21-000181 Department Of Health, Board Of Massage Therapy vs. Terrence Grywinski Massage
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, November 5, 2021.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed sexual misconduct. Recommends dismissal of Administrative Complaint.

1S TATE OF F LORIDA

6D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

13D EPARTMENT OF H EALTH , B OARD OF

21M ASSAGE T HERAPY ,

25Petitioner ,

26vs. Case No. 21 - 0180PL

32T ERRENCE G RYWINSKI , L.M.T. ,

37Respondent.

38/

39D EPARTMENT OF H EALTH , B O ARD OF

48M ASSAGE T HERAPY ,

52Petitioner,

53vs. Case No. 21 - 0181

59T ERRENCE G RYWINSKI M ASSAGE ,

65Respondent.

66/

67R ECOMMENDED O RDER

71On July 12 and 21, 2021, Admi nistrative Law Judge Lisa Shearer Nelson

84of the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) conducted a

94disputed - fact hearing by Zoom technology.

101A PPEARANCES

103For Petitioner: Dannie L. Hart, Esquire

109Andrew James Pietrylo, Esquire

113Depar tment of Health

117B in C - 65

1224052 Bald Cypress Way

126Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3265

131For Respondent: Lance O. Leider, Esquire

137Amanda I. Forbes, Esquire

141The Health Law Firm

145Suite 1000

1471101 Douglas Avenue

150Altamon te Springs, Florida 3271 4

156S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE S

164The issues to be resolved are whether Respondent committed the offenses

175charged in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalties should

186be imposed.

188P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

192On October 28, 2020, Petitioner, Department of Health (Petitioner or the

203Department) filed Administrative Complaints against Terrence Grywinski,

210L.M.T., and Terrence Grywinski Massage, alleging that Terrence Grywinski

219had committed sexual misconduct in violation of section s 48 0.046(1)(p) and

231480.0485, Florida Statutes, as defined by Florida Administrative Code

240Rule 64B7 - 26.010(4). 1 Mr. Grywinski filed Election of Rights forms for each of

255the Administrative Complaints disputing the allegations against him, and on

265January 15, 202 1, the cases were referred to DOAH for the assignment of an

280administrative law judge.

283O n January 28, 2021, the cases were consolidated and the following day, a

297Notice of Hearing was issued scheduling them for hearing on April 6, 2021,

310by Zoom conference. Both parties requested continuances, based on good

320cause, and the hearing was rescheduled a number of times. Ultimately, the

332hearing commenced on July 12, 2021, and reconvened and finished on

3431 The Administrative Complaint in DOH Case No. 2019 - 39386 and docketed as DOAH Case

359No. 21 - 0180PL is against Mr. GrywinskiÔs massage therapy license. The Administrative

372Complaint in DOH Case No. 2019 - 39761 and docketed as DOAH Case No. 21 - 0181 is against

391the premises permit for Terrence Grywinski Massage. The factual basis for both

403Administrative Complaints is the same, and for ease of reference, Responden ts will be

417referred to in the singular, i.e., Mr. Grywinski or Respondent.

427July 21, 2021. On July 6, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Pre - He aring

443Stipulation in which they identified certain undisputed facts that would

453require no evidence at hearing. Those stipulated facts, where relevant, are

464included in the F indings of F act below.

473Joint Exhibits 1 and 2 were admitted into evidence. Patient M.M. and

485DOH Investigative Supervisor Marisol Allen testified on behalf of Petitioner,

495and PetitionerÔs Exhibits numbered 1 through 5 were admitted. Respondent,

505Kacee Lynn Homer, and Lisa Caller testified on behalf of Respondent, and

517RespondentÔs Exhibits numbered R - 1 through R - 3, Bates stamp pages 47 - 48

533and 53 through 58 of R - 4, R - 5 through R - 21, and R - 23 through R - 25 were

557admitted into evidence.

560The three - volume Transcript of the proceedings was filed with DOAH on

573September 20, 2021. The deadline for fi ling proposed recommended orders

584was extended for good cause, and the Proposed Recommended Orders were

595timely filed. All references to the Florida Statutes are to the 2017

607codification, unless otherwise indicated.

611F INDINGS OF F ACT

6161. Petitioner is the sta te agency charged with the licensing and regulation

629of massage therapy practice pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and

641480, Florida Statutes.

6442. Respondent , Terrence Grywinski , is a licensed massage therapist in the

655State of Florida and holds licen se number MA 6049.

6653. RespondentÔs mailing address is 6419 Meandering Way, Lakewood

674Ranch, Florida 34202.

6774. Respondent , Terrence Grywinski Massage , is licensed as a massage

687establishment in the State of Florida and holds license number MM 18059.

6995. The es tablishmentÔs physical location is 1188 Tamiami Trail, Sarasota,

710Florida 34236, and this location is the location where all appointments

721relevant to the facts in this case were scheduled and conducted.

7326. Respondent has been licensed to practice massage th erapy in Florida

744since on or about July 9, 1985. The establishment was licensed as a massage

758establishment on or about March 20, 2006. Respondent is the sole owner and

771sole employee of the establishment, which conducts business as Advanced

781Craniosacral The rapy. No evidence was presented to indicate that either

792license has been previously disciplined by the Board.

8007. As a licensed massage therapist, Respondent is subject to the state of

813Florida laws and rules governing licensed massage therapists, and the

823es tablishment that he owns is likewise subject to the laws and rules

836governing massage establishments.

8398. Respondent does not practice traditional massage therapy and has not

850done so since approximately 1995. He was trained in a modality called

862craniosacral therapy (CST) in 1995, and has performed that modality

872exclusively since that time.

8769. According to Respondent, trauma of any kind, whether emotional or

887physical, causes a tremendous force of energy to come into the body, and the

901body tries to protect it self by ÑshorteningÒ and isolating the energy. This

914isolation of the energy created by trauma is what creates areas of tension

927within the body.

93010. The theory behind CST is that the body will correct itself when it feels

945Ñsafe.Ò CST works with the fascia c onnective tissue that attaches muscles to

958the bone, and encases a personÔs organs, brain, and spinal cord. CST uses

971very gentle holds to create a safe space for the body, which will help the body

987slip into a corrective reorganizational healing mode. When a person

997undergoes CST, the fascia will start to release and the person will feel a

1011Ñletting goÒ or release in the tissue. CST does not involve manipulation of the

1025tissue, but rather, a series of holds that may last in any one place for five to

1042ten minutes. The amount of pressure applied is Ñwhatever pressure the body

1054tells you it needs,Ò but generally no more than five grams of pressure.

1068According to Faith Buhler, who testified by deposition as an expert for the

1081Department, when there is a release, there is a different pulse in the body.

109511. Respondent trained in CST through the Upledger Institute, which was

1106established by John Upledger. Respondent has received extensive continuing

1115education in CST and the majority of his statutorily required continuing

1126educ ation deals with the performance of this modality.

113512. Typically, RespondentÔs first - time clients make an appointment for

1146CST and are given a code to enter the second floor of the building where

1161RespondentÔs office is located. He greets patients in a commo n waiting room

1174and takes them to the one - room office where therapy takes place. The office

1189contains two chairs, a massage table, a small side table where a ÑcuppingÒ

1202machine is stored, and a bookshelf.

120813. New clients are asked to fill out an intake sheet that requests some

1222basic information about the client and his or her reason for seeking CST.

1235Respondent uses the information on the intake sheet to speak with the client

1248about his or her needs, and places it in a manila folder that he uses to take

1265notes. The notes are on the manila folder itself, as opposed to paper contained

1279in the folder. If additional space is needed for subsequent visits, he simply

1292gets another manila folder and, hopefully, keeps the folders about a

1303particular client together. Responde nt admits he is not very organized, and

1315maintaining his files is not his specialty. Most clients have three to six

1328sessions with Respondent, so it is conceivable that for most clients, a single

1341folder would be sufficient.

134514. After Respondent speaks with t he client, the client lies down on a

1359table during the therapy, fully clothed, facing up. Typically, Respondent is

1370the only person in the room during CST sessions, and the sessions last

1383approximately an hour and a half. He will assess a client by lifting ea ch leg to

1400compare length and will rotate the legs to assess range of motion through the

1414hips. After assessing a client, Respondent goes through a series of gentle

1426holds, generally using the same protocol each time, with some variation

1437depending on the need of the client. He testified that he will tell clients what

1452he is going to do and where he is going to place his hands, and advises clients

1469that if at any time they feel uncomfortable with what he is doing or where he

1485is placing his hands, the client shoul d feel free to tell him.

14981 5 . Respondent will review the notes he made from prior visits at the

1513beginning of each session and will discuss any changes that have taken place

1526since the last session. Many times, the notes that Respondent keeps will

1538include sen sitive personal information related by a client if that information

1550may reveal a source of trauma.

155616. During the time period relevant to these proceedings, Respondent

1566advertised his practice in an alternative medicine magazine called ÑNatural

1576Awakenings.Ò M.M. is the managing editor of Natural Awakenings. As part of

1588her job, she writes articles and conducts interviews of professionals who

1599advertise in the magazine.

160317. M.M.Ôs supervisor, Janet Lindsay, assigned her the task of

1613interviewing and writing an a rticle about Respondent and his practice. M.M.

1625was told that Respondent practiced CST.

163118. On May 1, 201 7, M.M. emailed Respondent and told him that Natural

1645Awakenings wanted to feature him in an article for the June issue, and sent

1659him a series of questio ns to answer, along with her telephone number.

1672Respondent did not immediately respond, so on May 8, 2017, M.M. emailed

1684him again to make sure he received the first email. Respondent called M.M.

1697the next day and suggested that M.M. come in a nd receive a CST treatment

1712at no charge, so that she would have a better understanding of the modality

1726when writing the article. M.M. accepted the offer and made an appointment

1738to see Respondent on May 12, 2017.

174519. During this first session, M.M. interviewed Respondent f or the article,

1757filled out an intake sheet, and provided a medical history. Respondent asked

1769her some questions, then directed her to remove her shoes and lie on the

1783table, fully clothed. Respondent explained what he was doing and where he

1795would place his hands as he performed the various holds.

180520. M.M.Ôs description of the first session is consistent with RespondentÔs

1816description of how he conducts all CST sessions. There is no allegation that

1829any improper or unprofessional conduct took place at the May 12, 2017,

1841session.

184221. At the end of the session, Respondent offered to continue providing

1854free sessions to M.M. in exchange for M.M. writing additional articles for the

1867magazine about his practice. M.M. agreed to the arrangement. She testified

1878that these kinds of arrangements are not the norm, but that it was not the

1893first time it had occurred.

189822. M.M. testified that she felt better after having the CST session, in that

1912her chronic pain was better, her body less tense, and her breathing easier,

1925especially when running. These benefits, however, were temporary.

193323. M.M. wrote an article about the first session, which she provided to

1946Respondent for review and approval before it was published. Respondent

1956appreciated the article, felt that it was well written, and benefited his

1968practice.

196924. On May 18, 2017, M.M. provided the final copy of the article for

1983publishing. There was no indication from the evidence presented that the

1994partiesÔ interaction at the initial visit or the exchanges regarding the article

2006in th e week following the visit were anything but professional.

201725. M.M. saw Respondent for additional sessions on June 9, 2017;

2028September 26, 2017; November 3, 2017; and November 30, 2017. M.M. did

2040not find anything about these visits to be unprofessional or o ut of the

2054ordinary, with the exception of the last visit on November 30, 2017.

206626. M.M. and RespondentÔs accounts of the November 30, 2017, visit are

2078not reconcilable. Respondent testified that the visit was much like previous

2089visits, while M.M. contends t he visit involved unwanted and inappropriate

2100touching and inappropriate commentary about her body.

210727. Leading up to the final visit, M.M. testified that RespondentÔs

2118behavior seemed more familiar and personal than the behavior of a health

2130care provider. S he claimed that he started calling and emailing her late at

2144night, and referred to her as his Ñmuse.Ò She specifically indicated that one

2157call came on a weekend, and she chose not to answer it because she was with

2173her sister and did not want to interject w ork issues into her weekend.

218728. Phone records from the providers for both M.M. and RespondentÔs

2198phone numbers reveal only one call made from Respondent to M.M., and that

2211call took place May 9, 2017, before her first appointment with him.

222329. The Departmen t did not produce any of the emails M.M. claimed that

2237Respondent made to her. Respondent produced most , but not all , of the

2249emails between the two. He testified that he provided to the Department all

2262of the emails he found at the time he responded to the c omplaint, and that

2278any omissions were unintentional. It is noted that the subpoena issued to

2290Respondent requests patient records, but does not request emails. The

2300request for production issued by the Department to Respondent, which is on

2312the docket for thi s case, does not specifically request emails, but instead

2325requests documents to be used at hearing. None of the emails in evidence

2338contain any improper statements. All of them involve either questions about

2349RespondentÔs practice, or review of the articles that M.M. wrote about his

2361practice. 2

23632 During hearing, the Department showed Respondent a copy of an email he provided in

2378response to the DepartmentÔs request for production. The email appears, from the portions

2391read a t hearing, to involve an article that Respondent wrote about his practice. The

2406Department did not offer the email into evidence, but asked Respondent to read where the

2421email apparently stated, Ñboth of you are my angels.Ò Respondent responded by saying, ÑY es,

2436I said that, but I never called her an angel in any session. I was complimentary. Both

2453Lindsay Ï or Janet Lindsay and Ms. M.M. were very helpful in my professional life, and I see

2471nothing wrong with referring them to angels who are helping me in my pro fession. And if I

2489said I never called anybody an angel, I couldnÔt remember that email until you brought it up

2506now.Ò

250730. Phone records between M.M. and Respondent do indicate that

2517Respondent contacted M.M. either by email or by text, late on some evening s .

2532However, up until March of 2018, well after the final appointment, these

2544contac ts were in response to emails sent by M.M. to Respondent. The

2557telephone records reference emails sent by Respondent to M.M. on

2567January 17 and 23, 2018, a few months after M.M.Ôs last visit. However,

2580neither Respondent nor M.M. were asked about these emails by date, and the

2593record contains no information regarding their contents.

260031. The weekend before the November 30, 2017, visit was Thanksgiving

2611weekend, and M.M. and her husband had a lengthy car ride returning from

2624Atlanta where they spent Thanksgiving. F or whatever reason, M.M. had a

2636panic attack during the car ride, and remained especially tense at her

2648appointment with Respondent. She recalled that the discussion portion of the

2659visit seemed shorter, and that Respondent used a pendulum to detect energy

2671be fore commencing with the CST. 3 He noticed that her chest area was more

2686closed then usual and asked her if there was some reason why she had

2700tightness there.

270232. M.M. testified that she explained to Respondent that she had always

2714had body image issues, spe cifically with her chest. She stated that

2726Respondent offered to address the tension with a modality called Ñcupping,Ò

2738which would also make her breasts look Ñperkier.Ò

274633. Cupping is a modality that Respondent acknowledges using on

2756occasion. He has cuppin g equipment that has a variety of cup sizes and is

2771The Department also contends in its Proposed Recommended Order that ÑGrywinski has no

2784explanation for why he did not provide the Janua ry 2018 emails.Ò However, the record does

2800not reflect that the Department ever specifically asked Mr. Grywinski a question about those

2814emails, either at hearing or in his deposition, so as to require an explanation about them.

28303 The use of the pendulum is a technique that Respondent developed himself. It supposedly

2845detects energy in the body, or an absence thereof, and he also used this technique in a prior

2863session.

2864made so that one can use one or two cups at a time, although he generally

2880uses only one. The machine has tubing that attaches to both the machine and

2894the cup(s), and the amount of pressure to create suct ion can be changed using

2909a dial on the machine.

291434. M.M. testified that she was familiar with the concept of cupping, both

2927from research she had performed for articles, and from the then - recent 2016

2941Olympics where there were stories about Michael Phelps us ing the technique.

2953She agreed to the cupping, and she testified that Respondent directed her to

2966completely disrobe. According to her testimony, Respondent remained in the

2976room while she disrobed, and did not offer her a drape of any kind. There was

2992no test imony about what Respondent was doing while M.M. disrobed: i.e . ,

3005whether he turned his back, set up the equipment, or watched her. M.M.

3018testified that she did as Respondent asked because she ha d seen a number of

3033health care providers for a variety of reaso ns all of her life, and trusted them.

304935. M.M. stated that Respondent instructed her to lay face up on the table

3063and rolled a cart with the cupping machine over to the table. 4 According to

3078her, Respondent explained that while Ñone breast was being suctione d, he

3090was performing what he called lymphatic drainage on the other breast, which

3102basically involved finger motions on my skin that were kind of applied in a Ï

3117in a rhythmic upward motion with both hands. And the idea behind it was to

3132stimulate blood flow and circulation in the lymph nodes of that region.Ò

314436. M.M. stated that after the cupping of the first breast was completed,

3157Respondent moved the cup to the other breast and duplicated the process. He

3170then explained that he would continue to perform lymph atic drainage on the

3183remainder of her body, and began working his way down her body,

3195performing the same circular motions, including her stomach, hips, and

3205pelvis; down to her pubic area and groin, and eventually her genital area,

32184 Respondent testified that there is not a rolling cart in the room, because the room is to o

3237small to accommodate one. According to him, the cupping machine sits on the table against

3252the wall, but has lengthy tubing.

3258which she testified coul d have been either accidental or purposeful contact.

3270M.M. testified that he grazed her buttocks and called them Ñbuns of steel,Ò as

3285well as referring to himself as a Ñhorny old man.Ò

329537. M.M. also testified that while performing the lymphatic drainage, he

3306touched her genitals with his fingertips. Following the lymphatic drainage,

3316Respondent told M.M. that the session was over, and she could dress. M.M.

3329stated that he asked not to include the last portion of the visit in her article

3345because he was afraid of losing his license. She redressed, with Respondent

3357remaining in the room, and after doing so, they exchanged pleasantries and

3369she left the office.

337338. Respondent emphatically denies M.M.Ôs allegations. He acknowledges

3381that he performed cupping on M.M but denied that he performed it on her

3395breasts. According to Respondent, he performed cupping on her abdomen to

3406relieve constipation. His records for November 30 state in part, Ñsm + lg.

3419intestines & ileocecal inflamed. Ï complained about constipation -- cup

3429a bdomen?Ò When M.M. was asked whether Respondent performed cupping of

3441her abdomen for constipation, she could not remember if she mentioned

3452constipation to Respondent, but it was possible, and did not remember if he

3465cupped her abdomen.

346839. Respondent testi fied that he explained cupping to her and told her

3481both about uses for cupping in China, which include cupping of the breast

3494and of the face, but also explained it is used for different purposes in the

3509United States. In his written response to the allegati ons that he provided to

3523the Department during the investigation, he stated:

3530Because of her interest in health, (she has her own

3540health blog) and a possible future article, I

3548demonstrated the cupping process for her and went

3556into a lot of detail on how it worked and what it

3568was used for in China and the protocols that

3577cupping I had been trained in through Ace

3585Cupping.

3586With cupping, the therapist is able to bring new

3595blood and enhance circulation and lymph flow and

3603drainage in congested and tight muscles o r area of

3613the body.

3615* * *

3618I also shared that the Chinese used the machine to

3628cup womenÔs breasts and they claimed that if a

3637woman breast was cupped everyday for 30 days, it

3646would enhance circulation and lymphatic drainage

3652and that would bring about hea lthier breasts or

3661uplift them. In no way was I suggesting that we

3671cup her breasts and I did not do so.

368040. Respondent also indicated in the investigative response that M.M.

3690seemed uncomfortable with the cupping procedure and that he cut it short.

3702Althoug h his response stated that she seemed uncomfortable with the

3713cupping, it also stated that she did not state that she was uncomfortable with

3727any procedure he employed throughout all of the craniosacral sessions,

3737including the November 30 session.

374241. Respo ndent testified that he did not ask her to undress, but rather,

3756asked her to raise her shirt to the bottom of her ribcage, and to lower her

3772shorts to the top of her hips, so that only that strip of skin was exposed. He

3789placed oil on her skin, used a cup ap proximately two inches in diameter, and

3804moved the cup in the same direction as the digestive system in a circular

3818motion. M.M., by contrast, testified that no oil was used. Respondent did not

3831perform lymphatic drainage: while he is aware of the technique, he has not

3844been trained in it. A review of his continuing education records do not reveal

3858any classes in lymphatic drainage.

386342. Respondent further testified that o nly a small portion of skin was

3876showing while he performed the cupping, and Respondent did n ot provide

3888M.M. a drape (although it is unclear that one would be necessary), and did

3902not leave the room while she readjusted her clothing once the procedure was

3915finished.

391643. Respondent also denies that he asked M.M. not to include the final

3929portion of th e visit in her article because he was afraid he would lose his

3945license. At the time of the visit, there was no article in process. M.M. had

3960already produced two articles about RespondentÔs practice, and although

3969M.M. believed she wrote three, no third arti cle was produced, and there are

3983no emails or texts addressing a third article, like there were for the first and

3998second ones M.M. wrote.

400244. M.M. claimed that the third article was supposed to be a

4014question/answer column with Respondent and a local chirop ractor, Eric

4024Winder, who Respondent says he does not know. It does not appear from the

4038investigative report that Eric Winder was interviewed, and he was not called

4050as a witness at hearing. Respondent likewise denies telling M.M. that she has

4063Ñbuns of steel ,Ò or referring to himself as a Ñhorny old man.Ò

407645. There was no further contact between M.M. and Respondent for

4087several months. The phone logs for AT&T indicate that there were three

4099emails sent by Respondent to M.M. in January, but as noted previously, those

4112emails are not in evidence. On March 11, 2018, Respondent reached out to

4125M.M. by email, asking for permission to use an edited version of one of her

4140articles in some advertising for his practice. M.M. responded by saying, Ñ[y]es

4152thatÔs fine. Feel fre e to use the edited version.Ò

416246. On April 14, 2018, Respondent emailed M.M. again, and stated,

4173Dear [M.M.]

4175Hope all is well with you. I want to thank you for

4187allowing me to use your articles in my ads. Very

4197effective and have brought me a number of new

4206clients. I would like to send you a check for $200, a

4218$100 each for the 2 articles in appreciation. Could

4227you send me your address so I can send you the

4238check. As my practice slows down for the summer, I

4248should be able to get you back in for more sessions.

4259With great appreciation,

4262Terry

4263To which M.M. replied,

4267ThatÔs kind of you to offer, but not necessary but

4277appreciated. If you feel compelled to send a check

4286(again, not necessary), you can mail it to [M.M.Ôs

4295home address]. However, I will tell you that IÔm

4304unable to come in for sessions, as I recently moved

4314to the other side of town, and the drive is no longer

4326conducive with my weekly schedule. But you are

4334free to continue to use the articles IÔve written

4343about your practice in any capacity you choose.

435147. M.M. testified that she told a friend about the November 30 session

4364about a week after it happened, and it was her friendÔs reaction that alerted

4378her that what happened was not appropriate. Notes from her therapist

4389indicate that she stated that she d id not tell anyone for several months. 5 She

4405did not tell her husband for approximately four months after the incident.

4417Neither her husband nor the friend that M.M. stated she told about the

4430incident testified at hearing.

443448. There are other date discrepa ncies in the therapistÔs notes as

4446compared to other events in this case. For example, the September 5, 2019,

4459entry refers to hearing from the Sarasota Police Department regarding the

4470incident, which is, as found below, prior to the time she even reported t he

4485incident to the Department of Health, who in turn contacted law

4496enforcement. It may be that even if the dates for the sessions in the notes are

4512incorrect, the inconsistencies are enough to raise concerns. This is especially

4523so given that the subpoena se nt to the therapist requests ALL patient

4536records, and the ones provided only covered the time period from August 8,

45495 M.M.Ôs therapistÔs records were subpoenaed by the Department. Statements made for the

4562purpose of diagnosis and treatment by a pe rson seeking the diagnosis or treatment which

4577describe medical history, past or present symptoms, pains, sensations, or the inceptions or

4590general character of the cause or external source thereof, insofar as reasonably pertinent to

4604diagnosis or treatment, are an exception to the hearsay rule. § 90.803(4), Fla. Stat. While the

4620statements attributed to M.M. in her therapistsÔ notes may not be hearsay, they are not

4635considered in this case for the truth of the matter asserted, but simply to show that there are

4653differing statements regarding when M.M. shared her story with others.

46632019 , through September 10, 2019, a period of time that is much shorter than

4677M.M. testified that she saw her therapist. 6

468549. In April 2018, M.M. emailed her employer and told her about the

4698incident. In the emails, she states in part that he Ñended our session by

4712asking me to omit this portion of the treatment from my article, as he could

4727lose his license. I did not report the incident, and I wrote the article as he

4743requested, highlighting the benefits of his practice.Ò As noted above, there

4754was no article after the November 30 session. She also wrote in a follow - up

4770email that ÑOver the next couple of months, he tried calling/texting me in a

4784fr iendly way that suggested he viewed us as more than professional

4796acquaintances.Ò The telephone records do not support M.M.Ôs statement.

4805M.M.Ôs employer responded by terminating M.M.Ôs advertising with Natural

4814Awakenings and providing M.M. with the contact information for an

4824attorney.

482550. M.M. filed her complaint with the Department on September 11, 2019,

4837nearly two years after the incident. She did not file a complaint with law

4851enforcement, but upon receiving her complaint, the Department investigator

4860noti fied the Sarasota Police Department on September 26, 2019. Ultimately,

4871no criminal charges were filed, but the decision of the State AttorneyÔs Office

4884has no bearing on whether or not there is a basis for discipline in this case.

490051. Both M.M. and Respond ent had some inconsistencies in their stories.

4912RespondentÔs, in large part, appear to be based on the fact that his records for

4927the sessions he had with M.M. were not together, and he did not find the

4942records for the earlier session (i.e., his first manila folder) until after his

4955deposition. As noted previously, clients typically have three to six sessions, so

4967it was not unreasonable for Respondent to assume that he only had one folder

4981for M.M. , especially given that the records were requested two years aft er his

49956 It may be that notes related to coupleÔs counseling were not provided because those notes

5011were not just about M.M. but M.M. and her husband. That does not, however, address the

5027incon sistencies in the timeframes reflected in the notes.

5036last session with M.M. His counsel turned those records over to the

5048Department, but not when requested in discovery, and some of those records

5060were not admitted as a result. 7

506752. The Department takes issue with a statement Respondent made about

5078M .M. telling him that she was sexually assaulted in college, stating that

5091there is Ñno mention of sexual assault, or assault of any kind, in either set of

5107Patient M.M.Ôs treatment notes.Ò (PetitionerÔs Proposed Recommended Order

5115at 15, ¶ 111). However, give n that Petitioner successfully objected to some of

5129RespondentÔs records regarding M.M. being admitted into evidence, what is

5139in evidence does not reflect all of the records regarding M.M.Ôs sessions with

5152Respondent. There can be no finding that the records contain no mention of

5165sexual assault when , as the result of PetitionerÔs objections, not all of

5177RespondentÔs records are in evidence.

518253. The Department also finds RespondentÔs records to be untrustworthy

5192because their physical appearance is somewhat dif ferent. As noted

5202previously, Respondent writes his notes on manila folders and writes from

5213edge to edge. He testified that when he tried to copy the manila folders for

5228the Department, some of the notes were cut off, so he rewrote what was on

5243the notes and provided them to the Department. There are some minor

5255differences in the notes and in a few places, he wrote the dates as 2019 as

5271opposed to 2017. Given that the records were requested in 2019, such an

5284error is not significant. While the copies of the reco rds are not exact, the

5299differences are extremely minor . Furthermore, the Department points to no

5310statute or rule that requires a massage therapist to have patient records at

5323all, much less one that dictates a format to which they must conform. Most

5337importa ntly, the Department does not point to any discrepancy that

53487 The Department also appears to question RespondentÔs and RespondentÔs counselÔs good

5360faith regarding these records, stating that Respondent testified that he found the records two

5374to three weeks before the hearing, and yet counsel for Respondent was able to use these

5390records in questioning M.M. in her deposition June 22, 2021. A specific date for when

5405Respondent gave the records to his attorney is not in the record.

5417materially affects RespondentÔs account of what happened on November 3 0,

54282017.

542954. There are other concerns with M.M.Ôs account of the incident in

5441addition to those issues listed with respect to the telephone records,

5452discrepancies in dates, and references to an article that was not written. For

5465example, M.M. testified that she has had a great deal of medical procedures

5478performed on her, and she is accustomed to doing what medical professionals

5490as k of her. Kacee Homer and Lisa Caller are character witnesses who

5503testified on behalf of Respondent. Both are healthcare professionals who

5513testified that when a patient is asked to disrobe, they generally do.

5525Ms. Homer, a nurse, said that generally when a patient is asked to disrobe,

5539she leaves the room while the patient is undressing, and if possible, the

5552patient is draped.

555555. Here, M.M. testified that Respondent asked her to disrobe, and stood

5567there while she did so. It seems odd that M.M., who writes a rticles about

5582healthcare, and by her own admission has had several medical procedures in

5594her life and is fairly knowledgeable regarding the medical field, would not at

5607least ask for a drape, or wait for Respondent to leave the room before

5621undressing.

562256. M.M.Ôs description of the cupping and lymphatic drainage also raises

5633more questions than it answers. She testified that while the cup was placed

5646on one breast, Respondent massaged the other with both hands. That means

5658the cup had to remain in place based solely on the suction or pressure

5672provided by the cupping machine. It seems that it would be difficult for the

5686cupping machine to provide enough suction for the cup to remain in place on

5700her breast without causing discomfort or pain, and possibly bruising, but

5711there was no testimony that she found the experience physically painful or it

5724left any discernible marks.

572857. Finally, the undersigned is troubled that M.M. would willingly give

5739her home address to a man that she claimed sexually assaulted her. It d oes

5754not seem plausible that she would so easily provide this type of information

5767to Respondent when it could enable him to make further contact with her.

578058. After careful consideration of all of the evidence presented, the

5791undersigned finds that there is not clear and convincing evidence to support a

5804finding that Respondent asked M.M. to disrobe in front of him without

5816providing a drape.

581959. There is not clear and convincing evidence that Respondent massaged

5830M.M.Ôs breasts, buttocks, and groin area, and touched her vagina with his

5842fingertips, all without a valid medical reason. Likewise, there is not clear and

5855convincing evidence that Respondent told M.M. that she had Ñbuns of steelÒ

5867or that he was a Ñhorny old man.Ò

587560. The evidence failed to establish that RespondentÔs conduct toward

5885M.M. constitute d sexual activity outside the scope of practice, or an attempt

5898to engage or induce M.M. to engage in such activity.

5908C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

591361 . DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of th is

5928proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.

593562. The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the

5949licensing and regulation of the practice of dentistry pursuant to section 20.43

5961and chapters 456 and 480.

596663. The Department seek s to revoke RespondentÔs license to practice

5977massage therapy , as well as the establishment Ôs license. Therefore, the

5988Department must prove the allegations in the Administrative Complaints by

5998clear and convincing evidence. DepÔt of Banking and Fin. v. Osbor ne Stern

6011and Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington , 595 So. 2d 292 (Fla.

60271987). As stated by the Supreme Court of Florida,

6036Clear and convincing evidence requires that the

6043evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to

6053which the witnes ses testify must be distinctly

6061remembered; the testimony must be precise and

6068lacking in confusion as to the facts at issue. The

6078evidence must be of such a weight that it produces

6088in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or

6100conviction, without hesitan cy, as to the truth of the

6110allegations sought to be established.

6115In re Henson , 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005)(quoting Slomowitz v. Walker,

6128429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). This burden of proof may be met

6144where, as here, the evidence is in confli ct; however, Ñit seems to preclude

6158evidence that is ambiguous.Ò Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Shuler Bros. ,

6168590 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

617764. A proceeding to discipline a license is penal in nature, and penal

6190statutes must be construed in terms of their literal meaning. Words used by

6203the Legislature cannot be expanded to broaden the application of such

6214statutes. As a result, the provisions of law upon which this disciplinary action

6227is based must be strictly construed, with any ambiguity construed against the

6239Department. Elmariah v. DepÔt of ProfÔl Reg., 574 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1 st DCA

62541990); see also Griffis v. Fish & Wildlife Conserv. CommÔn, 57 So. 3d 929, 931

6269(Fla. 1 st DCA 2011); Beckett v. DepÔt of Fin. Servs. , 982 So. 2d 94, 100 (Fla.

62861 st DCA 20 08).

629165. The Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 21 - 0180PL contains

6303the following charging provisions:

630717. Section 480.046(1)(p), Florida Statutes (2018),

6313provides that a massage therapist is subject to

6321discipline for violating any provision of this

6328Chapter or Chapter 456, or any rules adopted

6336pursuant thereto.

633818. Section 480.0485, Florida Statutes (2018),

6344prohibits sexual misconduct in the practice of

6351massage and specifically provides that:

6356The massage - therapist - patient relationship is

6364founded o n mutual trust. Sexual misconduct in

6372the practice of massage therapy means violation

6379of the massage therapist - patient relationship

6386through which the massage therapist uses that

6393relationship to induce or attempt to induce the

6401patient to engage, or to engage or attempt to

6410engage the patient, in sexual activity outside

6417the scope of practice or the scope of generally

6426accepted examination or treatment of the

6432patient.

643319. Rule 64B7 - 26.010, (1) and (3) of the Florida

6444Administrative Code (2018), absolutely prohibi ts

6450sexual activity by any person or persons in a

6459massage establishment, and provides that no

6465licensed massage therapist shall use the therapist -

6473client relationship to engage in sexual activity with

6481any client or to make arrangements to engage in

6490sexual act ivity with any client. Rule 64B7 -

649926.010(4), defines Ñsexual activityÒ, [in] pertinent

6505part as :

6508(4) [ A]ny direct or indirect physical contact by

6517any person or between persons which is

6524intended to erotically stimulate either person or

6531both or which is likel y to cause such stimulation

6541and includes sexual intercourse, fellatio,

6546cunnilingus, masturbation, or anal intercourse.

6551For purposes of this subsection, masturbation

6557means the manipulation of any body tissue with

6565the intent to cause sexual arousal. As used

6573herein, sexual activity can involve the use of any

6582device or object and is not dependent on

6590whether penetration, orgasm, or ejaculation has

6596occurred.

659720. Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in

6604the practice of massage by using the massage

6612therapist Ï p atient relationship to induce or

6620attempt to induce, or to engage or attempt to

6629engage Patient M.M. in sexual activity outside the

6637scope of practice in one or more of the following

6647ways:

6648a. By remaining in the room while Patient M.M.

6657disrobed;

6658b. By mas saging Patient M.M.Ôs breasts;

6665c. By massaging Patient M.M.Ôs buttocks;

6671d. By massaging Patient M.M.Ôs groin;

6677e. By commenting on Patient M.M.Ôs body;

6684and/or

6685f. By referring to himself as a Ñ horny old man.Ò

669621. Based on the foregoing, Respondent vi olated

6704Section 480.046(1)(p), Florida Statutes (2018),

6709through a violation of Section 480.0485, Florida

6716Statutes (2018), and/or Rule 64B7 - 26.010(1) and/or

6724(3), Florida Administrative Code.

672866. While the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 20 - 0180PL

6739refe rences the 2018 codification of the Florida Statutes, disciplinary

6749proceedings should charge the statute in effect at the time of the alleged

6762prohibited conduct. McCloskey v. DepÔt of Fin. Servs. , 115 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 5 th

6777DCA 2003).

677967. The allegations in the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case

6789No. 21 - 0181 are identical in all material respects, except that it references

6803those responsibilities and prohibitions applicable to a message establishment

6812as opposed to a massage therapist.

681868. Rule 64B7 - 26.010, referenced in both Administrative Complaints,

6828provides in paragraphs (1) through (3):

6834(1) Sexual activity by any person or persons in any

6844massage establishment is absolutely prohibited.

6849(2) No massage establishment owner shall engage

6856in or permit any pe rson or persons to engage in

6867sexual activity in such ownerÔs massage

6873establishment or use such establishment to make

6880arrangements to engage in sexual activity in any

6888other place.

6890(3) No licensed massage therapist shall use the

6898therapist - client relationsh ip to engage in sexual

6907activity with any client or to make arrangements to

6916engage in sexual activity with any client.

692369. As previously stated, the clear and convincing standard by which a

6935disciplinary proceeding must be measured is a high standard. When the

6946standard requires that the evidence be such that it produces in the mind of

6960the trier of fact a Ñfirm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth

6975of the allegations sought to be established,Ò that evidence cannot leave the

6988trier of fact w ith more questions than answers.

699770. Section 120.81(4)(a) provides that in a proceeding against a licensed

7008professional or in a proceeding for licensure of an applicant for professional

7020licensure which involves allegations of sexual misconduct, the testi mony of

7031the victim need not be corroborated. With respect to this case, there is no

7045requirement that there be testimony by someone other than M.M. to

7056corroborate her story. By the same token, where other evidence in the record

7069contradicts her version of th e events, that information may and should still

7082be considered.

708471. As discussed in the Findings of Fact, there were several instances

7096where M.M.Ôs testimony was contradicted by other compelling and persuasive

7106evidence. The evidence presented in support o f the allegations against

7117Respondent simply did not rise to the clear and convincing standard.

7128R ECOMMENDATION

7130Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

7143R ECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaints against Terrence

7151Grywinksi, L.M.T. , and Terrence Grywinski Massage , be dismissed.

7159D ONE A ND E NTERED this 5th day of November , 2021 , in Tallahassee, Leon

7174County, Florida.

7176S

7177L ISA S HEARER N ELSON

7183Administrative Law Judge

71861230 Apalachee Parkway

7189Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

7194(850) 48 8 - 9675

7199www.doah.state.fl.us

7200Filed with the Clerk of the

7206Division of Administrative Hearings

7210this 5th day of November , 2021 .

7217C OPIES F URNISHED :

7222Dannie L. Hart, Esquire Lance O. Leider, Esquire

7230Department of Health The Health Law Firm

7237Bin C - 65 Suite 1000

72434052 Bald Cypress Way 1101 Douglas Avenue

7250Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3265 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714

7259A manda I. Forbes, Esquire Andrew James Pietrylo, Esquire

7268The Health Law Firm Department of Health

7275Suite 1000 Bin C - 65

72811101 Douglas Avenue 4052 Bald Cypress Way

7288Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3265

7297Kama Monroe, JD, Executive Director Louise St. Laurent, General Counsel

7307Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health

7314Department of Health Bin C - 65

7321Bin C - 06 4052 Bald Cypress Way

73294052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399

7336Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3257

7341N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

7352All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from

7365the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions t o this Recommended

7377Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this

7392case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 02/15/2022
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/09/2022
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2021
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2021
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2021
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held July 12 and 21, 2021). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order (filed in Case No. 21-000181 ).
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2021
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2021
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 09/24/2021
Proceedings: Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/20/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript.
PDF:
Date: 09/20/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript.
PDF:
Date: 08/17/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Respondents' Admitted Redacted Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/26/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Filing Exhibit filed.
Date: 07/26/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Exhibit 5 filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
Date: 07/21/2021
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2021
Proceedings: Respondents' Notice of Filing Proposed Amended Exhibit filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/19/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/19/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Substitution of Counsel (Andrew Pietrylo) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Taking Deposition Testimony via Video Teleconference (Grywinski) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/13/2021
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing by Zoom Conference (hearing set for July 21, 2021; 9:30 a.m., Eastern Time).
Date: 07/12/2021
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to July 21, 2021; 9:30 a.m..
Date: 07/08/2021
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
Date: 07/06/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed and Joint Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 07/06/2021
Proceedings: Respondents' Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/06/2021
Proceedings: Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/06/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's List of Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/15/2021
Proceedings: Respondents' Amended Notice of Taking Zoom Deposition (as to Date only) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/26/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Substitution of Counsel (Amanda Forbes) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/25/2021
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing by Zoom Conference (hearing set for July 12 and 13, 2021; 1:00 p.m., Eastern Time).
PDF:
Date: 05/24/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Dates of Mutual Availability for Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2021
Proceedings: Respondents' Notice of Cancellation of Taking Zoom Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2021
Proceedings: Respondents' Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2021
Proceedings: Respondents' Notice of Taking Zoom Deposition (Complainant MM) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/11/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's Amendment to Notice of Taking Deposition Testimony via Video Teleconference (Buhler) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/10/2021
Proceedings: Order on Motion for Protective Order.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Taking Deposition Testimony via Video Teleconference (Buhler) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/06/2021
Proceedings: Response in Opposition to Petitioner's Objection to Non-Party Subpoena and Motion for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/29/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's Objection to Respondents' Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena Duces Tecum without Deposition on a Nonparty and Motion for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/22/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Serving Second Response to Respondents' Joint First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2021
Proceedings: Respondents' Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena Duces Tecum on a Non-Party filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/15/2021
Proceedings: Respondents' Notice of Service of Amended Answers to Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/13/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Serving Responses to Respondents' Joint First Set of Interrogatories, Joint First Request for Admissions and Joint First and Second Requests to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/31/2021
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing by Zoom Conference (hearing set for June 15 and 16, 2021; 1:00 p.m., Eastern Time).
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's Unopposed Motion to Reschedule Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/24/2021
Proceedings: Respondents' Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena Duces Tecum on Non-Parties filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/24/2021
Proceedings: Respondents' Joint Second Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Florida Department of Health filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/12/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent's Joint First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/12/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Taking Deposition Testimony Via Video Teleconference (T. Grywinski) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/12/2021
Proceedings: Respondents' Joint First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Florida Department of Health filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/12/2021
Proceedings: Respondents' Joint First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/12/2021
Proceedings: Order Rescheduling Hearing by Zoom Conference (hearing set for June 15, 2021; 9:30 a.m., Eastern Time).
PDF:
Date: 03/11/2021
Proceedings: Joint Response to Order Granting Continuance of Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/04/2021
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Requiring Status Report (parties to advise status by March 15, 2021).
PDF:
Date: 03/04/2021
Proceedings: Respondents' Notice of Service of Answers to Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/03/2021
Proceedings: Respondent, Terrence Grywinski Massage's Responses to Petitioner's First Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/03/2021
Proceedings: Respondent, Terrence Brian Grywinski, L.M.T.s Responses to Petitioner's First Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/03/2021
Proceedings: Respondents' Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena Duces Tecum on a Non-Party filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/03/2021
Proceedings: Agreed Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/02/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Taking Deposition Testimony via Video Teleconference (T. Grywinski) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/24/2021
Proceedings: Respondent, Terrence Grywinski Massage's Response to Petitioner's First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/24/2021
Proceedings: Respondent, Terrence Grywinski, L.M.T.'s Response to Petitioner's First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/23/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Ann Prescott) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/23/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Ann Prescott; filed in Case No. 21-000181 ).
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2021
Proceedings: Amended Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Achal Aggarwal) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Lance Leider) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/08/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Court Reporter filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/29/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Pre-hearing Conference (set for March 16, 2021; 10:00 a.m., Eastern Time).
PDF:
Date: 01/29/2021
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 01/29/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Zoom Conference (hearing set for April 6, 2021; 9:30 a.m., Eastern Time).
PDF:
Date: 01/28/2021
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 21-0180 and 21-0181)
PDF:
Date: 01/27/2021
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/25/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Serving Petitioner's First Request for Interrogations, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/21/2021
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 01/15/2021
Proceedings: Election of Rights filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/15/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Scrivener's Error filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/15/2021
Proceedings: Administrative Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/15/2021
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
LISA SHEARER NELSON
Date Filed:
01/15/2021
Date Assignment:
01/21/2021
Last Docket Entry:
02/15/2022
Location:
Lakewood Ranch, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (8):