Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BARBERS BOARD (SANITARY COMMISSION) vs. R. H. CARSWELL, 75-000249 (1975)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 75-000249 Visitors: 24
Judges: DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Latest Update: Dec. 20, 1976
Summary: Whether Respondent's license should he revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for employment of an unlicensed barber in a barber shop in violation of Section 476.01(5), Florida Statutes, and Section 476.24(6), Florida Statutes.Respondent let cosmetologists work in cosmetology part of his barber shop. They weren't barbers. Recommend dismissal as Respondent partitioned shop.
75-0249.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF BARBERS ) SANITARY COMMISSION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 75-249

) LICENSE NO. 5424

  1. H. CARSWELL, )

    )

    Respondent. )

    )


    RECOMMENDED ORDER


    After due notice a public hearing was held before Delphene Strickland, Hearing Officer, Department of Administration, Division of Administrative Hearings, on Wednesday, June 11, 1975, at 10:00 a.m. at Room 315, Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida.


    APPEARANCES:


    For Petitioner: John S. Miller, Counsel for Complainant

    LaCapra, Miller and Wiser Post Office Box 10137 Tallahassee, Florida 32301


    E. H. Johnson, Inspector

    State Board of Barbers' Sanitary Commission

    174 Mango Street Pensacola, Florida 32503


    For Respondent: Benjamin W. Redding, Counsel for Respondent Barron, Redding, Boggs & Hughes

    Post Office Box 1648

    Panama City, Florida 32401


    R. H. Carswell, Respondent Carswell's Marina Barber Shop City Marina

    Panama City, Florida 32401


    Juanita Prater, Witness for Respondent Carswell's Marina Barber Shop

    City Marina

    Panama City, Florida 32401 ISSUE

    Whether Respondent's license should he revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for employment of an unlicensed barber in a barber shop in violation of Section 476.01(5), Florida Statutes, and Section 476.24(6), Florida Statutes.

    FINDINGS OF FACT


    1. Mr. R. H. Carswell, the Respondent, is the owner-operator and manager of Carswell's Marina Barber Shop, City Marina, Panama City, Florida.


    2. The subject shop has a sign denoting the fact that there is a beauty shop and a barber shop in the building.


    3. (a) A floor plan has been submitted to the Florida State Board of Barbers' Sanitary Commission as required by Section 472.24(6), Florida Statutes, to partition a barber shop section from a beauty shop section.


      1. No approval of said plan has been issued in writing.


      2. A plexiglass partition separates the barber area from the cosmetology area.


    4. There was a person working in subject barber shop who is a licensed cosmetologist but is not licensed as a barber. This person has been practicing the art of cosmetology.


    5. There are persons working in subject barber shop who are not practicing the art of barbering.


      CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


    6. Section 476.01(5), Florida Statutes, prohibits the practice of barbering without a license. Respondent did not allow an unlicensed person to practice barbering.


    7. Section 476.01(5), Florida Statutes, does not prohibit the practice of cosmetology in a barber shop. The person in question employed in the shop was a licensed cosmetologist.


    8. Section 476.24(6), Florida Statutes, requires a partition to be erected between a barber shop and any other business.


    9. Nan's Look, Inc. v. Florida Barbers' Sanitary Commission, Fla. App. 292 So 2d 387 considered whether a solid ceiling height partition should be required to separate the barber and the cosmetologist. The court quashed the Commission's order of suspension which had found petitioner guilty of violating Section 476.24(6), Florida Statutes, in that "(T)here is no solid, ceiling height partition separating the Barber and the Cosmetologist".


    10. Under the foregoing interpretation of the intent of the statute the partition erected by Respondent is sufficient to meet the requirements of said statute.

RECOMMENDED ORDER


Dismiss the complaint.


DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675


Docket for Case No: 75-000249
Issue Date Proceedings
Dec. 20, 1976 Final Order filed.
Jun. 30, 1975 Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 75-000249
Issue Date Document Summary
Aug. 14, 1975 Agency Final Order
Jun. 30, 1975 Recommended Order Respondent let cosmetologists work in cosmetology part of his barber shop. They weren't barbers. Recommend dismissal as Respondent partitioned shop.
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer