Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board overturns 60‑day suspension of massage practitioner, leaves fine to Department
Loading...
Summary
The Board of Appeals overruled a 60‑day suspension for a massage practitioner after inspectors testified they found improper attire and conduct during a task‑force inspection, but commissioners concluded evidence insufficient to uphold the suspension and indicated a monetary fine is a departmental matter.
San Francisco — The Board of Appeals voted unanimously on July 17 to overrule a 60‑day suspension imposed by the Department of Public Health on a massage practitioner whose permit was the subject of a task‑force inspection.
Appellant counsel Christopher Hall argued the practitioner was not on duty at the time of the inspection, that there was no evidence of money exchanged or solicitation, and that the practitioner had not been arrested or cited under Penal Code §647(b). Inspectors Ed Walsh and Alan Perra testified they observed the practitioner nude and engaging in sexual activity inside a massage room during a February task‑force inspection at 130 Bush Street and said the health code requires professional attire and that their role is to ensure establishments provide proper massage services.
After questions about whether the conduct occurred during business hours and whether the available evidence supported a finding of illegal activity, several commissioners said they found the record insufficient to sustain a 60‑day suspension even if an improper‑attire fine would be appropriate. Vice President Lazarus and other commissioners said the city could pursue fines through the department, but the board’s authority to uphold a suspension requires a sufficient evidentiary basis. The board’s motion to overrule the suspension carried 5–0.
The outcome leaves the monetary fine (which counsel said could be $500 as a second offense for improper attire) under the Department of Public Health and related administrative processes; commissioners noted they lack authority over fines in some cases and emphasized the limited scope of the appeal they were deciding.
The board’s action restores the practitioner’s permit without a suspension; written findings state the suspension was unwarranted in light of the record presented to the appeals board.
