STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-0997

)

CHRISTINE PEETZ )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in the above-styled matter was held on April 24, 1991, in Orlando, Florida, before Joyous D. Parrish, a designated hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties were represented at the hearing as follows:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Tracey S. Hartman

Senior Attorney

Department of Professional Regulation

1940 N. Monroe Street, Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

For Respondent: Christine Peetz, pro se

3867 Wekiva Springs Road Longwood, Florida 32779

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated January 15, 1991; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case began on January 15, 1991, when the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology (Department), filed an administrative complaint against the Respondent, Christine Peetz. That complaint alleged that the Respondent had violated provisions of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, and Rule 21F-20.002, Florida Administrative Code. More specifically, the complaint alleged Respondent had operated a cosmetology salon without a current active cosmetology license and had violated rules of the Board by leaving hair in uncovered containers, by not sanitizing implements after each use, and by leaving hair in equipment.

At the hearing, the Department presented the testimony of Sara Kimmig, an inspector employed by the Department. The Respondent testified in her own behalf.

The transcript of the proceedings was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 1, 1991. The parties have not timely filed proposed recommended orders.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the stipulation of the Respondent, the following findings of fact are made:

1. The Department is the state agency authorized to regulate the practice of cosmetology within the State of Florida.

   
   

2. At all times material to the allegations of the administrative complaint, Respondent has been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. She has been issued license number CL0058007.

   
   

3. Prior to August 1, 1990, the Respondent owned and operated a cosmetology salon named "The Hair Lovers" which was located at 3867 Wekiva Springs Road, Longwood, Florida 32779. The Respondent co-owned the salon with an individual named Dan Arace.

   
   

4. On or about August 1, 1990, Respondent dissolved her partnership with Mr. Arace, the lease for the salon was transferred to her, and she assumed sole responsibility for The Hair Lovers.

   
   

5. Subsequently, when the license for The Hair Lovers was renewed, Respondent neglected to delete Mr. Arace from the license information. The license was kept current at all times but erroneously included Mr. Arace's name.

   
   

6. On October 2, 1990, Sara Kimmig, an inspector employed by the Department, performed an annual inspection of the premises. During that inspection, Ms. Kimmig noted that the license for the salon did not contain current information (since Mr. Arace was no longer there).

   
   

7. Respondent agreed to, and did, submit an updated license renewal form and the Department reissued the license with the deletion of Mr. Arace's name. Approximately two months of operation elapsed during which time the license information was not accurate.

   
   

8. Also during the inspection performed on October 2, 1990, Ms. Kimmig observed the following conditions at The Hair Lovers: hair was found in uncovered containers; uncovered service containers were discovered; and hair was in brushes which were supposed to be clean. Based upon her observations and the admissions of Doug Rubin (aka "Tamara"), Ms. Kimmig cited The Hair Lovers for not sanitizing implements between use.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

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

   
   

10. The Department bears the burden of proof to establish the factual matters related to the alleged violations.

11. Section 477.029(1), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part:

    
    

    1. It is unlawful for any person to:

       * * *

       (b) Operate any cosmetology salon

       unless it has been duly licensed as provided by this chapter.

       * * *

       (i) Violate or refuse to comply

       with any provision of this chapter or chapter

       455 or a rule or final order of the board or the department.

       
       

12. Rule 21F-20.000(4), Florida Administrative Code, prohibits the use of implements which have not first been sanitized. That rule also prohibits a licensee from leaving hair from one client in equipment which may be used again.

    
    

13. Rule 21F-20.002, Florida Administrative Code, prohibits a licensee from leaving hair in uncovered containers.

    
    

14. In this case the Department has established the Respondent violated sanitary rules relating to the operation of a cosmetology salon. Respondent's explanation for thee instances of failure to abide by sanitary guidelines while credible, do not excuse the informal and lackadaisical manner in which her salon operated.

    
    

15. In this case, the Department has established that Respondent did not have an accurate, current license. Her salon license contained erroneous information. When she discovered the oversight, Respondent promptly corrected the license information to delete Mr. Arace's name.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED:

That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Sections 477.029(1)(b) and (i), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of

$250.00.

DONE and ENTERED this 14 day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

JOYOUS D. PARRISH

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14 day of June, 1991.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Tracey S. Hartman Senior Attorney

Department of Professional Regulation

1940 N. Monroe Street, Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Christine Peetz

3867 Wekiva Springs Road Longwood, Florida 32779

Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Jack McRay General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties-have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 91-000997

Orders for Case No: 91-000997