Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY vs SHORT CUTS AND STYLES AND ALPHONSO BRAT, 13-001156 (2013)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 13-001156 Visitors: 14
Petitioner: DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY
Respondent: SHORT CUTS AND STYLES AND ALPHONSO BRAT
Judges: JUNE C. MCKINNEY
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Locations: West Palm Beach, Florida
Filed: Mar. 28, 2013
Status: Closed
Settled and/or Dismissed prior to entry of RO/FO on Wednesday, May 29, 2013.

Latest Update: Dec. 27, 2024
FILED Department of Business arid Professional Regulation Deputy Agency Clerk STATE OF FLORIDA ck Og ‘vette Lawson-Proctor DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULAT| pete 4/40/2013 File # DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, Vv. Case No. 2011032719 2011032975 SHORT CUTS & STYLES and ALPHONSO BRAT, Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Petitioner) files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Cosmetology (Board), against Short Cuts & Styles and Alphonso Brat (Respondent), and says: 1. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes (2010), and Chapters 455 and 477, Florida Statutes (2010), and the rules promulgated thereto. 2. At all times material hereto, Short Cuts & Styles was registered as a cosmetology salon having been issued license number CE 9984915. 3. At all times material to this complaint, Alphonso Brat was a co-owner of Short Cuts & Styles. 4. Respondent’s address of record is 10300 West Forest Hill Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida, 33414, and 6315 Green Hedge Court, West Palm Beach, Florida 33411, respectively. FINDINGS OF FACT 5. On or about May 20, 2011, Petitioner’s inspector conducted an inspection of Respondent. 6. During the aforementioned inspection, the inspector observed the following documentation and/or sanitation violations: a. Respondent failed to ensure all individuals displayed a current, laminated license; b. Respondent failed to remove hair from the floor and store it in a closed container; c. Respondent failed to maintain a wet sanitizer with a cover; d. Respondent failed to utilize hospital quality/EPA approved disinfecting methods; e. Respondent failed to immerse all implements which come in contact with blood or bodily fluids in an EPA registered tuberculocidal; f. Respondent failed to store clean implements separately from unsanitized items. 7. The Inspector also observed Johny Jean performing a haircut. At no time material to this complaint was Johny Jean licensed as a cosmetologist within the State of Florida. 8. The Inspector made a return visit to Respondent salon on September 16, 2011. 9. Inspector observed Euri Jenkins performing cosmetology services. 10. At not time material to this complaint was Euri Jenkins licensed as a cosmetologist within the State of Florida. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW COUNT ONE 11. Petitioner realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) as though fully set forth herein. 12. Rule 61G5-20.004 (2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that all holders of a cosmetology or specialty salon license shall require and ensure that all individuals engaged in the practice of cosmetology display at the individual’s work station their current license or registration at all times. 13. Rule 61G5-20.002(1) (c) (1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that “{hlair must be deposited in a closed container.” 14. Rule 61G5-20.002 (2) (d) (1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a wet sanitizer with cover must be provided. 15. Rule 61G5-20.002 (d) (2) (a-d), Florida Administrative Code, provides that all implements must be sanitized by immersion in a hospital level or EPA disinfectant. 16. Rule 61G5-20.004 (2) (d) (3), Florida Administrative Code, provides that all implements coming in contact with blood or bodily fluids must be immersed in a hospital level or EPA approved disinfectant. 17. Rule 61G65-20.002(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code, provides that all clean implements must be stored in a closed cabinet or container away from unsanitized instruments. 18. Based on the facts set forth above, Respondent violated or refused to comply with a rule of the board of the department in one or more of the following ways: a. By failing to ensure all individuals displayed a current, laminated license; b. By failing to remove hair from the floor and store it in a closed container; c. By failing to maintain a wet sanitizer with a cover; d. By failing to utilize hospital quality/EPA approved disinfecting methods; e. By failing to immerse all implements which come in contact with blood or bodily fluids in an EPA’ registered tuberculocidal; f. By failing to store clean implements separately from unsanitized items; 19. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 477,.029(1) (i) Florida Statutes (2010), by violating or refusing to comply with any provision of this chapter or chapter 455 or a rule or final order of the board of the department. COUNT TWO 20. Petitioner realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) as though fully set forth herein. 21. Section 477.0265(1) (b) (2), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that “[ilt is unlawful for any person to...[o]wn, operate, maintain, open, establish, conduct, or have charge of, either alone or with another person or persons, a cosmetology salon...[i]n which a person not licensed as a cosmetologist is permitted to perform services.” 22. Respondent operated as a cosmetology salon in which Johny Jean and = Euri Jenkins were permitted to perform cosmetology services. 25. Based on the facts set forth above, Respondent violated Section 477.0265(1) (b) (2), Florida Statutes (2010), by operating a cosmetology salon in which unlicensed persons were permitted to perform cosmetology services. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board of Cosmetology enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: permanent revocation or suspension of Respondent’s license, restriction of practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of Respondent on probation, assessment of costs, corrective action and/or any other relief that the Board deems appropriate. Signed this 9th day of January 9, 2013. KEN LAWSON, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation By: Roger R, Maas Roger R. Maas Assistant General Counsel Florida Bar No. 128296 Department of Business and Professional Regulation Office of the General Counsel 1940 N. Monroe St., Tallahassee, (850) (850) Ste. 42 FL 32399-2202 717-1210 Telephone 414-8241 Facsimile PC Found:03/07/12 PC By: Dustin William Metz RRM/KAP NOTICE OF RIGHTS Please be advised that mediation under section 120.573, Florida Statutes, is not available for administrative disputes involving this type of agency action. Please be advised that Respondent has the right to request a hearing to be conducted in accordance with sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative, to present evidence and argument, to call and cross-examine witnesses and to have subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum issued on his or her behalf if a hearing is requested. Any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the charges contained in the administrative complaint must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 28-106.111, Florida Administrative Code, provides in part that if Respondent fails to request a hearing within 21 days of receipt of an agency pleading, Respondent waives the right to request a hearing on the facts alleged. NOTICE REGARDING ASSESSMENT OF COSTS Respondent is placed on notice that Petitioner has incurred costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this matter. Pursuant to section 455.227(3) (a), Florida Statutes, the Board, or the Department when there is no Board, may assess costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the case excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, against Respondent in addition to any other discipline imposed.

Docket for Case No: 13-001156
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer