The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Hae Suk Bornholdt, committed the offense alleged in an Amended Administrative Complaint issued June 12, 2000, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed upon Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), is the state agency charged with the authority and duty to regulate the practice of massage therapy in the State of Florida. Chapters 20, 456, and 480, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Hae Suk Bornholdt, applied for licensure as a massage therapist in the State of Florida on December 1, 1999. Ms. Bornholdt's application for licensure was approved and she was licensed as a massage therapist in the State of Florida effective December 28, 1999. Respondent's license number is MA 30419. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Bornholdt was employed by Fame Limited, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Fame"). Fame is located at 4799 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida. Fame is a massage establishment. On December 2, 1999, an undercover policy investigation was begun of Fame in response to anonymous complaints of sexual activities between massage therapists and male clients of Fame. Robert F. Flechus, a detective with the Boca Raton Police Department, entered Fame posing as a client. Detective Flechus paid $80 for a massage. He was greeted by Ms. Bornholdt, who identified herself as "Tina." Ms. Bornholdt led Detective Flechus to a locker room where he undressed, left his clothes in a locker, and wrapped a towel around himself. Detective Flechus took a sauna and was then led by Ms. Bornholdt to a shower room where he showered. Ms. Bornholdt washed Detective Flechus, including his buttocks, with a sponge. After showering, Ms. Bornholdt led Detective Flechus into a room where she gave him a massage. During the massage, Ms. Bornholdt suggested that Detective Flechus masturbate while she massaged his stomach. When he refused, Ms. Bornholdt took Detective Flechus' hand and attempted to place it on his penis. Detective Flechus immediately pulled his hand away. Ms. Bornholdt then removed the towel that was partially covering Detective Flechus' genitalia and began to stroke his penis. Detective Flechus stopped Ms. Bornholdt and got up off the massage table. Ms. Bornholdt failed to properly drape Detective Flechus when she allowed his penis to be exposed to her during the shower and while he was on the massage table. Ms. Bornholdt was not licensed as a massage therapist on December 2, 1999. Ms. Bornholdt acted as a massage therapist with Detective Flechus and other clients prior to receiving her license on December 28, 1999. Detective Flechus' testimony in this matter was clear, consistent, and credible. Ms. Bornholdt's testimony on the other hand was inconsistent, unconvincing, and not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Massage Therapy finding that Hae Suk Bornholdt committed the offense alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued on June 12, 2000; it is further RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage revoke Ms. Bornholdt's license to practice massage therapy and assess the costs of investigating and prosecuting this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis G. King, Esquire Rudolph C. Campbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Lawrence K. Fagan, Esquire LaValle, Brown, Ronan & Soff 750 South Dixie Highway Boca Raton, Florida 33432 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, whether Respondent's license to practice massage therapy in Florida should be revoked or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION (DBPR), is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory duty and authority to administer the provisions of Chapter 480, Florida Statutes, governing massage practice. Respondent, ROBERT WILLIAM IVANY, was initially licensed as a massage therapist in the State of Florida on July 8, 1986, and presently holds license number MA 0006899 (Massage). Respondent's license is currently in "delinquent/renewal notice prepared" status. Respondent's current license biennium expires on January 31, 1997. At all material times hereto, Respondent was employed as a licensed massage therapist at the Pasadena Wellness Center in St. Petersburg, Florida. On or about January 28, 1994, complainant, Linda Schaufele, arrived at the Pasadena Wellness Center to receive a massage. Ms. Schaufele had been experiencing soreness in her shoulder and neck and wanted a massage to alleviate this condition. Ms. Schaufele had previously received massages many times; however, this was her first visit to the Pasadena Wellness Center. Ms. Schaufele was sent by the staff receptionist at the Pasadena Wellness Center to a massage room, where she removed her clothing except for her underwear. Respondent subsequently entered the massage room. Prior to this time, Ms. Schaufele did not know Respondent, and had no previous contact with Respondent. Respondent entered into a therapist-client relationship with Ms. Schaufele. Ms. Schaufele informed Respondent of the soreness in her shoulder and neck. Ms. Schaufele agreed to a full body massage, but requested Respondent concentrate on her shoulder and neck. Respondent began the massage with Ms. Schaufele lying on her stomach. Respondent used oil or lotion during the massage. After massaging her shoulders, neck and working down her back, Respondent turned Ms. Schaufele over to lie on her back and began to massage her from the waist down. At this time Respondent distinctly placed his hand between Ms. Schaufele's legs into her pubic area. Ms. Schaufele immediately stiffened her legs to prevent Respondent from continuing to keep his hand between her legs. Respondent removed his hand from between Ms. Schaufele's legs, and finished the massage. Respondent used the therapist-client relationship to engage in sexual activity with Ms. Schaufele. Ms. Schaufele was very uncomfortable during the remainder of the massage, and was upset about the Respondent's actions. Subsequent to this incident on January 28, 1994, Ms. Schaufele became acquainted with the owner of the Pasadena Wellness Center. Ms. Schaufele then informed the owner of the Respondent's actions which occurred during her massage on January 28, 1994. Ms. Schaufele was told by the owner that there had been other complaints regarding Respondent. On or about May 12, 1993, complainant, Nancy Scotti, arrived at the Pasadena Wellness Center to receive a massage. Ms. Scotti had never received a massage before, and had no prior experience with a licensed massage therapist. Ms. Scotti was instructed by the staff receptionist to fill out certain forms. Respondent then came to the reception area and led Ms. Scotti to a massage room. Ms. Scotti did not know Respondent, and had no previous contact with Respondent. Respondent entered into a therapist-client relationship with Ms. Scotti. Respondent instructed Ms. Scotti to "get ready", which in response to, Ms. Scotti undressed, except for her underwear, and lay down on her stomach on the massage table. Ms. Scotti covered herself with a sheet that was provided in the massage room. Ms. Scotti informed Respondent that she had experienced pain in her upper back, shoulders and neck. Ms. Scotti did not request any particular kind of massage. Respondent began the massage with Ms. Scotti lying on her stomach. Respondent massaged her neck, shoulders, and worked down her back. Respondent used and applied a lotion to Ms. Scotti's body during the massage. Respondent then proceeded to massage Ms. Scotti's arms and legs, working his way back to her inner thighs and crotch area. While massaging her inner thighs Respondent asked Ms. Scotti why she was not indicating her enjoyment of the massage. At this point Ms. Scotti was becoming increasingly uncomfortable and concerned; however, due to her apprehension and her inexperience with a licensed massage therapist Ms. Scotti did not express her concern, or otherwise stop the massage. Respondent then placed his hands inside Ms. Scotti's underwear and massaged her buttocks. Respondent turned respondent over on her back, and massaged her neck and shoulders. Respondent then uncovered and with one hand massaged Ms. Scotti's breasts, and with the other hand digitally penetrated Ms. Scotti's vagina repeatedly. Respondent used the therapist-client relationship to engage in sexual activity with Ms. Scotti. Ms. Scotti was frightened and alarmed. Respondent attempted to remove her underwear, and she pushed him away. Respondent then inquired if Ms. Scotti had reached orgasm. She did not respond, and Respondent concluded the massage session and left the massage room. Ms. Scotti remained frightened and alarmed. She dressed, left the Pasadena Wellness Center, and walked outside where her friends Audra Radvil, Bernadette Robinson, and Peg Etchison were waiting for her. At this time Ms. Scotti appeared distraught. She began crying and informed her friends what had occurred. Her friends observed a law enforcement officer in the parking lot, and approached the officer and related the incident. A second officer, Deputy Sheriff Craig Bornstein, was summoned to the scene. Ms. Scotti related the incident to Deputy Bornstein. Ms. Scotti was then transported to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office where her sworn statement was taken by Detective Kenneth Kanoski. Ms. Scotti was then taken to the Pinellas County Health Unit where she underwent a sexual assault victim examination. The examination was conducted by Sylvia Franklin, an advanced registered nurse practitioner with extensive experience in conducting such examinations. The examination included drawing blood, taking vaginal and breast swabs, and obtaining saliva and urine samples. The chain of custody of the samples obtained during the examination was preserved. Detective Kanoski investigated this incident, and obtained a sample from Respondent of the lotion used by Respondent on Ms. Scotti. The lotion was Revlon Aquamarine Body Lotion. The specimens obtained during the examination of Ms. Scotti and the sample lotion obtained during the investigation by Detective Kanoski were sent for analysis to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) laboratory. The results of the FBI analysis showed the presence of isopropyl palmitate in the lotion obtained from Respondent, as well as in the vaginal and breast swab specimens taken during the examination of Ms. Scotti. Isopropyl palmitate is not a naturally occurring substance, and is not found in any product normally intended for use in the vaginal area. Isopropyl palmitate was contained in the lotion that was used by Respondent, and was introduced into Ms. Scotti's vagina as a result of Respondent's actions. Following this incident, Ms. Scotti has missed work and become withdrawn, depressed, and apprehensive toward others.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Massage, enter a final order revoking Respondent's license to practice massage therapy. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert W. Ivany 762 15th Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Anna Polk, Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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 in this case are whether the Respondent, Lauren Dillman-Bell, obtained her Florida license to practice massage therapy through fraud or error, in violation of section 456.072(1)(h), Florida Statutes (2009), or made misleading, untrue, deceptive, or fraudulent representations on her application for licensure, in violation of section 456.072(1)(w), both of which constitute violations of section 480.046(1)(o); and if so, the appropriate sanction. (Unless otherwise indicated, citations to the Florida Statutes and rules of the Florida Administrative Code refer to the versions in effect when the Respondent’s license was issued on July 1, 2009.)
Findings Of Fact The 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 (2016). At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent was licensed to practice massage therapy in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 56509 on or about July 1, 2009. When the Respondent applied for licensure in June 2009, she answered “no” to a question whether she had “ever been convicted of, or entered a plea of guilty, nolo contendere, or no contest to a crime in any jurisdiction other than a minor traffic offense.” When the Respondent’s license was issued, the Petitioner was unaware that the answer to the question on the application should have been “yes.” This was not brought to the Petitioner’s attention until June 2013. The Petitioner investigated, and the Administrative Complaint was filed. It is clear from the evidence presented at the hearing that the Respondent entered the following pleas in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, in December 2005: guilty to one count of possession of a controlled, dangerous substance with intent to distribute; guilty to one count of possession of a controlled, dangerous substance (methamphetamine) with intent to distribute; guilty to one count of possession of a stolen vehicle/receiving stolen property; and guilty to two counts of possession of a weapon. Although the Respondent did not appear or testify at the hearing, it can be inferred that she knew or should have known that her answer to the question on her license application about criminal convictions and guilty pleas was false. Even if the answer were unintentionally false, the Petitioner relied on it when it issued the Respondent’s license without conducting any investigation into the Respondent’s fitness for licensure notwithstanding the guilty pleas. (It also could be inferred from the Respondent’s failure to pursue her request for a hearing, and her failure to provide effective contact information so as to receive notices regarding the case, that she has withdrawn and waived her disputes as to the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued: (1) finding that the Respondent violated section 480.046(1)(o) by violating sections 456.072(h) and (w); and (2) revoking her massage therapy license. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 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 30th day of May, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Lauren Dillman-Bell, L.M.T. 5033 Lords Avenue Sarasota, Florida 34231 Lealand L. McCharen, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed) Jaquetta Johnson, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed) Claudia Kemp, JD, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 (eServed) Nichole C. Geary, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed)
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)
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing, the following facts are found: The Respondent, Dana Carlos, is a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 0002811. The Respondent has been so licensed at all times material to this proceeding. On December 10, 1986, the Respondent was the co-owner of a massage establishment known as Massage by Dana and Jan, which at that time was located at 721 U.S. Highway 1, Suite 222, North Palm Beach, Florida 33408. That establishment was licensed by the State of Florida, having been issued license number MM 0000202. When Inspector Jean Robinson inspected that establishment on December 10, 1990, Gemma V. Koder was massaging a client without being supervised by either the Respondent or Jan Carlos. The client had come in early and Ms. Koder had called the Respondent by telephone to ask what she should do. The Respondent had told Gemma V. Koder to go ahead and start massaging the client and that she (the Respondent) would be there as soon as possible. The Respondent was approved as a sponsor for Gemma V. Koder, which sponsorship terminated on May 14, 1987. Gemma V. Koder was an apprentice for Dana Carlos. Gemma V. Koder had an apprentice license that allowed her to perform massages only when either the Respondent or Jan Carlos were physically present to supervise her. Either the Respondent or Jan Carlos could supervise Ms. Koder, because they were "co-sponsors." The Respondent later moved her massage establishment to 3700 Georgia Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida. At that location she practiced massage under the name Massage by Dana and Jan. Dana Carlos leased the premises at that location. On April 13, 1988, the premises at 3700 Georgia Avenue were inspected by Inspector Jean Robinson. On that day Tammy Coxey was working as an unlicensed apprentice for the Respondent. The Respondent had applied for an apprentice license for Tammy Coxey, but the apprentice license was never approved by the Board of Massage. Therefore, the Respondent was never approved as a sponsor for Tammy Coxey and the Respondent knew that Tammy Coxey did not have an apprentice license or any other type of license. Nevertheless, admittedly motivated by profit potential, the Respondent disregarded the licensing requirements and put Tammy Coxey to work. On April 13, 1988, the room in which Tammy Coxey was performing massages as an employee of the Respondent was across the hall from the licensed massage establishment the Respondent was authorized to operate. The room in which Tammy Coxey was performing massages as an employee of the Respondent was never a licensed massage establishment. On the 6th and 7th of October, 1988, Sergeant Harvey Starr, of the West Palm Beach Police Department, called the establishment known as Massage by Dana and Jan and spoke to the Respondent on the telephone. He inquired about a "full body treatment" and was told that "all her girls gave full body treatments that included a release." In street jargon, a massage that includes "full body treatment including release," means a massage that includes masturbation to climax. On October 11, 1988, Sergeant Starr made an appointment for a massage and went to the premises of Massage by Dana and Jan, where he was met by the Respondent. Sergeant Starr told the Respondent that his name was "Richard," that he was the one who had called her on the telephone, and then asked what the charge was for a "full body treatment." The Respondent said it would be $25. Sergeant Starr than asked if that included a "release" and the Respondent told him that would cost $28. Sergeant Starr then specifically asked the Respondent if a "release" meant that he would be masturbated, and the Respondent answered that it did. Sergeant Starr then asked if the Respondent wanted to be paid. She, answered in the affirmative, Sergeant Starr handed her $30, and at that time he identified himself as a police officer and told her that she was under arrest. The Respondent was arrested on the charge of soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. Beginning in 1974 and for several years thereafter, in an effort to compete effectively, attract repeat business, and maintain market share in the Palm Beach County massage market, the Respondent engaged in the practiced of regularly masturbating massage clients.
Recommendation Upon consideration of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Massage enter a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing all charges of violations set forth in Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint; Dismissing the charges in Count III of the Amended Administrative Complaint that allege violations based on Section 480.47, Florida Statutes (the violations alleged at subparagraphs (a) and (c) of Paragraph 18 of the Amended Administrative Complaint); Finding the Respondent guilty of the violation charged in Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint; Finding the Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 480.046(1)(e) and 480.046(1)(k), Florida Statutes, alleged in subparagraphs (b) and (d) of Paragraph 18 of Count III of the Amended Administrative Complaint; and Imposing a penalty , for the foregoing violations consisting of the revocation of the Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of June, 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 4th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 89-6091 Consistent with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact contained in the Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order. Paragraphs 1 through 5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. Paragraph 7: Rejected as irrelevant to charges in this case. Paragraphs 8 through 14: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 15: Rejected because only record basis is uncorroborated hearsay. Paragraphs 16 through 23: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 24: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary, even though supported by record evidence. Paragraph 25: Accepted in substance. With regard to the post-hearing submissions of the Respondent, it is first noted that, even after a deadline extension of over a month, the Respondent's post-hearing submissions were filed late. Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, requires a ruling on each proposed finding only where proposed findings are submitted "in accordance with agency rules." Rule 22I-6.031(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides for the filing of proposed findings of fact and other proposed matters "within a time designated by the Hearing Officer." The Respondent's post-hearing materials were not submitted in accordance with the cited rule because they were filed beyond the extended deadline. Therefore, Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, does not require a specific ruling on each and every random sentence that might arguably constitute a proposed finding wherever found within the 47 pages of assorted post-hearing material submitted by the Respondent. Accordingly, while I have carefully read each of the 47 pages of post-hearing material submitted by the Respondent, I have not attempted the herculean task of gleaning through the Respondent's eclectic accumulation of papers and attempting to sort out the few statements that might arguably be construed as proposed findings of fact from the morass of arguments, statements of law, total irrelevancies, inappropriate documents (such as rejected exhibits), and other documents that serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say that it is clear that the Respondent is of the view that the Petitioner has failed to prove its case, and it is clear from the findings of fact made in the Recommended Order that the Hearing Officer is, for the most part, of the view that the record in this case warrants an opposite finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia Gelmine, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Ms. Dana Carlos 4425 Rachael Way West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Mildred Gardner Kenneth D. Easley, Esquire Executive Director General Counsel, Department Board of Massage of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department and the Board of Massage Therapy ("Board") have regulatory jurisdiction over licensed massage therapists such as Respondent. The Department furnishes investigative services to the Board and is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint, as it has done in this instance, when cause exists to suspect that a licensee has committed one or more disciplinable offenses. On March 13, 2007, the Department issued Respondent license number MA 49800, which authorized her to practice massage therapy in the state of Florida. With the exception of the instant proceeding, Respondent's license has not been the subject of prior disciplinary action. Respondent's Training and Application for Licensure Respondent was born in China and, at all times relevant to this proceeding, was a citizen of China. Respondent ultimately immigrated to the United States (the record is silent as to the date) and, on July 6, 2007, enrolled at Royal Irvin College ("Royal Irvin"), an institution located in Monterey Park, California, that offered massage therapy instruction. Some five months later, upon Respondent's successful completion of a course of study comprising 500 hours, Royal Irvin awarded her a degree. Subsequently, on February 26, 2007, Respondent passed the National Certification Examination for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork. At or around that time, Respondent relocated to south Florida in pursuit of employment as a massage therapist. From what can be gleaned from the record, it seems that the owner of a massage studio, Ming Goa, informed Respondent that she required a Florida license to be eligible for hire. Owing to the fact that Royal Irvin was not a Board-approved massage school, Respondent needed to complete a course of study at an approved institution or, alternatively, an apprenticeship program. On or about March 5, 2007, and at the apparent suggestion of Mr. Goa, Respondent traveled to the Fort Lauderdale campus of the Florida College of Natural Health ("FCNH"), a Board-approved massage school. On that occasion, Respondent met with FCNH's registrar, Glenda Johnson, to discuss the steps necessary to obtain a Florida license. The particulars of Respondent's dealings with Ms. Johnson and Respondent's subsequent application for licensure are discussed shortly; first, though, a description of FCNH——and its responsibilities under Florida law——is in order. FCNH, an incorporated nonpublic postsecondary educational entity, 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 (2012).3/ 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, Florida Statutes. 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- (Aug. 16, 1998), which provided in relevant 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. (emphasis added). 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.4/ Regarding these required practices, section 1005.04, Florida Statutes (2007), 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; * * * 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. . . . 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. * * * (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.5/ 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. Returning to the events at hand, Respondent met with Ms. Johnson, FCNH's registrar, on March 5, 2007. Notably, it has not been shown that Ms. Johnson lacked the authority to create official diplomas and transcripts on behalf of FCNH; on the contrary, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that Ms. Johnson possessed the actual authority, on that date and at all relevant times, to generate such records.6/ The meeting, which took place on a weekday during normal business hours, was held in Ms. Johnson's office——located on the first floor of a multi-story building on FCNH's Fort Lauderdale campus. Upon Respondent's arrival (at the main entrance), a receptionist summoned Ms. Johnson, who, a few minutes later, appeared in the lobby and escorted Respondent to her office. During the meeting that ensued, Respondent advised Ms. Johnson (with her limited English skills) that she was a recent graduate of Royal Irvin and that she wished to obtain licensure in Florida as a massage therapist. Ms. Johnson immediately telephoned Royal Irvin, spoke with an employee of that institution, and requested that Respondent's records be faxed to FCNH. It appears that the Royal Irvin records were furnished a short time later, at which point Ms. Johnson informed Respondent, erroneously, that her existing coursework was sufficient for licensure and that she could simply transfer her previously-earned credits to FCNH. All Respondent needed to do, Ms. Johnson incorrectly explained, was study FCNH-prepared materials concerning the Florida rules and statutes relevant to massage therapy. Significantly, Ms. Johnson also informed Respondent——again, incorrectly——that her Royal Irvin credits satisfied the requirement that a Florida applicant complete two hours of board-approved coursework relating to the prevention of medical errors.7/ As their March 5, 2007, meeting wound to a close, Ms. Johnson escorted Respondent to FCNH's library, which was located on the second floor of the same building. Respondent examined the materials that had been provided to her until roughly 5:00 p.m., at which time Ms. Johnson advised her to return the following morning "to study for another day." Ms. Johnson also instructed Respondent bring funds to cover the licensure application fee and FCNH's tuition. As instructed, Respondent returned the next morning to FCNH's library, where she continued her studies until mid-to late-afternoon. At that point, Ms. Johnson had Respondent sign an application for a Florida massage therapy license, wherein Respondent truthfully disclosed, among other things, that she had completed 500 hours of study at Royal Irvin; that Royal Irvin was not approved by the Board; and that she had not attended an apprenticeship program. Upon her collection of the license application fee (as well as "tuition" for FCNH——more on this in a moment), Ms. Johnson furnished Respondent with a portfolio that contained several items, including an FCNH document titled "Certificate of Completion – Therapeutic Massage Training Program (Transfer of Licensure)" that bore Ms. Johnson's signature. In the days that followed, Ms. Johnson furnished Respondent's application for licensure to the Department. The application was accompanied by various supporting documents, which included: the "Certificate of Completion" identified in the preceding paragraph of this Order; a "Transfer of Credit Form" signed by Ms. Johnson, which indicates that FCNH accepted Respondent's credits from Royal Irvin, and, further, that Respondent's coursework at Royal Irvin included two credit hours involving the prevention of medical errors and three credit hours relating to HIV/AIDS; an FCNH transcript (signed by Ms. Johnson and bearing the school's seal) showing that Respondent had completed a 500-hour program titled "Therapeutic Massage Training Program (Transfer of Licensure)"; Respondent's transcript from Royal Irvin; and a copy of Respondent's national certification as a massage therapist. Subsequently, on March 13, 2007, the Department notified Respondent that her application had been granted and that she would be mailed her license in four to six weeks. Six weeks came and went without a license, at which point Respondent contacted the Department and learned that certain documentation was missing. Unsure of what records the Department still required, Respondent contacted Ms. Johnson, who, in turn, furnished the Department with an FCNH document titled "Certificate of Completion – 2 Hours of Prevention of Medical Errors." This certificate bore FCNH's seal, as well as Ms. Johnson's signature. 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. (These documents, which Respondent's FCNH diploma comprises, will be referred to hereafter, collectively, as the "Diploma.") Although the Department seeks to characterize the issuance of Respondent's license as a "mistake" on its part, such a contention is refuted by the final hearing testimony of Anthony Jusevitch, the executive director of the Board. Mr. Jusevitch testified, credibly, that Respondent's application materials contained no facial irregularities or flaws that would have justified a denial: Q. Okay. Now, based on both your experience, and your review of this application file, is there anything in that application file that you would see that would be an apparent error or omission in this file? A. No, there's nothing in this file that's an apparent error or omission. Final Hearing Transcript, p. 20. Subsequent Events In December 2011, an individual with the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork ("NCB") placed a telephone call to Melissa Wade, an FCNH managerial employee, to report that the NCB had received a number of applications to sit for the National Certification Examination (which the NCB administers) from FCNH graduates whose transcripts seemed irregular. What these applicants had in common was that they had earned their massage therapy diplomas from Royal Irvin, and that the same member of FCNH's administration——i.e., Ms. Johnson——had accepted their transfer credits. The NCB sent copies of the suspicious credentials to FCNH. Ms. Wade reviewed the materials and detected some 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, who admitted that she had created and signed the problematic certificates, but denied——untruthfully, at least with respect to her dealings with Respondent——ever having taken money for doing so. (Ms. Johnson provided the rather dubious explanation that she had been merely trying to "help" people.) Ms. Johnson's employment with FCNH was terminated a short time later. Thereafter, Ms. Wade notified the Department 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 cooperated. The investigation uncovered approximately 220 graduates, including Respondent, whose credentials FCNH could not confirm. At present, Respondent has neither surrendered her Diploma, nor has she otherwise acceded to the allegation that the credentials FCNH conferred upon her are invalid. Although the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Johnson should not have awarded Respondent an FCNH Diploma (because, among other reasons, Respondent had not completed two hours of board- approved coursework in the area of medical error prevention), there is no evidence that FCNH has initiated a legal proceeding to revoke or withdraw Respondent's Diploma. At present, therefore, there is no legally binding or enforceable determination that the Diploma is void or that Respondent is without rights and privileges thereunder. Further, and just as important, it has not been shown that Respondent provided Ms. Johnson (or any other FCNH employee) with false information, nor does the evidence support a finding that Respondent knew or should have known that Ms. Johnson's issuance of the Diploma was anything but routine and in accordance with FCNH's academic policies. Under the circumstances, it was entirely reasonable for Respondent to rely upon Ms. Johnson's representations, as Respondent was entitled under the law to receive accurate information from FCNH concerning, among other things, the transferability of credits to FCNH, as well as the relationship between FCNH's academic program and the state's licensure requirements for massage therapists.
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 not guilty of the offenses charged in the Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 6th day of August, 2013.
