STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 88-0537

) BERNARD FANFAN d/b/a PALM BEAUTY ) SALON )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a public hearing in this case on May 17, 1988 in Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

For Respondent: Bernard Fanfan, pro se 1/

5084 North East 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent's license should be disciplined because of allegations that he permitted an unlicensed employee to practice cosmetology in his shop.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings.

1. Respondent is licensed to operate a cosmetology salon in Florida having been issued license number CE0038205.

   
   

2. At times material hereto, Respondent has been the owner and/or operator of a cosmetology salon named Palm Beauty Salon which is located at 5084 N. W. 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida.

   
   

3. On October 16, 1987, George Michael Hedley, an investigator for Petitioner, conducted a routine inspection of Respondent's Beauty Salon. While

   there, investigator Hedley got his hair cut and mustache trimmed and paid $10 for the service to a Mr. Joseph Oscal who was employed there.

   
   

4. Upon completion of the services by Mr. Oscal, investigator Hedley introduced himself, determined that Joseph Oscal had been employed by Bernard Fanfan and had been so employed since approximately July, 1987.

   
   

5. Joseph Oscal is not a licensed cosmetologist in Florida. He is been employed by Bernard Fanfan to work at the Palm Beauty Salon since July, 1987. (Testimony of Joseph Oscal).

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

6. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

   
   

7. The parties were duly noticed pursuant to the notice provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

   
   

8. Respondent is licensed by Petitioner and is subject to the disciplinary guides of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes.

   
   

9. Competent and substantial evidence was offered herein to established that Respondent, Bernard Fanfan employed an unlicensed person, Joseph Oscal, to practice cosmetology since July, 1987 at the Palm Beauty Salon in violation of subsection 477.0265(1)(d), Florida Statutes.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that:

Respondent's license to practice cosmetology be suspended for a period of one (1) year. 2/

RECOMMENDED this 8th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida.

JAMES E. BRADWELL

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1988.

ENDNOTES

1/ Although properly noticed, neither Respondent, or a representative on his behalf, appeared at the hearing. The hearing proceeded as scheduled.

2/ During the hearing, Petitioner indicated that the Board was seeking revocation of Respondent's cosmetology license. Mention was made of the fact-- that Respondent had been twice disciplined for his failure to employ licensed cosmetologists. Appended to the Respondent's license search was a copy of final orders taken against Respondent. However, the Administrative Complaint does not make reference to prior violations nor is there any indication that Respondent failed to comply with the terms of the disciplinary action set forth in the subject final orders. It was therefore determined that such prior conduct cannot serve as a basis upon which disciplinary action can be taken against Respondent in the instant case.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Bernard Fanfan

d/b/a Palm Beauty Salon 5084 North East 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33137

William O'Neil General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Docket for Case No: 88-000537

Orders for Case No: 88-000537