Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Certificate No. 11680. The Complaint, Notice of Hearing, and receipt of certified mail were offered into evidence as requested without objection and marked Exhibit 1. Respondent failed to have her photograph with her certificate of registration after repeated warnings by the employee of the Board whose duty is to see that Chapter 477, F.S., and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder are adhered to by those persons holding certificate of registration from the State Board of Cosmetology.
The Issue Whether Respondent allowed cosmetologists to work in Otto's Beauty Salon without a master cosmetologist being present. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn, or suspended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent appeared in person and admitted the violation as charged by the Complainant. Respondent is the occasional manager of Otto's Beauty Salon. Respondent is the master cosmetologist and the only master cosmetologist working in Otto's Beauty Salon. Respondent was absent from the shop as charged by the Board during working hours and during the time cosmetologists were working in said salon.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Katherine Zavattaro was licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CL 0076721. At all times material hereto, Katherine Zavattaro was licensed to operate a cosmetology salon named Kit's Beauty Spot and located at 3169 East Atlantic Boulevard, Pompano Beach, Florida. On January 25, 1968, Linda Jones was issued Florida cosmetologist license number CL 0060025. This license was subject to a biennial renewal condition that required it to be renewed by June 30 of each even-numbered year. (See Rule 21F-18.06, F.A.C. quoted in pertinent part below). On January 26, 1984, an inspector employed by Petitioner, observed Jones performing cosmetology services during a routine cosmetology salon inspection of Kit's Beauty Spot. Jones was unable to produce a current, active Florida cosmetologist license upon demand by the inspector. The license posted at Jones' work station had expired on June 30, 1982. Jones told the inspector that she had mistakenly left her current license at home. However, a check of Petitioner's licensing records indicated that Jones had never renewed the license which expired on June 30, 1982. A further check of Petitioner's files subsequent to the hearing revealed no correspondence or other evidence which would support Jones' claim. Jones testified under oath at hearing that in May, 1982, she applied to renew her Florida cosmetologist license. She further testified that around August, 1982, when she had not yet received her renewed license, she made a telephone call to Tallahassee, and was informed that her renewal application had not been received. She testified that in October or November, 1982, she reapplied to renew her cosmetologist license and that near the end of December, 1982, she received her renewed license. Respondent Jones was unable to produce any documentary evidence to corroborate this testimony. She stated that she apparently lost the license as well as the money order receipt which would have supported her claim that she tendered the license renewal fee. Petitioner and Respondent Jones were given a further opportunity to search for evidence of license renewal or attempted renewal. However, no late-filed exhibits were submitted which would support Jones' testimony. At all times material hereto, Katherine Zavattaro was the owner of Kit's Beauty Spot. In June, 1982, she hired Linda Jones to work there as a cosmetologist while Jones' license was still active. She did not require Jones to produce a current Florida cosmetologist license thereafter, and apparently relied on Jones' claim of renewal and her own knowledge that Jones had previously been employed at other cosmetology salons. Jones continued to work for Zavattaro as a cosmetologist at Kit's Beauty Spot, and was so employed at the time of Petitioner's inspection on January 26, 1984. The conflicting evidence regarding Jones' licensure status is resolved against her. Respondent Jones' inability to produce any evidence to support her testimony that she had paid for and/or been issued a license, along, with the absence in Petitioner's public records of any evidence that such license had been applied for, paid for or issued, establish that Jones' testimony is a product of mistake or fabrication.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order fining Respondent Linda Jones $500, and issuing a reprimand to Respondent Katherine Zavattaro, DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 13th day of September, 1984.
Findings Of Fact On December 22, 1977, respondent manicured a patron at the Hallmark Beauty Salon, without having been licensed by or registered with petitioner. Jacob Rubin, an investigator employed by petitioner, observed respondent at the time and asked her to produce her license. She said she had left it at home and ostensibly went to get it, but did not return before Mr. Rubin left. Mr. Rubin became suspicious and caused a search of petitioner's records to be made. On February 22, 1978, Petitioner licensed respondent as a manicuring, pedicuring, and shampooing specialist.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Wiser, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Norma Bertha Ruiz de Hidalgo c/o Hallmark Beauty Salon 3800 South Ocean Drive Hollywood, Florida
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent has violated Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by employing an unlicensed person to practice cosmetology.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case the Respondent, Marie Kettly Prezeau, d/b/a Kettly's Beauty Salon, has been licensed to practice cosmetology and operate a cosmetology salon in the State of Florida, having previously been issued licenses numbered CL 0150329 and CE 0039773. At all times material to this case, the Respondent has owned and operated a cosmetology salon named Kettly's Beauty Salon which is located at 8303 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33137. On November 19, 1991, a routine inspection of Kettly's Beauty Salon was conducted by an inspector for the Department of Professional Regulation. Upon arrival at Kettley's Beauty Salon, the inspector found the door was locked and he had to knock in order to gain entrance to the licensed premises. The door to the beauty salon was opened by a person who was later identified as Ms. Marc Kettlyne. When the inspector entered the licensed premises, he observed six people inside the beauty salon; five people who appeared to be customers and Marc Kettlyne, who appeared to be in charge of the beauty salon. Two of the people who appeared to be customers were sitting in beauty chairs and the other three were sitting under driers. The owner of the beauty salon was not present when the inspector arrived. The inspector had difficulty communicating with Ms. Marc Kettlyne because the latter did not appear to speak English. Through one of the customers who volunteered to serve as translator, the inspector explained who he was, stated the purpose of his visit, and made various inquiries of Ms. Marc Kettlyne. Shortly after the arrival of the inspector, Ms. Marc Kettlyne made a telephone call in a foreign language. The customer who served as the volunteer translator explained to the inspector that Ms. Kettlyne had made a phone call to the owner of the beauty salon. The inspector waited in the beauty salon for approximately forty minutes before the owner of the beauty salon appeared. While he was waiting, the inspector saw Ms. Marc Kettlyne spraying a clear liquid on the hair of a customer and also saw her arranging the customer's hair in rollers. The inspector asked Ms. Marc Kettlyne to show him her cosmetology license. Ms. Kettlyne explained that she did not have a cosmetology license. The inspector then asked Ms. Kettlyne for identification. Ms. Kettlyne showed the inspector what appeared to be a valid Florida drivers license which showed her name to be Marc Kettlyne. Ms. Marc Kettlyne has never been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. When the Respondent finally arrived at the beauty salon, she became very confrontational and belligerent with the inspector. The Respondent denied that Ms. Marc Kettlyne ever performed any cosmetology services in the beauty salon. The Respondent also said that she herself had performed all of the cosmetology services on the five customers who were present when the inspector arrived, and that she had merely stepped out for a few minutes to pay a bill. 1/
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology issue a Final Order in this case concluding that the Respondent, Marie Kettly Prezeau, has violated Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty consisting of a period of probation for one year and an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of August 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August 1992.
Findings Of Fact Larry F. Plogg, presently holds an active cosmetology license issued by Petitioner, License No. CL-0125370, for the period September 1, 1982, through June 30, 1984. On May 11, 1982, Plogg began employment as a cosmetologist in a salon operated by Shear Pleasure, Inc., in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. This employment has been ongoing and continues to the present. Shear Pleasure, Inc., is the holder of License No. CE0027634, issued by Petitioner. Plogg's licensure was by the process of endorsement, in that Plogg had acted as a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Georgia prior to his employment in Jacksonville, Florida. On the date that Plogg was employed, Fontaine LeMaistre, owner of the Respondent salon, contacted Charles Coats, an investigator with Petitioner and inquired of him on the subject of Plogg's ability to assume his duties as a cosmetologist, pending the receipt of the Florida license by endorsement. Coats indicated that Plogg could begin his duties by posting an indication of the payment of fees for the issuance of the license, assuming that the application for license was otherwise proper. As contemplated by Coats, the posting of the indication of fee payment would serve as a temporary verification of pending licensure for purposes of any inspection of the salon on the question of employee licensure. Plogg had mailed a money order in the amount of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) to Petitioner to obtain his license. The date of this money order was May 10, 1982. Sometime in July, 1982, Plogg contacted the Petitioner to ascertain the status of his license request, having not received his Florida license. he was told that nothing had been filed in furtherance of his licensure by endorsement and that he should send another application together with necessary money. In complying with the instruction, Plogg filed another application form together with another money order on August 13, 1982. Between August 13, 1982, and August 27, 1982, an inspection was made by an unidentified employee of the Petitioner. At that time, Plogg had copies of the original money order of May 10, 1982, and the subsequent money order of August 13, 1982, together with his Georgia license posted for inspection. Notwithstanding Coats' prior assurance, the indication of licensure was questioned by the inspector and apparently the absence of a Florida license being posted at Plogg's work station led to the promotion of the present Administrative Complaint. Out of the circumstance of the inspection, Plogg became concerned about the status of his license request and spoke, by telephone, with Petitioner's employee in Tallahassee, Florida, and was told that he needed to submit another thirty-five dollars ($35.00) to gain licensure, in view of an increase in the fee requirement for licensure by endorsement. This was complied with by forwarding a money order on August 27, 1982, in the amount of thirty-five dollars ($35.00), leading to the aforementioned licensure by endorsement on September 1, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Rhonda Welker, is a licensed cosmetologist operating under License No. CL0116241. Her original license was issued on November 24, 1980, and expired on June 30, 1982. On November 9, 1982, Respondent was employed as a cosmetologist, and acting as such, by Coiffures by Kenneth, a beauty salon owned and operated by Respondent's father and mother, located at 887 Semoran Boulevard, Apopka, Florida. At that time, her license had expired and was denied renewal by the Board because she had failed to take 16 additional hours of continuing professional education subsequent to issuance of her license, but instead had only taken eight. As a result, she did not meet the Board requirements for renewal of her license, which became inactive at the date of expiration. When Valerie Flowers, an inspector for the Board of Cosmetology, performed her follow-up inspection of the salon where Respondent worked, on November 17, 1982, she observed Respondent styling a customer's hair. At this time, though Respondent had completed the required 16 hours of continuing professional education, her license had not yet been renewed. Respondent Rhonda Welker's current license was issued on January 30, 1983, and expires on June 30, 1984. Respondent failed to secure the required 16 hours of continuing professional education on the honest but mistaken belief that she only needed eight hours' worth. She felt that since her licensure was initially issued for less than two full years, she would only need the eight hours of continuing education for one year, which she had. Under the circumstances, Respondent, Rhonda Welker, was holding herself out as a cosmetologist when she did not have an active current Florida cosmetologist's license.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be ordered to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $50. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 30th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Rhonda Welker 887 Semoran Boulevard Apopka, Florida 32703 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
