outside the scope of generally accepted treatment of massage therapy patients. There is no evidence that Respondent has ever had any prior discipline imposed against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding Respondent, Mingli Li, in violation of sections 480.046(1)(i) and 480.0485, Florida Statutes, constituting grounds for discipline under section 480.046(1)(p), imposing a fine of $3,500.00; revoking her license to practice massage therapy; and assessing the cost of investigating and prosecuting the Department’s case against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Zachary Bell, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed) Michael S. Brown, Esquire Law Office of Michael S. Brown, PLLC 150 North Orange Avenue, Suite 407 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Christina Arzillo Shideler, Esquire Florida Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Chad Wayne Dunn, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Kama Monroe, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 (eServed) Louise Wilhite-St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Should discipline be imposed by the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (the Petitioner), against Stanley Carroll's (the Respondent) license as a massage therapist for alleged violations of Sections 480.046(1)(o) and 480.0485, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Facts Established by the Answer This is an action to impose administrative penalties and assess costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the allegations against Respondent pursuant to Sections 456.072, 480.046(1)(o) and 480.0485, Florida Statutes. This tribunal has jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003). Venue shall be determined pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.207. Effective July 1, 1997, Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a massage therapist, having been issued license number MA 20209 on September 12, 1995. Respondent's last known address is 5135 San Juan Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32210-3137. O.C. was a patient of Respondent during the year 2000. Facts Established by Responses to Request for Admissions Respondent Stanley Carroll possesses Florida massage therapist license number MA 20209. Respondent was issued Florida massage therapist license number MA 20209 on September 12, 1995. Respondent practices massage therapy at the "Hands that Care," 5135 San Juan Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32210. Respondent began providing massage therapy to O.C. in late July 2000 or early August 2000. O.C. was referred to Respondent by K.C. O.C. saw Respondent approximately ten times during the year 2000. During massage therapy sessions with Respondent, O.C. would be covered by only a sheet. Respondent would move the sheet that covered O.C. during massage therapy sessions so that Respondent would not be completely covered during massage therapy sessions. When Respondent would massage O.C.'s pectoral muscles, Respondent would fold the sheet covering O.C. down to expose her breasts. During some massage therapy sessions, Respondent would massage O.C.'s left hip and left upper thigh in an attempt to return feeling to those areas that was lost due to the removal of a lymph node when O.C. was a child. When Respondent would massage O.C.'s left hip and left upper thigh, Respondent would move the sheet covering O.C. and expose O.C.'s pubic area. When Respondent would massage O.C.'s left hip and left upper thigh, Respondent would place one of his hands next to her pubic area. Respondent called O.C. and invited her to his massage establishment for a $30.00 massage, which is half of Respondent's normal fee (at that time). After O.C. was dressed, Respondent walked O.C. to her car (in her last visit to Respondent). Respondent told a Department of Health investigator that he did touch "delicate areas" on O.C.'s body. On May 24, 1999, the Florida Department of Health filed an Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent in discipline case number 98-12083 and his massage therapist license, alleging that Respondent violated Subsection 480.046(1)(c) of the Florida Statutes by being convicted of battery on patient M.J. for inappropriately touching M.J.'s breasts and nipples. Respondent disputed the material facts as alleged in Amended Administrative Complaint 98-12083. In DOAH case number 99-3719, Administrative Law Judge, (ALJ) Suzanne F. Hood found that Respondent violated Subsection 480.046(1)(c) of the Florida Statutes by being convicted of misdemeanor battery for intentionally touching M.J. against her will and that this battery would have not have occurred, but for Respondent and M.J.'s massage therapy session. The Board of Massage Therapy rendered a Final Order in disciplinary case number 98-12083 in which it adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of Administrative Law Judge Suzanne F. Hood in DOAH case number 99-3719. The Board of Massage Therapy's Final Order in disciplinary case 98-12083 imposed an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 and investigative costs in the amount of $1,452.05. Additional Facts O.C. was first seen by Respondent on August 1, 2000. At that time, a questionnaire was completed by O.C., Respondent's Exhibit numbered two. O.C. indicated in her response to the questionnaire that this was the first experience O.C. had with massage therapy. By report, in the questionnaire, the medical history referred to PMS/painful menstruation. Other than the questionnaire which was filled out on the initial visit, no other documentation was established concerning the therapy. That questionnaire, in addition to commenting on the medical history by report, described the fact that O.C. rarely exercised and spent a lot of time in her day standing while at work. Respondent's Exhibit numbered two, the questionnaire, has a statement at its end where it says "I have had the massage treatment and protocol explained to me. I understand that areas will be massaged. With this information I give my permission for a massage, I know I may stop the massage at any time for whatever reason. (pain, discomfort or just being uncomfortable with the massage.)" What O.C. hoped to gain from the massage therapy was relaxation, given the stress levels she experienced at the time. All the massage therapy which Respondent provided was at his location referred to as "Hands That Care," 5135 San Juan Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. There were 10 sessions involved with the therapy, which commenced around 7:30 p.m. on each occasion. At these visits, Respondent and O.C. would be alone in the room where the therapy was provided. At the therapy sessions, O.C. would be completely undressed with a drape over her when she was on the massage table receiving therapy. That drape was a sheet with which she covered herself. She tried to ensure that the private or sensitive areas of her body were covered with the sheet. The sheet was sufficient to cover her exposed body. Nonetheless, the client felt a draft at times around her genital area, and her breasts were exposed during certain forms of massage. This was referred to as frontal massage. That massage involved the pectoral area of her body. O.C. did not feel that there was a problem with her pectoral area being massaged. When O.C. first went for a massage, she and Respondent discussed clothing options for the course of the massage. Respondent told her that there were different options, among them that she could completely disrobe and there would not be any restriction, taken to mean any restriction in the performance of the massage. He told her that she could wear her panties if that made her feel comfortable. She chose to completely disrobe. On an estimated two or three times, O.C. describes that Respondent's ". . . hand might have swept across my nipple, but (she) tried to disregard it and hoped that it was an accident." When O.C. described the "swipe" across her nipple, she meant the actual touching of the nipple. She was not persuaded that the touching was intentional. She hoped that it was not and, at the time, did not believe that it was. O.C. had not consented to any type of lymphatic drainage breast massage or any type of breast massage from Respondent. Her request was for "relaxation massage." On the last visit with Respondent, which took place sometime in 2001, presumably the earlier part of that year, O.C. experienced a problem with Respondent in which he engaged in inappropriate conduct. On that occasion when O.C. entered the room, the room was dimly lit, as it had been on her other visits, and music was provided. The massage session began with a frontal massage, with O.C. on her back draped. The massage period took approximately two hours. O.C. was relaxed with her eyes closed. In the last massage period, one of the areas being addressed was the scar tissue on the inside of O.C.'s upper left thigh. This area is roughly portrayed on the drawing which was admitted as Respondent's Exhibit numbered three. That scar was the result of surgery, in which nerve damage was suffered by O.C. Respondent was trying to break down the tissue associated with the scar to bring about some correction in the condition. Respondent explained to O.C. that massage therapy can help nerve damage. During the last visit when Respondent was working on the scar that was left when the lymph node was removed, the massage did not feel pleasant, in that some sensation in the area was still being experienced by O.C., notwithstanding related areas of numbness. At some point while Respondent was working on the scar tissue, the draping was not covering the area to include her genitalia. At this juncture, Respondent put his hand on O.C.'s genitalia, the clitoris, and began rubbing the clitoris for a period of a minute or less. The touching involved the clitoris itself and the area around it. After that Respondent pulled O.C. up from the table. The sheet was not covering her at the time and as Respondent was pulling O.C. up his hand was still in the clitoris area. O.C. was shocked by Respondent's conduct and did not know how to handle the situation. She had not given Respondent permission to touch, rub, or massage the genital area, to include her clitoris. O.C. never experienced pain in her genital area and never asked Respondent to touch the clitoris or the area around the clitoris or to massage in those places. O.C. had never requested fertility massage or an approach known as the Wurn technique. After helping O.C. up from the table, Respondent asked O.C. to get dressed and to meet him outside. When Respondent left the room, O.C. left the table and went to the dressing room and dressed herself. She met Respondent outside the office area of the building. At this time Respondent asked O.C. if he had ever touched her inappropriately. O.C. simply shook her head in acknowledgement of his comment. She was embarrassed. Respondent also made a comment to the effect that younger people are more susceptible to certain touches than older persons. Respondent encouraged O.C. to come back for more massage therapy and assured her that he would work with her schedule and that if money to pay for the therapy was an issue, then he would work with her on that subject as well. She shook her head as if to agree. She left and never came back. The experience which O.C. had with Respondent on her last visit left her very embarrassed beyond the event. She had not had massage therapy before her experience with Respondent and did not know what to expect, but realized that his placing his hands on her clitoris or the area around the clitoris was not appropriate. The Respondent describes the massage performed on O.C. as a full body massage. This involves the neck, back, legs, feet, hands and head. The therapy is a mix between deep tissue and what Respondent considers Swedish Massage. Ordinarily, the patient is uncovered in the specific areas that are being worked on. Respondent asks permission before performing massage in the delicate areas such as around the breast. It is assumed that is what transpired with patient O.C. Respondent's involvement with O.C. in massaging an area related to her breast was addressing her pectoral muscles. Respondent did not deny the possibility that he touched O.C.'s nipple. He explained, "I don't recall swooping across the breast. If I touched any, it would have been when your pushing breast up and the breast tissue slipping and I would move my hand down to adjust for that. . ." Respondent stated that he had no intention to touch the nipple. Upon the facts presented it is not found that Respondent intended to touch her nipple, unlike the experience with the clitoris and clitoral area. Respondent acknowledges that the drape covering O.C. when he helped her to sit up on the massage table fell down to her waist when he last saw her. Respondent acknowledges that the deliberate touching of the nipples or the area of the clitoris or vaginal area is inappropriate conduct for a massage therapist. EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY Jennifer Mason has been licensed in Florida as a massage therapist for 10 years. No discipline has ever been imposed against her license. She is an anatomy instructor at the CORE Institute of Massage Therapy in Tallahassee, Florida, where she instructs in musculoskelatal anatomy. Ms. Mason has instructed hundreds of students at Core Institute, and she has given hundreds of massages as a licensed therapist. She is expert in the field of massage therapy and was received as an expert for offering opinions concerning the practice of massage therapy. Ms. Mason practices a form of massage therapy that is similar in technique to that employed by Respondent in this case. From what Ms. Mason explained, the size and manner of draping employed by Respondent in the O.C. case and the amount of clothing worn by the patient are not at odds when taking into account what Ms. Mason believes is appropriate. Ms. Mason established that the massage therapist would never engage in the touching, rubbing, or massaging of a female patient's nipples. She does not believe that touching the nipples would be appropriate even if its accidental. Under the facts in this case, her belief that accidental touching would be inappropriate is not accepted. Ms. Mason established that it is inappropriate for a massage therapist to rub or touch a female patient's genital area, including the clitoris. Kenneth C. Oram has been licensed as a massage therapist in Florida and is an expert in the field of neuromuscular massage therapy. He has no disciplinary history in Florida in his field. He believes that a therapist could inadvertently touch the patient's nipple. He does not ascribe fault to that form of touching. His opinion in that sense is accepted given the facts in this case. Mr. Oram agrees with Ms. Mason that intentional touching of the nipples and genital area, to include the clitoris, is sexual misconduct. Those opinions are accepted. His opinion is that touching the genital area when assisting a patient from the massage table, such as was the case with O.C. is inappropriate. That opinion is accepted. Prior Disciplinary Action In Department of Health, Petitioner v. Stanley Michael Carroll, Respondent, before the State of Florida Board of Massage Therapy, Case No. 98-1208A3, Respondent was required to pay an administrative fine of $500.00 for violating Subsection 480.047(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as more particularly described in the Answers to Request for Admissions reported in these facts.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 480.0485, Florida Statutes (2000), and revoking his massage therapist license. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 20th day of May, 2004.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Mehdi Safdari, L.M.T., committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued August 8, 2001, and, if so, to what extent should his license be disciplined or should he be otherwise penalized.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") is the state agency charged with the authority and duty to regulate the practice of massage therapy in the State of Florida. Pursuant to Subsection 20.43(3)(g), Florida Statutes, the Department of Health has contracted with the Agency for Health Care Administration to provide consumer complaint, investigative, and prosecutorial services required by the Board, as appropriate. Respondent, Mehdi Safdari, was a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida at all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent's license number is MA 11488. He was originally certified on January 14, 1991; his current license will expire on August 31, 2003. The complainant, R.C., a 44-year-old female who has an associate's degree in social services from Hesston College in Hesston, Kansas, is a certified activities director. At all times material to the allegations in this matter, she was employed as an activities director at an assisted living facility, Altera Wynwood. On May 4, 2000, Respondent and another person presented an educational program on occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech and massage therapy for the residents of Altera Wynwood. Incidental to the program, Respondent brought his massage chair and performed massages at the facility. On that day, Respondent performed a chair massage on R.C. R.C. had not known Respondent prior to that day. R.C. advised Respondent that she had been involved in an automobile accident and had injured three discs in her neck. Respondent suggested that she allow him to perform massage therapy on her to alleviate discomfort incidental to the neck injury. On May 15, 2000, R.C. presented herself to Respondent's place of employment for massage therapy. After disrobing, R.C. dressed herself in a hospital gown and towel which was provided. She wore the towel like a diaper. Respondent massaged R.C.'s head and neck and around her breasts. R.C. testified that Respondent "touched her genital area in a very, very subtle manner, almost as if it was an accident." The remainder of the "full body" massage consisted largely of leg stretching. On May 17, 2000, R.C. presented herself for a second massage. On this occasion she found no gown, but was provided a sheet and towel. During this massage, Respondent pulled down the sheet and exposed R.C.'s breasts without her consent. During the massage, Respondent touched R.C.'s breasts, but she was uncertain as to whether the touching was "out of line." Her next massage was on May 19, 2000. She again found only a sheet and towel in which to dress. During this massage, Respondent got up on the massage table and straddled R.C., sitting on her hips and buttocks with his legs on each side of her body. She advised him that the pressure of him sitting on her buttocks was causing her pain in the back, so he got off. At all times she was covered by the sheet and had the towel between her legs. Respondent did not advise her that he was going to straddle her nor did he have her permission to do so. On her fourth and final visit, she dressed herself in the sheet that was provided, but left her underpants on because she was having a menstrual period. After massaging R.C.'s upper body, Respondent turned her over on her stomach. He then got up on the massage table, straddling R.C., and pulled her underwear back. He then unzipped the zipper of his trousers and placed his penis between R.C.'s buttocks. Respondent was leaning up against R.C. and pumping against her. She advised Respondent that he was hurting her and, as a result, he got off. He then told her to lie on her side and face the wall; he then got up on the massage table beside her and with his full body began pushing up against her from behind. She was afraid she was going to be raped and was afraid to say anything. Respondent remained behind R.C. for a short period of time and then left. R.C. went to the bathroom and washed herself but did not discover any semen on herself. She then left, seeking to avoid Respondent. R.C. believed that she had been sexually assaulted and filed a report with an appropriate law enforcement agency. R.C.'s testimony in this matter was clear, consistent, and credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, finding that Mehdi Safdari violated Rule 64B7-26.010(1) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, Section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 455.624(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1999), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued on August 8, 2001; it is further RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, suspend Mehdi Safdari's license to practice massage therapy for a period of three (3) years, during which time he must present himself for examination and/or treatment by a psychiatrist licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida, who, upon conclusion of his examination and/or treatment, shall opine to the Board of Massage Therapy that Respondent is not a threat to his patients as a prerequisite to Respondent returning to the practice of massage therapy; impose an administrative fine against Respondent of $3,000; and assess against Respondent the costs of investigating and prosecuting this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott L. Richardson, Esquire 126 East Jefferson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Ruby Seymour-Barr, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Station 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of chapter 480, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and; if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following factual findings are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of massage therapists pursuant to section 20.42 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 80938. During May 2016 Respondent worked at Massage Envy (“M.E.”) as a massage therapist. M.E. is a spa facility offering massage services. D.W. is a 46-year-old female with significant back issues. D.W. was in a boating accident as a child, and has had at least eight back surgeries in attempts to alleviate her back pain. Since 2012, D.W. has had numerous massages to help ease her back pain. She initially received massages through her chiropractor’s massage therapist. The chiropractor’s massage therapist was unable to continue, and D.W. started obtaining massages at M.E. D.W. obtained free massages from M.E. when she participated as a “mystery shopper”4/ for M.E. Following that experience, D.W. became a client of M.E. D.W. usually received full-body massages on a monthly basis,5/ except when she had the back surgeries. On May 27, 2016, D.W. contacted M.E. requesting a massage appointment. She was assigned Respondent as her regular masseuse was unavailable. D.W. arrived for the massage and met Respondent. The massage was scheduled for two hours. D.W. and Respondent discussed D.W.’s back pain. Respondent left the treatment room to allow D.W. time to completely disrobe and cover herself with the drape cloth or sheet. During the first half of the massage, D.W. was face down while Respondent stretched her out. She was comfortable with this part of the massage as she remained fully covered by the sheet. Approximately half way through the massage, Respondent briefly left the room, and D.W. turned over to be face up for the remainder of the massage. In the face-up position, Respondent began the next phase of the massage. While he was working on D.W.’s left leg, Respondent bumped her vagina. D.W. initially thought the touching was an accident; however, Respondent kept touching her clitoris. Respondent then put two to three fingers inside D.W.’s vagina. D.W. was “very scared,” and initially felt frozen in fear. After a few minutes Respondent asked if he needed to stop the massage. After a few seconds, D.W. was able to say, “It’s making me feel like I have to pee, please stop.” Respondent stopped. Respondent then asked if D.W. wanted to have her hands or feet massaged as there were a couple of minutes remaining in her appointment. D.W. did not want Respondent’s hands touching her hands; she indicated he could message her feet. Respondent finished the massage by working on D.W.’s feet. After the massage ended, D.W. dressed. D.W. went to the restroom, received a cup of water from Respondent and checked out at M.E.’s front desk. D.W. went to the parking lot, called the M.E. manager, and told the manager what happened. D.W. then went home. D.W. told her husband what had happened and the two of them returned to M.E. The Largo Police Department was called and a report was filed. While testifying about this very intimate type of contact, D.W.’s demeanor was distressed. She cried as if it were painful to recount. D.W. now is unable to use massage therapy to treat her back pain. Additionally, D.W. has trouble sleeping, and is unable to have sex because she considers what Respondent did to her was “foreplay.” Respondent denied that he engaged in any form of sexual activity with D.W. Respondent attempted to blame D.W.’s allegation as either a “counter-transference” or “transference” event. Respondent postulated that the counter-transference or transference is “where the client imposes a negative feeling or a negative association upon their therapist after something is awoken during massage.” Respondent agreed that D.W. had been getting massages for years, and that she would be accustomed to the massage experience. Respondent also agreed that there was nothing special about the massage he gave to D.W. Respondent’s testimony is not credited. Massage therapy training teaches that massage in the vicinity of the genital area is to be conducted very carefully. If a massage therapist properly draped a patient consistent with the requirements of rule 64B7-30.001, it would not be possible to inadvertently touch a client's genital area. The placement of a massage therapist's finger (or fingers) into the vagina of a massage client is outside the scope of the professional practice of massage therapy and is below the standard of care. There is no therapeutic value to massaging or penetrating the vagina, and there is no circumstance by which a massage therapist should touch a client’s vagina.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 480.0485 and rule 64B7-26.010; and imposing a fine of $2,500 and revoking his license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 22nd day of February, 2017.
The Issue The issues presented in this case are whether Respondent has violated the provisions of chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based on the testimony, evidence admitted at the formal hearing, and the agreed facts in the pre-hearing stipulation. The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and chapters 456 and 480. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was licensed to practice as a massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 79509. At all times material to the allegations in this matter, Respondent was employed as a massage therapist at Daytona College, in Daytona Beach, Florida. Respondent’s address of record is 10 Spanish Pine Way, Ormond Beach, Florida 32174. S.W. is a licensed mental health counselor who has been licensed for approximately 22 years. She resides in Clermont, Florida, which is where she lived at the time of the massage. In July 2017, S.W. and C.W., her 23-year-old daughter, traveled to the Daytona Beach area to visit S.W.’s elderly mother. On July 19, 2017, S.W. and C.W. went to Daytona College, for the first time, for a massage. Upon arriving at the school, they were greeted by the receptionist. S.W. and C.W. were scheduled for 80-minute massages to take place at 3:30 p.m. However, the ladies arrived ten minutes late, so the massages began late. Upon arrival, the ladies were asked whether they needed to use the restroom, which they did. After using the restroom, the ladies were taken to the massage area for their services. S.W. selected the male massage therapist based on her past positive experiences with male therapists. S.W. had received a number of massages in the past, including massages by men. She allowed her daughter to be scheduled with the female massage therapist because she believed her daughter preferred a woman. S.W. was scheduled for a massage with Respondent, and C.W. was scheduled with Elizabeth Branson. Respondent escorted S.W. to the massage room first. Ms. Branson escorted C.W. to the room a few minutes later. As Respondent escorted S.W. to the massage room, S.W. described the areas in which she wanted special attention, including her neck, shoulders, scalp, and feet. Respondent asked S.W. whether she needed massage in the sciatic area. S.W. had problems in the sciatic area, so she consented to have the area massaged. The common room where massages occurred at Daytona College contained eight massage tables separated by curtains. Respondent took S.W. into the massage room and instructed her to undress to her comfort level. Respondent left the room while S.W. undressed down to her underwear. When Respondent reentered the room, S.W. was draped with a sheet. Respondent tucked the drape into S.W.’s underwear and lowered it onto her buttocks. A short time later, S.W. could hear her daughter in the area near her, but she could not see her. C.W. whispered to S.W. to let her know she was in the room. At some point, S.W. heard her daughter exit the room. C.W. finished her massage before S.W., even though S.W.’s service began before C.W.’s. C.W. recalled that her mother was unusually quiet during the massage instead of being “chatty,” as she normally would be. C.W. waited in the hallway outside the massage room for four or five minutes for S.W.’s massage to finish. After S.W. came out of the massage room, C.W. immediately noticed that something was wrong. When S.W. exited the room, she was “wired” and not relaxed, as she would normally appear after a massage. C.W. described her as appearing nervous and agitated. C.W. could tell that something was wrong, but S.W. did not say anything at that time. The two ladies walked to the front desk. As was her routine, S.W. paid for both massages and left a $10 tip. She did not make a complaint regarding the massage with the receptionist before leaving the school. Concerned regarding her mother’s behavior, C.W. asked S.W. what happened. S.W. stated that something weird happened. The ladies left the school and began driving to their destination. S.W. continued to be upset and ultimately, began crying. She was so upset that initially, she could not articulate what occurred. S.W. ultimately told C.W. that Respondent had placed his hand under her underwear and touched her clitoris. S.W. contacted her friend Mike, a law enforcement officer. S.W. explained to Mike what happened, and he suggested that she contact the police to report what happened to her. S.W. and C.W. called the police and requested that an officer meet the ladies at Daytona College. They also contacted the school and advised them that S.W. had been inappropriately touched during her massage. They arrived back at the school approximately 20 minutes later. The officer arrived shortly after S.W. and C.W. The officer interviewed S.W. and she reported to him that while massaging her thighs, Respondent “grazed” her vaginal area with his finger. S.W. also reported that Respondent touched her clitoris with his finger. S.W. declined to pursue criminal charges and stated she would file a complaint with the Department. However, she expressed that she wanted to ensure there was a record of the incident so another woman would not have the same experience. On or about July 26, 2017, one week later, S.W. filed a complaint with the Department of Health. S.W. submitted a typewritten statement regarding the events involving Respondent. S.W. related that at the beginning of the massage, she gave Respondent permission to pull down her underwear and tuck in the drape. She stated that toward the end of the massage, Respondent “grazed” her vagina outside her underwear. He then placed his finger under her underwear and began massaging her clitoris for a couple of seconds. She stated that she grabbed Respondent’s hand and pushed it away. In response, Respondent abruptly told S.W. that the massage was done. In addition to the report to the police and the Department, S.W. also reported the incident to the school administrators, Dr. Ali and Mr. Brooks. Dr. Ali met with S.W. and C.W. when they returned to the school. Dr. Ali described S.W. as appearing embarrassed, subdued, and uncomfortable. Mr. Brooks was also present during the meeting. He was called to campus after he received a report that something inappropriate happened. He observed that S.W. appeared upset. Although there was no expert offered to testify in this matter, Chris Brooks, LMT, provided insight regarding the type of massage provided to S.W. He explained the difference between sensualized touch and sexualized touch. A sensualized touch is not uncommon in massage. On the other hand, sexualized touch is used to evoke sexual pleasure. At hearing, S.W. was clear and unwavering in her recollection of the events involving Respondent touching her vaginal area. S.W. appeared anxious, uncomfortable, and her voice cracked when she testified that Respondent moved her underwear and touched her vaginal area. Specifically, she testified that Respondent grazed her vagina on top of the front of her underwear. She was in such shock that it happened she could not say anything. Respondent then put a bare finger underneath her underwear and began massaging her clitoris. She still could not speak, so she quickly grabbed his hand and pushed it away. Consistent with her statement to the police officer and her written statement, she credibly testified that Respondent touched her vaginal area with his finger. At hearing, Respondent denied touching S.W.’s vagina during the massage. He also denied rubbing her clitoris. Mr. Brooks, who is personally and professionally acquainted with Respondent, testified that Respondent seemed shocked to learn of S.W.’s complaint. Respondent testified that he draped S.W.’s legs in such a way that it caused the draping to “bunch” between the area massaged and the genitalia. Respondent argues that S.W. could not determine whether the draping touched her genitals when Respondent massaged her legs. However, when pressed on this point, S.W. unequivocally testified that she was certain it was Respondent’s finger that touched her clitoris. Respondent had no prior complaints of inappropriate touching before S.W.’s complaint. Although Mr. Brooks asked him about the complaint on the date of the incident, there was no evidence offered at hearing that Respondent was formally interviewed by the school administration. However, Respondent was terminated from his job at Daytona College based on S.W.’s complaint. Respondent was also not interviewed by the police officer investigating the complaint. Respondent was not charged with a crime. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action involving his license to practice massage therapy. The evidence demonstrates that Respondent crossed the boundaries of appropriate massage into sexual misconduct when he massaged S.W.’s clitoris with his finger. While Respondent’s testimony seemed sincere, S.W. was more persuasive. Based on the totality of the evidence presented at hearing, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent touched S.W.’s vaginal area or clitoris with his finger. The placement of a massage therapist’s finger on the vaginal area or clitoris of a patient is outside the scope of the professional practice of massage therapy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding: Respondent guilty of violating sections 480.046(1)(p) and 480.0485 as further defined in rule 64B7-26.010; Imposing a fine of $2,500; and Revoking Respondent’s license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 2019.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy, in violation of provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7- 26.010 and sections 480.046(1)(o) and 480.0485, Florida Statutes; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Xu was a licensed massage therapist in the state of Florida, holding license number MA56426. During all times relevant to the complaint, Ms. Xu was employed by Massage Elite, located at 800 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard in Hallandale Beach, Florida. On November 22, 2010, Officer F.C., working in an undercover capacity with Officer C.T., went to Massage Elite, where they were greeted by Ms. Xu, who introduced herself as Diana. Ms. Xu stated that a one-hour full body massage was $70.00. They each paid, and Officer F.C. was taken to a separate room and told to disrobe and lie face down. Minutes later, Ms. Xu came into the room and began a massage. After some time, Ms. Xu asked Officer F.C. to turn over. After he did so, Ms. Xu began touching Officer F.C. on his penis, asking, "Do you want me to massage this?" Officer F.C. asked her, "How much?" Ms. Xu replied, "Sixty dollars." Officer F.C. said he only had $30.00, and Ms. Xu replied, "No, not for thirty, maybe next time." The massage was then completed. On November 23, 2010, Officer F.C. returned to Massage Elite. Other arrests were made at that time, but Ms. Xu was not on the premises. On November 30, 2010, Officer F.C. returned to Massage Elite with Officer R.A. He asked for Diana, and they called her from the back. Ms. Xu came in. Officer F.C. made a positive identification, based upon her appearance, that Ms. Xu was the same woman who had earlier introduced herself to him as Diana, and had given him the massage. She was placed under arrest. Ms. Xu's contrary testimony, to the effect that she was not at work on November 22, 2010, that she had never seen Officer F.C. before November 30, 2010, is not credible, and is rejected. Ms. Wei Zhou, Ms. Xu's daughter, testified through deposition that she came to Florida for Thanksgiving in 2010, and that her mother stayed with her the entire time in a hotel. She said she could not remember exactly when she was there or if she arrived before or after Thanksgiving Day. At another point in her testimony, she said she arrived around the 19th or 20th of November. She said she couldn't remember if her grandmother traveled with her or not. She indicated that she did not know what kind of work her mother did. Her testimony, to the extent it was intended to establish that Ms. Xu did not work at Massage Elite on November 22, 2010, was not credible. Her vague account of events did not cast doubt on Officer F.C.'s clear and convincing testimony. As noted in the deposition testimony of Ms. Jennifer Mason, there is no reason for a licensed massage therapist to ever touch the genitalia of a patient. Officer F.C. paid for a massage, and Ms. Xu began to give him a massage. She was governed by the requirements of the massage therapist-patient relationship. Ms. Xu's actions on November 22, 2010, were outside the scope of generally accepted treatment of massage therapy patients. Ms. Xu used the massage therapist-patient relationship to attempt to induce Officer F.C. to engage in sexual activity and to attempt to engage him in sexual activity. Ms. Xu engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy. There is no evidence that Ms. Xu has ever had any prior discipline imposed against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order finding Ms. Ranjie Xu in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7-26.010 and section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, constituting grounds for discipline under section 480.046(1)(o), Florida Statutes; revoking her license to practice massage therapy; imposing a fine of $1000.00; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2017.
