Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY vs. STYLES BY GEORGE D`, INC., AND GEORGE D. D`ZANKO, 75-000598 (1975)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 75-000598 Visitors: 29
Judges: DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Latest Update: Jan. 19, 1977
Summary: Whether Respondent D'Zanko violated Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, by allowing a cosmetologist to practice cosmetology without the presence and supervision of a master cosmetologist.Respondent allowed cosmetology to be practiced in his salon without master cosmetologist present. Recommend suspending Respondent's license.
75-0598

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


IN RE: The Revocation or ) Suspension of the License of )

STYLES BY GEORGE D', INC., ) CASE NO. 75-598

George D. D'Zamko, President, ) LICENSE NO. 12618

323 9th Avenue, N., ) Jacksonville Beach, Florida. )

)


RECOMMENDED ORDER


After due notice a public hearing was held before Delphene Strickland, Hearing Officer, Department of Administration, Division of Administrative Hearings, on October 23, 1975, at 10:00

    1. in Room 104, Collins Building, Tallahassee, Florida.


      APPEARANCES


      For Petitioner: Ronald C. LaFace

      Counsel for the Board of Cosmetology


      For Respondent: Thomas J. Guilday

      Counsel for Respondent ISSUES

      Whether Respondent D'Zanko violated Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, by allowing a cosmetologist to practice cosmetology without the presence and supervision of a master cosmetologist.


      FINDINGS OF FACT


      1. Mrs. Marge Edwards, Inspector with the Florida State Board of Cosmetology, issued a notice of violation citing Respondent for "owner leaving one cosmetologist, one student permit working alone".


      2. The time of the violation notice was dated 2:10 p.m. on June 1, 1974. Respondent George D'Zanko was out of the George D's beauty salon, a business which he owns and operates as the master cosmetologist on June 1, 1974 during the hours which includes 2:10

        p.m. Mr. D'Zanko admits that he was out of the shop at that time.

      3. Respondent entered a motion to dismiss contending that Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, did not require his presence in the shop while the cosmetologists were working therein. Section 477.04, Florida Statutes, states "no registered cosmetologists may independently practice cosmetology, but he may as a cosmetologist do any or all of the acts constituting the practice of cosmetology under the immediate personal supervision of a registered master cosmetologist".


      4. The attorney for Respondent D'Zanko equates Chapter 476, Florida Statutes, which regulates barbers with Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, which regulates cosmetologists, and cites Lett vs. Florida Barbers Salary Commission, Fla. App. 247 So.2d 335, for his position that inasmuch as Respondent was in the neighborhood of the salon the actual presence of Respondent was not necessary.


      5. The Board contends that the Respondent allowed a cosmetologist to practice cosmetology without the presence and supervision of a master cosmetologist in violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. The Board contends that the presence of a master cosmetologist in a salon where the art of cosmetology is being practiced is a protection for the public and that Respondent allowed his shop to be operated without the supervision of a master cosmetologist. That the license of the Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.


      6. The Hearing Officer finds:


        1. That Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, requires that a master cosmetologist be present in a cosmetology salon at all times when the art of cosmetology is being practiced;


        2. That Respondent George D'Zanko, the owner of the salon, Styles by George D', Inc., allowed cosmetology to be practiced in his salon at a time when there was no master cosmetologist therein;


        3. That the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist is a protection for the customers in the application of materials used in practicing the art of cosmetology.


CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, requires a master cosmetologist to be in the shop at all times while cosmetologists are engaged in practicing the art of cosmetology. There was no

master cosmetologist in the shop at the time of the inspection and therefore the owner of the beauty salon was in violation of the requirements of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. The Board may suspend or revoke any certificate of registration for the violation of any section of Chapter 477.02, the section of 477 which respondent violated.


RECOMMENDED ORDER


Suspend the license of George D. D'Zanko for a period of thirty (30) days beginning five (5) days after date hereof.


October 29, 1975 Date DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND

Hearing Officer

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

(904) 488-9675


COPIES FURNISHED:


Thomas J. Guilday, Esquire Huey & Camper

Tallahassee, Florida 32302


Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida


================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================


STATE OF FLORIDA

FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY


IN RE: The Revocation or Suspension of the License of

STYLES BY GEORGE D', INC., CASE NO. 75-598

George D. D'Zamko, President, LICENSE NO. 12618

323 9th Avenue, N., Jacksonville Beach, Florida.

/


FINAL ORDER


The Florida State Board of Cosmetology adopts as part of the Agency's Final Order the conclusion of law, interpretation of Administrative Rules and findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order of the Hearing Examiner dated August 29, 1975, copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.


The State Board of Cosmetology feels that the recommended penalty as it pertains to the salon license which the Respondent operates under the name of George D's Beauty Salon would be unduly harsh under the circumstances and therefore reduces the recommended penalty in the Hearing Examiner's Order of a thirty day suspension to the salon license to a Letter of Reprimand.


That the entry and publication of this Final Order shall constitute a reprimand or warning to the Respondent not to engage in a course of conduct in the future which would violate the Florida Cosmetology Law, Section 477, Florida Statutes or the Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Cosmetology.


That the Florida State Board of Cosmetology affirms and adopts as the Agency's Final Order that portion of the Recommended Order of the Hearing Examiner providing for the suspension of George D. D'Zamko's master cosmetologist's license for a period of thirty days and the period of suspension shall be effective beginning April 1, 1976 for a period of thirty consecutive days.

That the Respondent is hereby ordered to forward through his counsel, on or before April 1, 1976 the master cosmetologist's license issued to him by the Florida State Board of Cosmetology and to remit or deliver the same to the State Board Administrative Offices at the following address: 308 Avenue A, S.W., Winter Haven, Florida.


That the Administrative Office, will upon the final day of the suspension period deliver to the Respondent or his designated representative the restored master cosmetologist's license or in the alternative will mail it to the Respondent.


ENTERED the 4th day of March, 1976.



Herbert Garcia, Chairman

Florida State Board of Cosmetology


Copies Mailed to:


Ronald L. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302


Mr. George D. D'Zamko

323 9th Avenue, N. Jacksonville, Florida


Thomas J. Guilday, Esquire

1020 E. LaFayette Street, Suite 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32301


Docket for Case No: 75-000598
Issue Date Proceedings
Jan. 19, 1977 Final Order filed.
Oct. 29, 1975 Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 75-000598
Issue Date Document Summary
Mar. 04, 1976 Agency Final Order
Oct. 29, 1975 Recommended Order Respondent allowed cosmetology to be practiced in his salon without master cosmetologist present. Recommend suspending Respondent's license.
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