The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy and failed to appropriately drape a client as alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint1 (AAC), and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent’s license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a massage therapist in Florida, having been issued license number MA 80545. In the time since Respondent was licensed, no prior disciplinary action has been taken against her license. Respondent was born in the Liaoning Province, North China, and came to the United States in 2005. Respondent is a U.S. citizen. Respondent attended a Beauty School for her massage education and her educational instruction at school was in English. Further, when she took the examination to become a Florida licensed massage therapist, the examination was in English, and no one helped her to translate the material. Respondent’s address of record is 9986 Red Eagle Drive, Orlando, Florida, 32826.4 At all times relevant to the AAC, Respondent practiced massage therapy, as defined in section 480.033(3), at Golden Asian Massage, LLC, doing business as The Wood Massage (Golden Asian). Golden Asian was located at 1218 Winter Garden Vineland Road, Suite 124, Winter Garden, Orange County, Florida. 4 On November 26, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, stipulating that Respondent’s address of record was in New York. At some point after the March 2016 investigation, Respondent moved out of Florida. Then, either before or after November 26, 2019, Respondent moved back to Florida, but failed to advise her counsel or DOH of her address change. Respondent’s counsel stated that he would ensure Respondent filed the appropriate change of address information with DOH. At the time of the investigation, the LEO had been trained at the police academy, had multiple courses in vice-related investigations, human trafficking investigations, and drug trafficking investigations, including prostitution activities. The LEO has participated in “well over a hundred” undercover prostitution operations. The LEO’s investigation assignments “as a whole” include “anything that would be vice-related, drug trafficking or human trafficking.” The MBI is a joint police task force for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, which includes Orange County and Osceola County. MBI routinely investigates vice, human trafficking crimes, and mid-level to upper-level narcotic organizations. Once the MBI receives a complaint about a massage parlor, an undercover investigation is initiated. An undercover investigation team usually consists of five law enforcement personnel: a supervisor-in-charge; the undercover agent (agent); and two to three additional support personnel. An agent goes into the establishment, posing as a customer. Once the agent is on the massage table, the agent waits for the massage therapist to initiate, either via conversation or through an overt act, a predisposition for sexual activity. In some instances, the massage therapist might glide their fingers in the inner thigh, or speak of some sexual activity. Once the massage therapist initiates an actual sex act, the agent then tries to stop the sex act, while engaging in conversation. On March 9, 2016, after receiving a tip or complaint about the establishment, the MBI conducted an undercover investigation of the Golden Asian. The LEO arrived at the Golden Asian, met Respondent at the counter, and in English, asked for a 30-minute massage. Respondent responded in English and told the LEO it would cost $50 for a 30-minute massage. The LEO agreed to the cost, and Respondent led the LEO to a massage room within the Golden Asian. The LEO got completely undressed and positioned himself on his stomach, face-down on the massage table. Upon entering the room, Respondent grabbed a towel and placed it on the LEO’s back midsection. The LEO described the area covered as “pretty much my buttocks to, like, my lower back,” but the towel was not tucked in. Using oil, Respondent massaged the LEO’s back, thighs, and neck. While the LEO was still on his stomach and roughly ten to 15 minutes through the massage, the towel fell off. The LEO did nothing to dislodge the towel while he was on his stomach. Roughly halfway through the 30-minute massage, Respondent “stopped massaging and it was more of a gliding motion from [the LEO’s] back to [the LEO’s] inner thighs.” With this action, the LEO determined that Respondent was predisposed to engage in sexual activity. Respondent directed the LEO to turn over, which he did. The LEO testified that after he turned over his genitals were exposed. Respondent put more oil on her hands and massaged the LEO’s chest to his thigh area. Respondent further testified that Respondent “would glide and touch [the LEO’s] penis and scrotum.” Respondent asked the LEO if he liked it when Respondent “tapped” the LEO’s penis. The LEO answered “yes” to Respondent’s question. The touching of the LEO’s penis and scrotum again provided the predisposition that sexual activity could be engaged. The LEO then asked Respondent for oral sex, i.e. a blow job. Respondent declined to perform oral sex. The two engaged in talking and hand gesturing regarding manual masturbation and its cost. The LEO testified Respondent raised her hand to indicate manual masturbation would be $40.00. Respondent testified that she said “no” and did not state a price. As provided below, Respondent’s testimony was not credible. The LEO told Respondent that $40.00 was too expensive for masturbation. He then grabbed the original towel that had draped him from between his legs, cleaned the oil, dressed, and left the massage establishment. Shortly thereafter, Respondent was arrested.5 5 The dismissal of Respondent’s criminal charges is not probative of whether she committed the regulatory violations. Respondent’s hearing testimony of how the towel fell off during the LEO’s massage differs from her deposition testimony. At hearing, Respondent testified that when the LEO flipped over, the towel fell off and she did not grab it fast enough. Respondent then added it took her “one minute, two minutes” to adjust the towel. Respondent admitted that she exposed the LEO’s genitals without his permission. However, during her deposition, Respondent blamed the type of oil massage that she was administering to the LEO for the towel falling off. Respondent claimed that her hand movement was “pretty hard. So with the movement, the towel shifting a little bit by little bit, and then [the towel] fell off completely.” Respondent also testified that she “saw it [the towel] dropped off, then [she] put it back right away.” In either instance, the LEO’s genitals were exposed without his consent. At the hearing, Respondent’s description of the towel used on the LEO changed from her deposition. During the hearing, Respondent testified the towel was “one to two feet wide . . . the length is about 1.5 meters [over four feet]. I’m not exactly sure.” However, in her deposition, Respondent provided that the towel was “more like a facial towel. It’s not a very big shower towel, but it’s more a facial towel size . . . one [foot] by two [foot].” Respondent’s testimony describing the LEO’s massage is not clear or credible and is rejected. The LEO’s testimony was credible, clear, convincing, and credited. Ms. Buhler is a licensed massage therapist and based on her education, training, and experience, she is accepted as an expert in massage therapy. “Draping” is covering the body while a massage therapist is working on it for the client’s comfort and privacy. Usually, a sheet is used for draping a client (if the room is too cold, a blanket could be added). As a massage therapist works on specific body areas, that body part is uncovered and the towel repositioned when the therapy to that area is completed. Ms. Buhler opined that the size of the towel (“1 [foot] x 2 [foot]” as described by Respondent in her deposition) is “very small,” and is an unusual drape size. Further, she opined that a “1 x 2 towel barely covers anything. It would be almost impossible not to either view something or potentially accidentally bump something with a drape of that size.” If any drape were displaced during a massage, the standard of care requires that the drape be put back in place immediately, not in one or two minutes. Ms. Buhler opined that “anytime a therapist attempts to, either for their own pleasure or for the pleasure of the client, to get any sort of sexual gratification, that is considered sexual misconduct.” A therapist has a choice when any type of sexual activity is suggested or offered. A therapist can redirect someone, state that the activity is not appropriate for the setting, threaten to terminate the massage, or in fact, terminate the massage by leaving the treatment room. Respondent provided that she continued to massage the LEO for one or two minutes after the request for oral sex. Although Respondent claimed she said “No,” she did not take any affirmative action to terminate the session or remove herself from the situation. Respondent’s actions on March 9, 2016, were outside the scope of generally accepted treatment of massage therapy patients. There is no evidence that Respondent has ever had any prior discipline imposed against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding Respondent, Mingli Li, in violation of sections 480.046(1)(i) and 480.0485, Florida Statutes, constituting grounds for discipline under section 480.046(1)(p), imposing a fine of $3,500.00; revoking her license to practice massage therapy; and assessing the cost of investigating and prosecuting the Department’s case against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Zachary Bell, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed) Michael S. Brown, Esquire Law Office of Michael S. Brown, PLLC 150 North Orange Avenue, Suite 407 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Christina Arzillo Shideler, Esquire Florida Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Chad Wayne Dunn, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Kama Monroe, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 (eServed) Louise Wilhite-St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue 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, Mehdi Safdari, L.M.T., committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued August 8, 2001, and, if so, to what extent should his license be disciplined or should he be otherwise penalized.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") is the state agency charged with the authority and duty to regulate the practice of massage therapy in the State of Florida. Pursuant to Subsection 20.43(3)(g), Florida Statutes, the Department of Health has contracted with the Agency for Health Care Administration to provide consumer complaint, investigative, and prosecutorial services required by the Board, as appropriate. Respondent, Mehdi Safdari, was a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida at all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent's license number is MA 11488. He was originally certified on January 14, 1991; his current license will expire on August 31, 2003. The complainant, R.C., a 44-year-old female who has an associate's degree in social services from Hesston College in Hesston, Kansas, is a certified activities director. At all times material to the allegations in this matter, she was employed as an activities director at an assisted living facility, Altera Wynwood. On May 4, 2000, Respondent and another person presented an educational program on occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech and massage therapy for the residents of Altera Wynwood. Incidental to the program, Respondent brought his massage chair and performed massages at the facility. On that day, Respondent performed a chair massage on R.C. R.C. had not known Respondent prior to that day. R.C. advised Respondent that she had been involved in an automobile accident and had injured three discs in her neck. Respondent suggested that she allow him to perform massage therapy on her to alleviate discomfort incidental to the neck injury. On May 15, 2000, R.C. presented herself to Respondent's place of employment for massage therapy. After disrobing, R.C. dressed herself in a hospital gown and towel which was provided. She wore the towel like a diaper. Respondent massaged R.C.'s head and neck and around her breasts. R.C. testified that Respondent "touched her genital area in a very, very subtle manner, almost as if it was an accident." The remainder of the "full body" massage consisted largely of leg stretching. On May 17, 2000, R.C. presented herself for a second massage. On this occasion she found no gown, but was provided a sheet and towel. During this massage, Respondent pulled down the sheet and exposed R.C.'s breasts without her consent. During the massage, Respondent touched R.C.'s breasts, but she was uncertain as to whether the touching was "out of line." Her next massage was on May 19, 2000. She again found only a sheet and towel in which to dress. During this massage, Respondent got up on the massage table and straddled R.C., sitting on her hips and buttocks with his legs on each side of her body. She advised him that the pressure of him sitting on her buttocks was causing her pain in the back, so he got off. At all times she was covered by the sheet and had the towel between her legs. Respondent did not advise her that he was going to straddle her nor did he have her permission to do so. On her fourth and final visit, she dressed herself in the sheet that was provided, but left her underpants on because she was having a menstrual period. After massaging R.C.'s upper body, Respondent turned her over on her stomach. He then got up on the massage table, straddling R.C., and pulled her underwear back. He then unzipped the zipper of his trousers and placed his penis between R.C.'s buttocks. Respondent was leaning up against R.C. and pumping against her. She advised Respondent that he was hurting her and, as a result, he got off. He then told her to lie on her side and face the wall; he then got up on the massage table beside her and with his full body began pushing up against her from behind. She was afraid she was going to be raped and was afraid to say anything. Respondent remained behind R.C. for a short period of time and then left. R.C. went to the bathroom and washed herself but did not discover any semen on herself. She then left, seeking to avoid Respondent. R.C. believed that she had been sexually assaulted and filed a report with an appropriate law enforcement agency. R.C.'s testimony in this matter was clear, consistent, and credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, finding that Mehdi Safdari violated Rule 64B7-26.010(1) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, Section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 455.624(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1999), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued on August 8, 2001; it is further RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, suspend Mehdi Safdari's license to practice massage therapy for a period of three (3) years, during which time he must present himself for examination and/or treatment by a psychiatrist licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida, who, upon conclusion of his examination and/or treatment, shall opine to the Board of Massage Therapy that Respondent is not a threat to his patients as a prerequisite to Respondent returning to the practice of massage therapy; impose an administrative fine against Respondent of $3,000; and assess against Respondent the costs of investigating and prosecuting this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott L. Richardson, Esquire 126 East Jefferson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Ruby Seymour-Barr, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Station 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue 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 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 Should discipline be imposed by the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (the Petitioner), against Stanley Carroll's (the Respondent) license as a massage therapist for alleged violations of Sections 480.046(1)(o) and 480.0485, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Facts Established by the Answer This is an action to impose administrative penalties and assess costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the allegations against Respondent pursuant to Sections 456.072, 480.046(1)(o) and 480.0485, Florida Statutes. This tribunal has jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003). Venue shall be determined pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.207. Effective July 1, 1997, Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a massage therapist, having been issued license number MA 20209 on September 12, 1995. Respondent's last known address is 5135 San Juan Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32210-3137. O.C. was a patient of Respondent during the year 2000. Facts Established by Responses to Request for Admissions Respondent Stanley Carroll possesses Florida massage therapist license number MA 20209. Respondent was issued Florida massage therapist license number MA 20209 on September 12, 1995. Respondent practices massage therapy at the "Hands that Care," 5135 San Juan Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32210. Respondent began providing massage therapy to O.C. in late July 2000 or early August 2000. O.C. was referred to Respondent by K.C. O.C. saw Respondent approximately ten times during the year 2000. During massage therapy sessions with Respondent, O.C. would be covered by only a sheet. Respondent would move the sheet that covered O.C. during massage therapy sessions so that Respondent would not be completely covered during massage therapy sessions. When Respondent would massage O.C.'s pectoral muscles, Respondent would fold the sheet covering O.C. down to expose her breasts. During some massage therapy sessions, Respondent would massage O.C.'s left hip and left upper thigh in an attempt to return feeling to those areas that was lost due to the removal of a lymph node when O.C. was a child. When Respondent would massage O.C.'s left hip and left upper thigh, Respondent would move the sheet covering O.C. and expose O.C.'s pubic area. When Respondent would massage O.C.'s left hip and left upper thigh, Respondent would place one of his hands next to her pubic area. Respondent called O.C. and invited her to his massage establishment for a $30.00 massage, which is half of Respondent's normal fee (at that time). After O.C. was dressed, Respondent walked O.C. to her car (in her last visit to Respondent). Respondent told a Department of Health investigator that he did touch "delicate areas" on O.C.'s body. On May 24, 1999, the Florida Department of Health filed an Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent in discipline case number 98-12083 and his massage therapist license, alleging that Respondent violated Subsection 480.046(1)(c) of the Florida Statutes by being convicted of battery on patient M.J. for inappropriately touching M.J.'s breasts and nipples. Respondent disputed the material facts as alleged in Amended Administrative Complaint 98-12083. In DOAH case number 99-3719, Administrative Law Judge, (ALJ) Suzanne F. Hood found that Respondent violated Subsection 480.046(1)(c) of the Florida Statutes by being convicted of misdemeanor battery for intentionally touching M.J. against her will and that this battery would have not have occurred, but for Respondent and M.J.'s massage therapy session. The Board of Massage Therapy rendered a Final Order in disciplinary case number 98-12083 in which it adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of Administrative Law Judge Suzanne F. Hood in DOAH case number 99-3719. The Board of Massage Therapy's Final Order in disciplinary case 98-12083 imposed an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 and investigative costs in the amount of $1,452.05. Additional Facts O.C. was first seen by Respondent on August 1, 2000. At that time, a questionnaire was completed by O.C., Respondent's Exhibit numbered two. O.C. indicated in her response to the questionnaire that this was the first experience O.C. had with massage therapy. By report, in the questionnaire, the medical history referred to PMS/painful menstruation. Other than the questionnaire which was filled out on the initial visit, no other documentation was established concerning the therapy. That questionnaire, in addition to commenting on the medical history by report, described the fact that O.C. rarely exercised and spent a lot of time in her day standing while at work. Respondent's Exhibit numbered two, the questionnaire, has a statement at its end where it says "I have had the massage treatment and protocol explained to me. I understand that areas will be massaged. With this information I give my permission for a massage, I know I may stop the massage at any time for whatever reason. (pain, discomfort or just being uncomfortable with the massage.)" What O.C. hoped to gain from the massage therapy was relaxation, given the stress levels she experienced at the time. All the massage therapy which Respondent provided was at his location referred to as "Hands That Care," 5135 San Juan Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. There were 10 sessions involved with the therapy, which commenced around 7:30 p.m. on each occasion. At these visits, Respondent and O.C. would be alone in the room where the therapy was provided. At the therapy sessions, O.C. would be completely undressed with a drape over her when she was on the massage table receiving therapy. That drape was a sheet with which she covered herself. She tried to ensure that the private or sensitive areas of her body were covered with the sheet. The sheet was sufficient to cover her exposed body. Nonetheless, the client felt a draft at times around her genital area, and her breasts were exposed during certain forms of massage. This was referred to as frontal massage. That massage involved the pectoral area of her body. O.C. did not feel that there was a problem with her pectoral area being massaged. When O.C. first went for a massage, she and Respondent discussed clothing options for the course of the massage. Respondent told her that there were different options, among them that she could completely disrobe and there would not be any restriction, taken to mean any restriction in the performance of the massage. He told her that she could wear her panties if that made her feel comfortable. She chose to completely disrobe. On an estimated two or three times, O.C. describes that Respondent's ". . . hand might have swept across my nipple, but (she) tried to disregard it and hoped that it was an accident." When O.C. described the "swipe" across her nipple, she meant the actual touching of the nipple. She was not persuaded that the touching was intentional. She hoped that it was not and, at the time, did not believe that it was. O.C. had not consented to any type of lymphatic drainage breast massage or any type of breast massage from Respondent. Her request was for "relaxation massage." On the last visit with Respondent, which took place sometime in 2001, presumably the earlier part of that year, O.C. experienced a problem with Respondent in which he engaged in inappropriate conduct. On that occasion when O.C. entered the room, the room was dimly lit, as it had been on her other visits, and music was provided. The massage session began with a frontal massage, with O.C. on her back draped. The massage period took approximately two hours. O.C. was relaxed with her eyes closed. In the last massage period, one of the areas being addressed was the scar tissue on the inside of O.C.'s upper left thigh. This area is roughly portrayed on the drawing which was admitted as Respondent's Exhibit numbered three. That scar was the result of surgery, in which nerve damage was suffered by O.C. Respondent was trying to break down the tissue associated with the scar to bring about some correction in the condition. Respondent explained to O.C. that massage therapy can help nerve damage. During the last visit when Respondent was working on the scar that was left when the lymph node was removed, the massage did not feel pleasant, in that some sensation in the area was still being experienced by O.C., notwithstanding related areas of numbness. At some point while Respondent was working on the scar tissue, the draping was not covering the area to include her genitalia. At this juncture, Respondent put his hand on O.C.'s genitalia, the clitoris, and began rubbing the clitoris for a period of a minute or less. The touching involved the clitoris itself and the area around it. After that Respondent pulled O.C. up from the table. The sheet was not covering her at the time and as Respondent was pulling O.C. up his hand was still in the clitoris area. O.C. was shocked by Respondent's conduct and did not know how to handle the situation. She had not given Respondent permission to touch, rub, or massage the genital area, to include her clitoris. O.C. never experienced pain in her genital area and never asked Respondent to touch the clitoris or the area around the clitoris or to massage in those places. O.C. had never requested fertility massage or an approach known as the Wurn technique. After helping O.C. up from the table, Respondent asked O.C. to get dressed and to meet him outside. When Respondent left the room, O.C. left the table and went to the dressing room and dressed herself. She met Respondent outside the office area of the building. At this time Respondent asked O.C. if he had ever touched her inappropriately. O.C. simply shook her head in acknowledgement of his comment. She was embarrassed. Respondent also made a comment to the effect that younger people are more susceptible to certain touches than older persons. Respondent encouraged O.C. to come back for more massage therapy and assured her that he would work with her schedule and that if money to pay for the therapy was an issue, then he would work with her on that subject as well. She shook her head as if to agree. She left and never came back. The experience which O.C. had with Respondent on her last visit left her very embarrassed beyond the event. She had not had massage therapy before her experience with Respondent and did not know what to expect, but realized that his placing his hands on her clitoris or the area around the clitoris was not appropriate. The Respondent describes the massage performed on O.C. as a full body massage. This involves the neck, back, legs, feet, hands and head. The therapy is a mix between deep tissue and what Respondent considers Swedish Massage. Ordinarily, the patient is uncovered in the specific areas that are being worked on. Respondent asks permission before performing massage in the delicate areas such as around the breast. It is assumed that is what transpired with patient O.C. Respondent's involvement with O.C. in massaging an area related to her breast was addressing her pectoral muscles. Respondent did not deny the possibility that he touched O.C.'s nipple. He explained, "I don't recall swooping across the breast. If I touched any, it would have been when your pushing breast up and the breast tissue slipping and I would move my hand down to adjust for that. . ." Respondent stated that he had no intention to touch the nipple. Upon the facts presented it is not found that Respondent intended to touch her nipple, unlike the experience with the clitoris and clitoral area. Respondent acknowledges that the drape covering O.C. when he helped her to sit up on the massage table fell down to her waist when he last saw her. Respondent acknowledges that the deliberate touching of the nipples or the area of the clitoris or vaginal area is inappropriate conduct for a massage therapist. EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY Jennifer Mason has been licensed in Florida as a massage therapist for 10 years. No discipline has ever been imposed against her license. She is an anatomy instructor at the CORE Institute of Massage Therapy in Tallahassee, Florida, where she instructs in musculoskelatal anatomy. Ms. Mason has instructed hundreds of students at Core Institute, and she has given hundreds of massages as a licensed therapist. She is expert in the field of massage therapy and was received as an expert for offering opinions concerning the practice of massage therapy. Ms. Mason practices a form of massage therapy that is similar in technique to that employed by Respondent in this case. From what Ms. Mason explained, the size and manner of draping employed by Respondent in the O.C. case and the amount of clothing worn by the patient are not at odds when taking into account what Ms. Mason believes is appropriate. Ms. Mason established that the massage therapist would never engage in the touching, rubbing, or massaging of a female patient's nipples. She does not believe that touching the nipples would be appropriate even if its accidental. Under the facts in this case, her belief that accidental touching would be inappropriate is not accepted. Ms. Mason established that it is inappropriate for a massage therapist to rub or touch a female patient's genital area, including the clitoris. Kenneth C. Oram has been licensed as a massage therapist in Florida and is an expert in the field of neuromuscular massage therapy. He has no disciplinary history in Florida in his field. He believes that a therapist could inadvertently touch the patient's nipple. He does not ascribe fault to that form of touching. His opinion in that sense is accepted given the facts in this case. Mr. Oram agrees with Ms. Mason that intentional touching of the nipples and genital area, to include the clitoris, is sexual misconduct. Those opinions are accepted. His opinion is that touching the genital area when assisting a patient from the massage table, such as was the case with O.C. is inappropriate. That opinion is accepted. Prior Disciplinary Action In Department of Health, Petitioner v. Stanley Michael Carroll, Respondent, before the State of Florida Board of Massage Therapy, Case No. 98-1208A3, Respondent was required to pay an administrative fine of $500.00 for violating Subsection 480.047(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as more particularly described in the Answers to Request for Admissions reported in these facts.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 480.0485, Florida Statutes (2000), and revoking his massage therapist license. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2004.
The Issue Did Respondent, Jianping Liu, L.M.T. (Ms. Liu), induce patients N.D. and J.H. to engage in sexual activity or engage in sexual activity outside the scope of practice or the scope of generally accepted examination or treatment? Did Ms. Liu massage patient N.D. at a location not licensed as a massage establishment and without exemption? Did sexual misconduct occur in Respondent, Queen Spa, Inc.’s (Queen Spa), massage establishment? Did Queen Spa’s backpage.com and anyitem.org advertisements induce or attempt to induce, or engage or attempt to engage, clients in unlawful sexual misconduct? Did Queen Spa fail to include its license number in its backpage.com and anyitem.com advertisements?
Findings Of Fact Section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 464, Florida Statutes, charge the Department with licensing and regulation of massage therapy. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Ms. Liu was a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida. She holds license MA 68834. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Queen Spa was a licensed massage therapy establishment in the State of Florida. It holds license MM 32567 registered at 10915 Bonita Beach Road, Unit 1121, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135, and license MM 32546 registered at 51 9th Street South, Naples, Florida 34102. Patient N.D. was a criminal investigation detective for the narcotics and vice division of Lee County Sheriff’s Office. On March 27, 2014, N.D., as part of an undercover investigation, scheduled an appointment for a massage at Ms. Liu’s home, 9951 Utah Street, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135. During the massage, Ms. Liu touched N.D.’s penis and asked if he wanted it massaged. N.D. offered an additional $50.00 tip and Ms. Liu began masturbating his penis. Ms. Liu was charged with prostitution. On April 30, 2014, Ms. Liu entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Lee County State Attorney’s Office. Ms. Liu’s home on Utah Street has a home occupational license issued by the city for a massage therapy administration office. It is not a licensed massage establishment. J.H. is a police officer in the crime suppression unit for the City of Naples, Florida. On May 9, 2014, the Naples Police Department began investigating Ms. Liu’s massage parlor. On July 24, 2014, J.H., as part of an undercover investigation, scheduled a massage appointment with Ms. Liu at the Queen Spa in Naples. After the massage, J.H. gave Ms. Liu a $20.00 tip and she gave him a separate business card. She explained this card was for “special customers” and had a different phone number than her regular card. J.H. scheduled a second massage for July 29, 2014. At some point near the end of that massage, J.H. asked if Ms. Liu offered special or extra services. Ms. Liu replied by asking if he was trouble or a cop. J.H. asked how much it would cost, but Ms. Liu did not take additional payment. Ms. Liu then began masturbating J.H.’s penis until he ejaculated. Ms. Liu contends that penis manipulation is part of a “full body” massage. But she testified during the hearing that this was an additional service to the full body massage. Further, she testified that she only conducted each “extra service,” because J.H. and N.D. requested it. This establishes that masturbation was not part of the massage. It was a sexual service. Testimony of the expert witness Jennifer Mason also proves this fact. Backpage.com is a classified advertising website that contains listings explicitly for prostitution. The adult entertainment section of backpage.com is linked to the majority of the Naples police investigations into prostitution. Ms. Liu posted ads for Queen Spa on backpage.com and anyitem.org. The backpage.com ad titled “erotic pleasure” was listed in the adult services section. The anyitem.org ad titled “erotic pleasure” was listed in the escort section. Ms. Liu contends the postings did not advertise sexual services and that the application on her phone mistranslated the word erotic from Mandarin to English. However, the character of backpage.com and posting the advertisements as adult services, rather than as massage services, supports the conclusion the postings advertised sexual activities. The backpage.com and anyitem.com advertisements did not include the license number of Queen Spa. Touching of the genitalia is not within the scope of a full body massage. Stimulation of the genital area is considered sexual misconduct. It is not part of an ethical massage. There is no therapeutic value to massaging a client’s penis. Sexual innuendo or stimulation is a problem in massage therapy. The industry has worked to remove it from the practice to create a safe and therapeutic environment. Training of massage therapists requires them to “decline, leave the room, terminate the massage” when sexual stimulation is requested by a patient. When discussing “extra services,” Ms. Liu told J.H. about her friend who got into trouble after performing certain acts and that the friend had lost her license; “no license, no job”. Ms. Liu engaged in sexual misconduct with J.H. just three months after she signed a deferred prosecution agreement disposing of the Lee County charges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order: finding that Respondent, Jianping Liu, L.M.T., violated sections 480.0485 and 480.046(1)(o), Florida Statutes; revoking her license; requiring the payment of an administrative fines in the amount of $2,750.00; and awarding costs for the investigation and prosecution of this case to the Department. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is also RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order: finding that Respondent, Queen Spa, Inc., violated sections 480.046(1)(e) and 480.0465, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7-26.010; revoking its license; requiring the payment of an administrative fine in the amount of $4,000.00; and awarding costs for the investigation and prosecution of this case to the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 2nd day of October, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 480.046(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed on his license to practice massage therapy.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, and since 1983, Respondent has been a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued License Number MA 0004592. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a massage therapist by Health Matters, located in Clearwater, Florida. Respondent has received training in several areas of massage technique including the following: postural integration; deep tisssue therapy combined with acupressure techniques; craniosacral massage; chi kung body movement awareness; myofascial release therapy; corrective body massage; and management of low back pain. Respondent specializes in postural integration massage and, typically, this is the kind of massage he performs. This type of massage involves deep tissue therapy combined with acupressure techniques. On August 28, 1995, the Complainant called Health Matters to schedule an appointment. When she telephoned the facility, the Complainant indicated that she wanted a relaxation massage. On August 30, 1995, the Complainant went to Health Matters for her scheduled appointment. When she arrived at the facility, the Complainant was asked to complete a medical history form. On the form, the Complainant indicated the areas of her body which were in pain. Also, on the employment portion of the form, Complainant noted that she was a massage therapist. As of August 30, 1995, the Complainant had worked as a massage therapist for about four months. After completing the form, the Complainant went to the room where the massage was to be given and met Respondent. Prior to this time, the Complainant had never been to Health Matters and did not know Respondent. At some point prior to Respondent's beginning the massage, the Complainant told Respondent that she was a licensed massage therapist. Prior to beginning the Complainant's massage, Respondent provided her with a clean towel with which to drape herself after she undressed herself. After instructing the Complainant on how to drape herself with the towel, Respondent left the room while the Complainant undressed and draped herself in preparation for the massage. Respondent returned to the room a few minutes later and knocked on the door. After the Complainant indicated that she was undressed and draped, the Respondent entered the room to begin the massage. Prior to performing Complainant's massage, Respondent informed her that he would be performing a postural integration massage. Although the Complainant was unfamiliar with this type of massage, at no time prior to, during or after the massage did she tell Respondent that she did not want him to perform a postural integration massage. Neither did the Complainant tell Respondent that she wanted a Swedish relaxation massage. During the postural integration massage, Respondent continuously spoke to the Complainant and explained the purpose of each of his postural integration massage movements. In explaining each of the steps, Respondent utilized and referred to a wall chart of the human anatomy displayed in the room. The massage lasted between thirty and forty minutes. During the course of the massage, the Complainant remained draped except for a ten minute period when Respondent was working in the Complainant's upper thoracic area. Prior to beginning to work on the thoracic area, Respondent explained to the Complainant what he would be doing and the purpose and effect of the procedures. Also, Respondent pointed out on the human anatomy wall chart, the muscle groups, tendons, and ligaments on which he would be working. Finally, Respondent also told the Complainant that he would have to remove the towel to work in the thoracic area. As he had indicated, prior to working on the Complainant's thoracic area, Respondent removed the towel that was draping Complainant’s breasts. The postural integration massage includes and involves the massage therapist performing certain penetrations to the pectoralis minor muscles and to the area under the breast tissue. These practices and procedures were consistent with Respondent's education and training in the area of postural integration massage and were implemented by Respondent when he performed the massage on the Complainant. At no time during the massage, including the ten minute period when the breasts were undraped, did Respondent touch the Complainant's breasts in a sexual manner. The Respondent neither fondled her breasts nor touched her nipples. According to the Complainant, Respondent worked on the right side of her breast and then "did the same thing on the other side." During the time that Respondent was working on the Complainant's thoracic area, she never indicated to Respondent that she was uncomfortable when the drape was removed from her breasts or that she wanted the drape pulled up to cover her breasts. After completing the work on the thoracic area, Respondent redraped Complainant’s breasts and completed the massage. During various types of massages, it is sometimes necessary to work around the sternum area, or the perimeters of the breasts. While doing so, it is the practice of some therapists to work with a towel over that area and pull it down through the center and move it from side to side as necessary. Notwithstanding this practice by some therapists, a female's breasts may sometimes be undraped during a massage. The mere undraping of a breast during a massage, in and of itself, is not prohibited by law or rule and is not evidence of sexual activity.
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 Therapy enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint and finding that Respondent, Maurice Battista, did not violate Section 480.046(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and Rules 61G11-26.008(2) and 61G11-26.010(2), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruby Seymour-Barr, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 33599 Albert P. Lima, Esquire Lima and Associates 620 Twiggs Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Joe Baker Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
