STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 84-1760

)

MARY CARROLL, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above- styled case on August 14, 1984, at Tampa, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Respondent: Mary Carroll, pro se

Post Office Box 260913 Tampa, Florida 33734

By Administrative Complaint filed September 15, 1984, the Department of Professional Regulation, Petitioner, seeks to suspend, revoke, or otherwise discipline the license of Mary Carroll, Respondent, as a cosmetologist. As grounds therefor it is alleged she operated a cosmetology salon without a current active license.

At the hearing Petitioner called one witness, Respondent called two witnesses, including herself, and 12 exhibits were admitted into evidence. Proposed findings submitted by the Petitioner, to the extent incorporated herein, are adopted; otherwise they are rejected as immaterial or unnecessary to the results reached.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is a licensed cosmetologist in Florida and was so licensed at all times here relevant.

   
   

2. In January, 1983, Respondent began employment as a cosmetologist at the Rose Unisex Hair Salon in Clearwater, Florida. This salon was owned by Rose Sousa, who had advertised the salon for sale. In response to that ad Respondent commenced working at the salon to learn if the salon would be a profitable purchase.

3. In April, 1983, Respondent executed a chattel mortgage agreement in favor of Rose Sousa and her husband, Joe, in consideration of the transfer of the salon to her. An assignment of the lease was contingent on the payment of this chattel mortgage. The agreement further provided that Rose Sousa would continue working at the salon for one year.

   
   

4. On May 2, 1983, Respondent gave Sousa a cashier's check for $7,000 which Respondent had borrowed from a friend, in satisfaction of the chattel mortgage. At this time the salon was licensed in the name of Rose Sousa and this license was due to expire in a few months. Respondent believed she could operate under that license until it expired and would then be required to put the salon license in her name.

   
   

5. On June 21, 1983, an inspector from the Department of Regulations visited the salon and checked the license of Mary Carroll, who told him she owned the salon, and the salon license which still showed Rose Sousa as owner.

   
   

6. Some three weeks after the closing Rose Sousa quit working at the salon and most of the customers left with her. Respondent testified that Rose Sousa had opened a salon in her garage and was servicing her customers there. Regardless of this allegation, the business dropped drastically, Respondent was unable to pay the rent, and the salon was padlocked by the owner of the building. Respondent subsequently declared bankruptcy. But for a friend who took her in as a houseguest, Respondent would, literally, have been out on the street.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

7. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.

   
   

8. Section 477.025, Florida Statutes, provides that any person desiring to operate a cosmetology salon shall apply to the Board of Cosmetology and, if found to be qualified, may be issued a license. Rule 21F-20.06, Florida Administrative Code, provides no cosmetology license may be transferred from the name of one licensee to another without filing a new application and fee and obtaining Department approval.

   
   

9. It is clear that Respondent violated the above-cited statute and rule as alleged. The only issue is an appropriate penalty for this technical violation. In the Proposed Recommended Order submitted by Petitioner a fine of

   $100 is suggested.

   
   

10. Respondent has practiced cosmetology in excess of 30 years and should be familiar with the licensure requirements. However good a cosmetologist she may be, her actions in purchasing this salon do not demonstrate much business acumen. Without any legal or business assistance, Respondent parted with all her savings and $7,000 she had borrowed which she gave to Joe and Rose Sousa.

    
    

11. Considering Respondent's apparent financial condition and all of the circumstances surrounding this incident, it is

RECOMMENDED a Final Order be entered in which Respondent is issued a reprimand for operating a salon without a proper license.

ENTERED this 31st day of August, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida.

K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1984.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Theodore R. Gay, Esquire

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Mary Carroll

Post Office Box 260913 Tampa, Florida 33734

Fred M. Roche, Secretary

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 84-001760

Orders for Case No: 84-001760