STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 77-1033

) LICENSE NO. MC 15,731 MARY JORGE, d/b/a MARY JORGE )

BEAUTY SALON, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in the above styled cause at Room 465, Deposition Room, Orange County Courthouse, 65 East Central Avenue, Orlando, Florida, beginning at 10:00 A.M. before Delphene C. Strickland, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration, on June 24, 1977.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire

LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: Mary Jorge, in proper person

7742 West Hillsborough

Tampa, Florida 33615 ISSUE

Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a cosmetology salon not under the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. A complaint and Notice of Hearing to show cause was issued against Respondent, Mary Jorge, and a copy of notice of violation was served upon her citing her for operating a cosmetology salon without direct supervision and mangement of a master cosmetologist. The complaint was dated May 24, 1974. The Respondent was renoticed to appear at the subject hearing inasmuch as she failed to appear or moved for a continuance at the original hearing date

   
   

2. The Respondant testified and presented witnesses to show that although there was no master cosmetologist in the shop at the time of the inspect ion by the Petitioner there was no work being done in the shop during the time the master cosmetologist was out of the shop at the lunch period. There is

   insufficient evidence to show that the Respondent was performing the business of cosmetology at the time that the violation notice was written.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

3. Section 477.02, Florida Statutes, provides in part that it is unlawful for any person to operate a cosmetology salon unless such salon at all times is under the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.

   
   

4. There is insufficient evidence as to whether the Respondent was in fact operating a beauty salon at the time of the inspection.

RECOMMENDATION

Dismiss the complaint.

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida.

DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND

Hearing Officer

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

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Clifford L. Davis, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Mary Jorge

7742 W. Hillsborough

Tampa, Florida 33615

Docket for Case No: 77-001033

Orders for Case No: 77-001033