The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section 480.046(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2007), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the regulation of the practice of massage therapy pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was licensed as a massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA49928. On September 19, 2007, Deputy Darin Bankert was a sworn law enforcement officer working as a violent crimes investigator with the Manatee County Sheriff's Office. He was called to the scene of an alleged sexual battery. The reported crime involved a sexual attack of a massage therapist client during a massage. Respondent was the subject of the investigation, which was initiated by the victim. On October 22, 2007, Respondent was charged with sexual battery in violation of section 794.011(5), Florida Statutes, a second-degree felony. The information in Case Number 2007 CF 003650 issued in the Circuit Court, Twelfth Judicial Circuit, in and for Manatee County, states: ANGEL DEJESUS on the date of 9/19/2007, . . . in the County and State aforesaid, did commit a sexual battery upon [victim], a person twelve years of age or older, to-wit: ANGEL DEJESUS with his sexual organ, penetrated or had union with the vagina and/or the anus of [victim] and in the process thereof used physical force and violence not likely to cause serious personal injury to the said [victim] contrary to Section 794.011(5), Florida Statutes, in such case made, and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida. On September 19, 2008, as a result of a jury trial, Respondent was found guilty of sexual battery as alleged in the indictment. On September 25, 2008, the trial court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to fifteen years in prison, with credit for 372 days for time served before sentencing. The court designated Respondent as a sexual offender with all of the reporting requirements associated with that status, and prohibited any contact with the victim. Sexual battery on a massage therapy client is a crime directly related to the practice of massage therapy. Sexual battery, whether or not involving a massage therapy client, is directly related to the practice and the ability to practice massage therapy. Trust between a massage therapist and a client is an integral component of the therapist-client relationship. Sexual battery demonstrates a lack of honesty, self-control and judgment. Given the vulnerable position of a client during any massage, anything that undermines that trust impairs the therapist's ability to fulfill his or her responsibilities as a therapist.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent has violated section 480.046(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and revoking his license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Greg S. Marr, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Angel Luis DeJesus, No. 582903 Franklin Correctional Institution 1760 Highway 67 North Carrabelle, Florida 32322 Anthony Jusevitch, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Nicholas Romanello, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy in violation of section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, or in the practice of a health profession, in violation of section 456.072(1)(v), Florida Statutes; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department, Board of Massage Therapy (Board), 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 the complaint, Ms. Wang was a licensed massage therapist within the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 80935 on or about December 31, 2015. Ms. Wang's address of record is 9844 Sandalfoot Boulevard, Boca Raton, Florida 33428. Ms. Wang began working as a massage therapist at Wellness Spring Center (Wellness) 7865 West Sample Road in Coral Springs, Florida, on May 2, 2016. On or about May 26, 2016, the Coral Springs Police Department (CSPD) conducted a prostitution investigation at Wellness. Detective Gariepy, a detective in the vice, intelligence, and narcotics unit of the CSPD, working undercover, requested a one-hour full body massage and was advised it would cost $60.00. Detective Gariepy paid the $60.00 in official investigative funds, and he was escorted to a private room. Detective Gariepy got undressed and lay face down on a massage table. Ms. Wang provided Detective Gariepy with a massage. Ms. Wang began working on Detective Gariepy's back side, and later asked him to flip over onto his back, which he did. She then massaged the front side of his body. She put her hand on his testicles and then on his penis, and began stroking it in a sexual manner. After only a few seconds, Detective Gariepy stopped her, saying he was a married man. Detective Gariepy testified on cross-examination that Ms. Wang never asked him for any money when she was touching him. Detective Gariepy got dressed and left the massage establishment. CSPD officers entered the massage establishment and made contact with Ms. Wang, who was then positively identified by Detective Gariepy as the therapist who massaged him. It was stipulated by the parties prior to hearing that Ms. Wang provided Detective Gariepy with a massage. Ms. Wang's contrary testimony at hearing, to the effect that the person to whom she gave a massage that day was not Detective Gariepy was not credible and is rejected. Her testimony that she did not inappropriately touch Detective Gariepy's testicles and penis, was not credible and is rejected. While Detective Gariepy admitted he was unable to pick out a photograph of Ms. Wang a little over two years later in a deposition, he explained that as he was receiving the massage, he focused on exactly what Ms. Wang was wearing and concentrated on her physical features so that he could positively identify her to the arresting officers. The parties stipulated prior to hearing that Ms. Wang was positively identified by Detective Gariepy as the therapist who had massaged him. His testimony was credible. On May 26, 2016, Ms. Wang used the massage therapist- patient relationship to attempt to engage Detective Gariepy in sexual activity. Ms. Wang engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy. Ms. Wang has never 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 Ms. Yangling Wang in violation of sections 480.0485 and 456.072(1)(v), Florida Statutes, constituting grounds for discipline under section 480.046(1)(p), Florida Statutes; imposing a fine of $2,500.00; revoking her license to practice massage therapy; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2018, 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 24th day of October, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald C. Henley, Esquire Kimberly L. Marshall, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Hongwei Shang, Esquire The Law Office of Hongwei Shang, LLC 7350 Southwest 89th Street, Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33156 (eServed) Louise Wilhite-St Laurent, Interim General Counsel Department of Health 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)
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at formal hearing was whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in Petitioner's Administrative Complaint, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's massage license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 455 and 480, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is a Florida licensed massage therapist and has been at all times material hereto, having been issued license number MA 0012000. Respondent had been licensed for one (1) year prior to the alleged incidents and has performed approximately 700 massages, with approximately 300 of them being performed on women. In August 1992, P. G. was suffering from tension in her neck, so she contacted Respondent for a massage. P. G. was acquainted with Respondent as a result of them attending the same church and participating for six weeks in "prosperity classes" which met once a week. Respondent agreed to give her a massage at her home. At no time prior to this had P. G. had a massage. In the afternoon, on a day in August 1992, Respondent came to P. G.'s home to give her the massage. He brought with him a table and a sheet. P. G.'s husband was at home when Respondent arrived and was in another room in the home during the first half of the massage. The massage lasted approximately one hour and 15 minutes. Before beginning the massage, Respondent did not obtain any medical or health history from P. G. Also, Respondent gave P. G. the option of being draped with her underwear on or nude. P. G. chose to keep her underwear on. Respondent massaged P. G.'s neck, arms, shoulders, back, legs, feet and breasts. Throughout the massage, P. G. and Respondent conversed continuously. At one point, Respondent told her that she had a great body and that if she ever wanted to get rid of her husband he was available. P. G. did not take Respondent's comments seriously and dismissed them. When Respondent was massaging P. G.'s arms and shoulders, she was lying in a prone position with her arms and hands outstretched forward and with him standing in front of her. Several times, during this part of the massage, when Respondent leaned forward, he brushed his penis against her hands. Prior to massaging P. G.'s breasts, Respondent did not discuss massaging her breasts with her. Also, throughout the massage of P. G.'s breasts, Respondent used his hands to manipulate her breasts and manipulated her nipples. At one point during the massage, Respondent touched P. G.'s vaginal area and began stroking her clitoris. P. G. described Respondent's action as a "stimulation" of her clitoris in a sexual manner "like your husband would do." When Respondent did this, P. G. immediately asked Respondent if this was part of the massage. He asked her if she wanted him to do this and she said no. Respondent ceased and did not do it again. After the massage was over, P. G. paid Respondent $20 or $30, she did not recall which. Additionally, she walked Respondent to his vehicle and requested that he leave some of his advertising material with her, which he did. P. G. reported the incident to Petitioner after her twin sister informed her that Respondent should not have touched her vaginal area and nipples. Approximately two months later, on or about October 1, 1992, S. K. came to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, from California for her father's funeral. After his funeral, she was very stressed and wanted to get a massage. For S. K., massages were therapy, relieving her of stress, and she had been receiving massages for approximately 10 years. Also, S. K. is a licensed massage therapist in the State of California. On or about October 3, 1992, a Sunday, S. K. called Respondent after selecting him from his advertisement in the yellow pages. Respondent agreed to perform a massage on her that same day in the afternoon at his home. After arriving at Respondent's home, he directed S. K. to a small room which contained a massage table. She undressed completely and was provided with a small rectangular sheet about the width of her body for draping. Prior to the massage, S. K. and Respondent discussed areas in particular that S. K. wanted massaged, i.e., shoulders, neck, and lower back. Further, she requested that Respondent use a special oil that she brought with her, and he agreed to do so; she felt "safe" with the smell of the oil. At no time did Respondent take any medical or health history from S. K. S. K.'s massage lasted for approximately one hour. Respondent talked continuously during the entire massage, relating his real estate dealings. Respondent began the massage by having S. K. lie on the massage table in a prone position. He placed the small sheet on her, leaving her buttocks uncovered. In the course of massaging the top of S. K.'s legs, Respondent brushed S. K.'s genital area, specifically her labia, very briskly at least six or eight times (three or four times on each leg). S. K. began to become suspicious of Respondent but did not object to Respondent's action. While S. K. was still in the face down position, Respondent massaged S. K.'s buttocks. During the massage of her buttocks, Respondent brushed his fingers over S. K.'s anus several times, causing her to believe that Respondent was doing this intentionally. However, S. K. did not object to Respondent's action, wanting to believe, instead, that what was happening really wasn't. Additionally, while in the prone position, Respondent massaged S. K.'s shoulders. She was lying with her arms and hands outstretched in the front of her and with Respondent standing in front of her. Several times, while manipulating S. K.'s shoulders, Respondent would brush his stomach and penis against her hands. Each time the brushing occurred, either with his stomach or his penis, S. K. would move her hands back, but the massage procedure would cause her hands to move forward again. S. K. objected to Respondent's action, and he stopped. When Respondent had S. K. to lie on her back, he did not cover her genital area with any kind of draping. She became angry, accused Respondent of not properly draping her, and proceeded to drape her genital area herself. While S. K. was still lying on her back, Respondent massaged her breasts with his hands. Respondent had not discussed massaging S. K.'s breasts before doing so. During the massage of S. K.'s breasts, Respondent manipulated her nipples with his hands. At the conclusion of the massage, S. K. paid Respondent $20 for the massage and gave him a $10 tip. Neither S. K. nor P. G. were acquainted with one another. Expert testimony was that draping is not universally taught in Florida's massage schools and that there is no universally accepted method of draping by massage therapists in Florida. When a massage therapist performs a massage on a client for the first time, the minimum standard of practice, according to expert testimony, requires the massage therapist to take the client's medical history. Obtaining the medical history guides the massage therapist in the client's massage, such as informing the therapist which areas of the body are appropriate for massage and which are not. A massaging of the breasts is not prohibited; however, according to expert testimony, the minimum standard of practice requires the massage therapist to (a) inform the client, prior to the massage, that the breasts will be massaged, (b) obtain the client's consent, and (c) use the client's hand to massage the breasts (massage through the client's hand). Additionally, the minimum standard of practice prohibits the manipulation of the nipples. Massaging of the genital area, according to expert testimony, is prohibited by the minimum standard of practice, unless the client's physician has ordered such a massage. No physician ordered a massage of the genital area for either P. G. or S. K. According to expert testimony, the anus is involved in a massage procedure referred to as colonic irrigation which is a gloved procedure and requires special equipment. The minimum standard of practice requires a massage therapist to obtain the client's consent for the procedure and requires the client to go through an advance procedure prior to the colonic irrigation massage. No colonic irrigation was performed on either P. G. or S. K.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Massage enter a final order: Determining James J. Maes guilty of violating Subsection 480.046(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by violating Board of Massage Rule 21L-30.001(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing an administrative penalty of five years suspension. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of April 1993 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 16th day of April 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on findings proposed by the Petitioner. 1-6. Rejected as subordinate to Findings of Fact 23-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25, except for the reference to appropriate draping which is rejected. Expert testimony revealed that there was no universally accepted method of draping. See Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Rejected, see Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, except the reference to the clitoris which is rejected. Taking the deposition testimony about S. K.'s clitoris and labia indicates that S. K. meant her labia, not her clitoris. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20, except the reference of failing to properly drape which is rejected. See Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Rulings on findings proposed by the Respondent. Client I Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4, except the reference to the date which is rejected as contrary to the evidence presented. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, except as to P. G. wearing panties throughout the massage which is adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, except as to the last sentence which is adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Client II Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, except for the expert testimony on draping which is adopted and modified in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, see Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, see Finding of Fact 20. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, see Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as unnecessary and contrary to the evidence presented, except the reference to the tip which is adopted in Finding of Fact 21. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan E. Lindgard, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James J. Maes 1498 Northeast 34th Court Oakland Park, Florida 33334 Anna Polk, Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a massage therapist should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: 1. In this disciplinary action, Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (Board), seeks to impose disciplinary action against the license of Respondent, James Whited, Jr., a licensed massage therapist, on the ground that he knowingly failed to disclose on his application for licensure a no contest plea to a misdemeanor in 1993. Respondent denies that the omission was intentional and requested a hearing to contest the proposed action. 2. Respondent has been licensed as a massage therapist since October 8, 1999, having been issued license number MA 29917. On August 12, 1999, Respondent submitted his application for licensure to the Board. Question 6A asks for the following information: Have you ever pled guilty or no contest to a crime, or have you ever been convicted of a crime in any jurisdiction? You must include all misdemeanor and felonies even if adjudication was withheld. Please include military court martials. Do not include parking or speeding violations. In response to the foregoing question, Respondent answered in the negative. 3. On March 16, 1993, Respondent was arrested in Nassau County, Florida, on a felony charge of battery on a law enforcement officer and a misdemeanor charge of exposure of sexual organs. Shortly thereafter, Respondent retained the services of Vincent P. Gallagher, an attorney who had just been admitted to practice law in September 1992. 4. On an undisclosed date, the felony charge of battery was dropped. This typically means that the prosecutor has insufficient evidence to proceed to trial. At the same time, the original misdemeanor charge was also dropped or dismissed by the prosecutor. Pursuant to an agreement between Respondent's counsel and the prosecutor, at a disposition hearing held on July 6, 1993, Respondent's counsel entered a plea of no contest to a misdemeanor charge of simple battery. Adjudication of guilt was withheld, and Respondent was required to pay $103.00 in court costs. 5. Although a court document entitled Judgment and Sentence reflects that "the defendant, accompanied by his/her attorney, Vincent Gallagher, [was] present in open court" at the time of the plea, this notation by the clerk on the document was incorrect, and Respondent did not attend the disposition hearing. This finding is based on the fact that attorney Gallagher specifically recalled that his client did not attend the disposition hearing, Respondent denied being present, and another attorney who practices criminal law in Nassau County established that the Nassau County Judge who accepted the plea discourages attorneys from bringing their clients to disposition hearings. Unlike defendants in Circuit Court, defendants in County Court are not required to be present at the disposition hearing. Finally, the court records show that attorney Gallagher filed a Notice of Appearance before the County Court, which authorized him to appear on Respondent's behalf, without Respondent's need to personally appear before the Court. 6. Prior to the disposition hearing, Respondent was told by his attorney that if he was willing to pay court costs, "this thing will go away." Although Respondent considered the charges to be meritless, and had told his attorney that he wished to contest the charges, he logically interpreted his counsel's advice to mean that all charges would be dropped if he paid the costs. He was never specifically told by his attorney that a no contest plea was being entered on his behalf. This was confirmed by attorney Gallagher who explained that his customary practice at that time (when he was a new attorney) was to simply advise his clients that a charge "would go away" if court costs were paid, and there would be "no conviction." 7. Before he filed his application for licensure with the Board in August 1999, Respondent spoke with an unidentified representative of the Board and disclosed that he had been arrested in 1993 but that both charges had been "dropped." This representation was consistent with his understanding of the information conveyed to him by his attorney. Respondent asked whether he should disclose this information on his application. Based on advice from that representative, disclosure of the incident was not made. 8. When Respondent filled out his application, he was under the impression that the charges had been dropped. Therefore, when he answered "no" to Question 6A, there was no intent to deceive the Board or to obtain his license by fraudulent circumstances. Indeed, Respondent was unaware that he had actually pled no contest to a misdemeanor until the Board contacted him just prior to the issuance of the Administrative Complaint. Had he been aware of the no contest plea, Respondent would have voluntarily disclosed the plea on his application. 9. When the Board's staff received the application without any reference to the plea, the application "proceeded without being presented to the full [B]loard of [MJassage [T]herapy for review," and a license was administratively issued. Had question 6A been answered in the affirmative, Respondent would have been considered a "history" candidate and required to submit certified copies of the court records. Also, he would have been required to personally appear before the Board for the purpose of “explaining the circumstances around the occurrence" and to answer any questions the members might have. 10. After he received his license, Respondent invested a considerable sum of money in purchasing his current business. He now employs nine persons and has a successful full-service salon providing cosmetologists, massage therapists, manicures/ pedicures, and facial specialists. He also attends the University of North Florida part-time, and is a long-time member of the U. S. Naval Reserve, serving as a hospital corpsman. 11. More than likely, a plea of no contest to a misdemeanor charge of simple battery would not be serious enough to disqualify Respondent from licensure had the incident been disclosed on his application. This is because the isolated incident occurred some eight years ago, and it can be reasonably inferred that the charge of simple battery was unrelated to the practice of massage therapy or Respondent's ability to practice that profession. The Board apparently reached this same conclusion since it chose not to charge Respondent with this statutory violation. 12. Other than this disciplinary action, Respondent has never been charged with, or prosecuted for, a violation of a Board rule or statute that it administers.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Mail Station 39 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5407 For Respondent: Scott F. Mitchell, Esquire Lester & Mitchell, P.A. One Independent Drive, Suite 2202 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5015
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint, with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 4s day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ew) eR WAAL DONALD R. ALEXANDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this (gth day of guly, 2001. il COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Massage 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William L. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Mail Stop 39 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5407 Scott F. Mitchell, Esquire Lester & Mitchell, P.A. One Independent Drive, Suite 2202 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5015
