STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF )

COSMETOLOGY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 76-1059

)

CHARLES R. GANNON d/b/a )

MISTER ANDREW COIFFURE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was held in the above-captioned matter, after due notice to the parties, at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on June 29, 1976, before the undersigned Hearing Officer.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire

Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida

For Respondent: None

ISSUE PRESENTED

Respondent's alleged violations of Sections 477.15(8), 477.231(c) & (2), Florida Statutes, Rules 21F-3.01 & 21F-3.10, Florida Administrative Code.

Respondent was furnished notice of hearing and acknowledged receipt of said notice and the administrative complaint. (Exhibit 2)

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent holds a certificate as a master cosmetologist 0048790 issued by Petitioner on an unspecified date. He also holds a certificate of registration to operate a cosmetology salon license #22903 issued by Petitioner on February 2, 1976. The salon is called Mister Andrew Coiffure, and is located at 1259 East Los Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

   
   

2. On January 28, 1976, Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's place of business, but Respondent was absent. The inspector had visited the shop on previous occasions at which time the Respondent had told him he was in the process of buying the salon, and the inspector had left an application for a state certificate of registration for a cosmetology salon. The inspector noticed there was no sign near the front door indicating that the premises were occupied by beauty or cosmetology salon. There was a card in the window which read "Mister Andrew Coiffure" (Testimony of Rubin).

3. Respondent submitted a letter on his behalf dated June 9, 1976, which stated that he had not owned the salon at the time Petitioner's inspector had provided him with application forms for a state license. He claimed that he had had a card attached to the sign in his window which read "Beauty Salon" on January 28, 1976, but that since the inspector had not been satisfied with the card he has since changed the sign and put up 1 inch decal letters on the door spelling "Beauty Salon" (Exhibit 1).

   
   

4. Respondent's application for a salon certificate was executed on January 29, 1976 and received by Petitioner on February 2, 1976.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

5. Petitioner seeks to suspend or revoke Respondent's certificate as a master cosmetologist for operating a cosmetology salon without a salon license and failure to display a proper sign on January 28, 1976.

   
   

6. Petitioner alleges that the above are in violation of Section 477.15(8), Florida Statutes, which authorizes the board to suspend or revoke a certificate of registration for the commission of any offense described in Section 477.27. Although not alleged specifically, Section 477.27(8) provides that a violation of any of the provisions of Sections 477.15 & 477.23 constitute an offense. Also, Section 477.27(12) makes it an offense to violate any rule or regulation officially made by the Board (Petitioner) in aid or furtherance of Chapter 477. Apparently, these are subsections that the Petitioner seeks to utilize in that it alleges violations of Section 477.23(1)(c) & (2) and Rules 21F-3.01 and 21F-3.10 in Administrative Complaint.

   
   

7. Section 477.23(1)(c) deals with display of signs with respect to schools of cosmetology. Since Respondent did not operate a school of cosmetology, this provision was not violated.

   
   

8. Section 477.23(2) merely provides that that Board (Petitioner) may make other rules and regulations in furtherances of the provisions of Chapter 477. Rule 21F-3.01 provides that certificates of registration will be issued upon payment of a fee, when all requirements of the law have been met. It further provides that upon final inspection if the salon has not met all the requirements, action will be taken to close the salon until such time as they are met. This rule presupposes that a salon may initially operate without a valid certificate of registration, issuance of which depends upon meeting requirements of the law which is not determined until after a final inspection has been made. Respondent did not apply for a license until January 29th, the day after the alleged violations. Thereafter, on February 2nd, the salon license was issued, thus establishing that all requirements of the law had been met. Accordingly, it is concluded that Respondent did not violate Rule 21F-

3.01. In like manner Rule 21F-3.10 requires a sign bearing the word "Beauty" or "Cosmetology" or the words "a Cosmetology Salon" at the main entrance of each salon. Even assuming Petitioner's inspector was accurate in stating that such words were not included in the sign of Respondent on January 28, in spite of Respondent's denial of same, the fact that the salon certificate was issued on February 2nd, and Respondent's assertion that the sign is in conformity with the rule at the present time precludes a conclusion that the rule was violated on January 28th.

RECOMMENDATION

That the allegations against the Respondent be dismissed.

DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.

THOMAS C. OLDHAM

Hearing Officer

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

(904) 488-8675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire

P. O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida

Charles R. Gannon

c/o Mister Andrew Coiffure 1259 East Las Olas Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

Docket for Case No: 76-001059

Orders for Case No: 76-001059