STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 88-3973

)

WILLIAM R. ENGELLEITER, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Final hearing in this matter was held in Melbourne, Florida on October 27, 1988, before Mary Clark, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

The parties were represented as follows:

For Petitioner: Ronald L. Jones, Esquire

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

For Respondent: William Engelleiter, representing himself

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS

The Administrative Complaint which initiated this proceeding is dated May 20, 1988, and alleges Respondent's violation of various sections of Chapter 477, F.S., prohibiting the practice of cosmetology without a license.

At the hearing Petitioner submitted the testimony of one witness and offered two exhibits in evidence. The first, an affidavit by the Board of Cosmetology records custodian, was received without objection. The second, a photocopy of a affidavit by Grace Blough, was rejected as uncorroborated hearsay.

William Engelleiter testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of his mother and a friend.

No proposed findings of fact have been filed.

ISSUES

The issue for disposition is whether William Engelleiter practiced cosmetology without a license, and if so, what action is appropriate.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Nita Spagnole is an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) in the Orlando, Florida office.

   
   

   On March 22, 1988, she visited the Apollo Hair Designs Salon in Melbourne, Florida, to gather affidavits for another case. William Engelleiter was in the salon and was pointed out to her as a cosmetologist. He was in the area, talking to a customer, watching TV and visiting with the other workers. She did not observe him working on hair or otherwise practicing cosmeto1ogy.

   
   

   Ms. Spagnole later pulled his name on the agency computer and learned that he did not have a license.

   
   

2. William Engelleiter attended cosmetology school but did not pass the board examination. He is diabetic and frequently ill.

   
   

   He met the Blough's, the owners of Apollo Hair Design at a flea market.

   They were giving away free samples and said they needed a receptionist. Engelleiter was hired to work as a receptionist until he was able to pass the examination.

   
   

3. He started work at Apollo on January 25, 1988, and was still employed as a receptionist in March, 1988. He left shortly later due to illness.

   
   

4. From time to time at the salon, William Engelleiter did his mother's hair and worked on the owner's daughter and other cosmetologists, but he claims that he never received compensation for those services. His mother confirmed this.

   
   

5. David Simon, a friend of Engelleiter's, went to the salon to buy a hairpiece. He wanted Engelleiter to get the commission but was told that he could not, because he was not a cosmetologist.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

6. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.57(1),

F.S. and Section 455.225(4), Florida Statutes.

7. Subsections 477.0265(1)(a), F.S., 477.029(1)(a), F.S. and

477.0l9(1)(h), F.S. prohibit the practice of cosmetology, or the holding of oneself out as a cosmetologist, without a valid license.

1. "Cosmetology" is defined in subsection 477.013(5), F.S., as:

   
   

   . . . the mechanical or chemical treatment of the head, face, and scalp for aesthetic

   rather than medical purposes, including, but not limited to, hair shampooing, hair cutting, hair arranging, hair coloring, permanent waving, hair relaxing, hair removing, pedicuring, and manicuring, for

   *compensation*. (emphasis added between *)

   
   

2. Petitioner produced no competent evidence that William Engelleiter practiced cosmetology.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED:

That the administrative complaint dated May 20, 1988 be dismissed.

DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida.

MARY CLARK

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 9th day of December, 1988.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Ronald L. Jones, Esquire Department of Professional

Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

William R. Engelleiter 1964 McKinley Avenue Post Office Box 24A

Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951

Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Docket for Case No: 88-003973

Orders for Case No: 88-003973