The Issue Whether the license of the Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a beauty salon not under the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed against Mary Wilson, d/b/a Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon on May 31, 1976 alleging: "That you, said MARY WILSON d/b/a/ Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon on August 1, 1976 and January 19, 1977 did on at least two occa- sions operate a beauty salon without the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist, at Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon, Orlando, Florida." The Respondent is the owner of tie Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon, holds no Florida registration as a cosmetologist and the subject salon is now closed. At the time of the violation notice the Respondent was practicing cosmetology in the Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon without a Florida cosmetology license and without being under the supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Recommendation Revoke the license of the Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mary Wilson Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon Post Office Box 5485 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact A complaint and Notice of Hearing to show cause was issued against Respondent, Mary Jorge, and a copy of notice of violation was served upon her citing her for operating a cosmetology salon without direct supervision and mangement of a master cosmetologist. The complaint was dated May 24, 1974. The Respondent was renoticed to appear at the subject hearing inasmuch as she failed to appear or moved for a continuance at the original hearing date The Respondant testified and presented witnesses to show that although there was no master cosmetologist in the shop at the time of the inspect ion by the Petitioner there was no work being done in the shop during the time the master cosmetologist was out of the shop at the lunch period. There is insufficient evidence to show that the Respondent was performing the business of cosmetology at the time that the violation notice was written.
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mary Jorge 7742 W. Hillsborough Tampa, Florida 33615
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, suspended or withdrawn for violating the statutes and rules pertaining to cosmetologists by operating a salon at her home without a Florida salon license.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent filed an election of remedies and plead "the facts as alleged are true but do not constitute a violation of law." The Respondent had established a beauty salon in her home prior to March 8, 1974 but was unable to receive a zoning variance to allow her to operate the salon. She was cited by Petitioner for operating a salon without a license which citation is the subject of this hearing. The Respondent is no longer operating a salon in her home and is now a duly licensed cosmetologist practicing in a licensed cosmetology salon. She has been so employed since 1974 and has complied with the laws, rules and regulations since that date.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to Respondent for failure to abide by the statute and rules governing cosmetologists. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ursula Weber 9256 Martinique Drive Miami, Florida 33157
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 Whether the salon license of Richard J. Payseur, No. 20140-OB should be revoked, annulled, suspended or withdrawn because he did not display a proper sign in his salon.
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Mary Francis Pfeiffer, Inspector for the Board, testified that Respondent Richard Payseur had been the proprietor of the beauty salon under the name "Showplace Beauty Salon", New Port Richey, Florida. At her last visit, the salon was under a new proprietorship and that to the best of the Inspector's knowledge, Mr. Payseur does not operate a beauty salon in the State. The Respondent Mr. Payseur holds a Masters License No. 0083341. Mr. Payseur, the Respondent, had been issued a violation notice after a visit to the salon on January 17, 1976 and again on March 20, 1976.
Recommendation Dismiss the present complaint and warn Respondent that a violation of the State laws and regulations governing cosmetologists could jeopardize his personal license. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of August, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida Richard J. Payseur Box 667 Route 4 Brooksville, Florida 33512
The Issue Whether the license of the Respondent, Carmelina Denur, should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a cosmetology salon without a salon registration certificate.
Findings Of Fact The inspector for the Petitioner, State Board of Cosmetology, entered a large utility room at the home of Respondent and found therein a cosmetology station with the usual mirrors, chairs , desks and cosmetology supplies, including an appointment book near the telephone. At the time of the visit of the inspector on May 27. 1977, the Respondent, Carmelina Debur, was doing a comb-out. Another woman was sitting in a chair in the area. The inspector determined that the Respondent was operating a beauty salon in her home without a registration and wrote a violation notice. The Respondent contended: that she had been retired six months from her job as a cosmetologist and that the furnishings for a salon in her home were for the benefit of her relatives and close friends and that she was not operating a beauty salon in her home. She stated that the area was a residential area and that her uncle gave her the salon equipment when he remodeled his store, and that she bought the cosmetology supplies inasmuch as she had a license and could buy it for personal use. She testified that she received no money from anyone and was not conducting a business in the beauty salon area of her home. There was no testimony or other evidence to show that the Respondent was in fact operating a beauty salon in her home.
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Carmelina Denur 5295 S.W. 8th Court Margate, Florida 33063
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact 1 At all times material hereto, Respondent Sharon Burrows has been the owner of Celebrity Beauty Salon, License No. CE 0044646. On March 18, 1990, Petitioner conducted an inspection of Celebrity Beauty Salon. At the time, a customer was seated in each of the salon's two chairs. Flavie Atis was placing rollers in the hair of one of the customers. Since no licensure was posted as to employee Atis, inquiry by the inspector revealed that Atis did not have a current license and was not performing services pursuant to an exemption while awaiting examination or having recently graduated from a school of cosmetology. Placing rollers in a customer's hair is within the scope of the practice of cosmetology for which a license is required and is not within the scope of merely shampooing for which a license is not required. At the time of the inspection, sanitary towels and neck strips were not being used for each patron and not all equipment was free of hair.
Recommendation Base upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating the statutory and rule provisions set forth herein, imposing a $250.00 administrative fine against her, and placing her license on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of October, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-3566 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-7, 8(1), and 8(2), have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 8(3) has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 2 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 3 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Mone, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Sharon Burrows 3161 West Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
