The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for employing a student without a permit to work who had not yet taken the state board examination for cosmetologists.
Findings Of Fact Elaine York is the owner and operator of the Act II Salon of Beauty. Mary Mainello, also called Kathy Mainello, is employed to work in he subject beauty salon. At the time of the inspection Miss Mainello had not yet obtained her work permit and had not taken the state board examination or been licensed to practice cosmetology. She told the inspector that she had been working doing shampoos and sets but that no damage was done. Therefore a violation notice was written against the owner of the salon. At the time of the inspection Miss Mainello was in the beauty shop of Respondent for the purpose of observing and was not on the payroll of the subject beauty salon. Although the inspector did not actually see her work, there was a station for her to work which . had been used at the time of the inspection. She said that she had been observing for a period of two (2) weeks. At the time of the inspection the owner, Mrs. York, was not in the shop, having gone to the bank. The Hearing Officer finds that the student, Mary Mainello, was in fact performing the duties of a cosmetologist, that is, shampooing and setting hair but without the knowledge or permission of the Respondent owner.
Recommendation Write a letter of reprimand for lack of close supervision of the student who should have learned the laws and rules pertaining to cosmetology. DONE and ORDERED this 19th 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 J. Kermit Coble, Esquire Coble, McKinnon, Reynolds, A Rothert, Bohner & Godbee, P.A. Post Office Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32020
The Issue Whether Respondent should be fined for alleged violations of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, occurring prior to her licensure.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Catherine Shepherd, is the owner of a cosmetics studio named Merle Norman Cosmetics. The studio is located at 13275 South 14th Street, Leesburg, Florida 32748. Her primary business is the sale of cosmetics to the public. A very small portion of her business is nail sculpting. Except for the nail sculpting, Respondent is not otherwise subject to the strictures of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. Respondent, dba Merle Norman, is a licensed cosmetology salon in the State of Florida having been issued license number CE 0048712. Respondent obtained her license January 24, 1989, after Petitioner's investigator informed her that the law required her to have a cosmetology salon license in order to do nails at her establishment. Prior to January 24, 1989, Respondent was not licensed as a cosmetology salon. When the cosmetology statutes were last adopted, Respondent was informed by the Board's investigator that she would have to employ a licensed cosmetologist in order to do nails at her studio. Respondent thence forward employed a licensed nail sculptor to perform this service. However, the Board's investigator did not inform Respondent that she was also required to have a cosmetology salon license to employ a licensed nail sculptor. She was, therefore, unaware that the law required such a license. Respondent operated as a cosmetology salon without a license for approximately two years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order fining the Respondent one hundred dollars ($100.00). DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 18th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-2445 The proposed facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact are adopted, in substance, in so far as material. The proposed facts contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia Gelmine, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation North wood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0760 (904) 488-0062 Catherine Shepherd dba Merle Norman 1327 South 14th Street Leesburg, Florida 32748 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729 Kenneth Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for allowing two unlicensed persons to practice cosmetology in the beauty salon licensed as May Cohen's Soul Sissors.
Findings Of Fact A joint motion to consolidate the above styled cases was made for the reason that the charges grew out of the same incident. The motion was granted. A motion was made requesting permission for the Respondent to file affidavits late and the permissions was granted without objection by the Petitioner but with a reservation to file objections when the affidavits were filed. The affidavits were filed July 26, 1977 and are a part of the record. No objection has been filed by Petitioner and the thirty days from date of hearing allotted by the Hearing Officer has expired. The statements in the affidavit are consistent with the evidence and testimony at the hearing and with the findings of facts herein. The Administrative Complaints were issued on May 31, 1977 against John S. Kubie, President of Seligman & Latz, Inc., and against the salon May Cohen's Soul Sinners charging: "That you, said SELIGMAN & LATZ, INC. d/b/a May Cohen's Soul Sissors on January 7, 1977 did allow two unlicensed persons to practice in your salon, at May Cohen's Soul Sissors, Jacksonville, Florida." On January 7, 1977, the inspector for the Board entered the May Cohen's Soul Sinners Beauty Shop and found therein two unlicensed persons. One person, Willie Dock, who is an employee of Nay Cohen's Soul Sinners, had not secured a Florida license and was working without a license in the subject salon and without a license or permit posted as required. He had not informed the manager that his permit had expired on December 30, 1976. The other person, Margaret Florence, was working although her license had been altered to appear as if it were current. It was of a different color than the current licenses of other cosmetologists in the shop and in fact it had expired. The manager should have ascertained whether these people were duly licensed and knew or should have known they were not properly licensed.
Recommendation Suspend the license of May Cohen's Soul Sissors for a period of seven (7) days. DONE and ORDERED this 26th 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: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee,, Florida 32302 Charles A. Sorenson, Esquire Forbes and Meide 400 Guaranty Life Building 137 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Upon request of the attorney for the Complainant, the Complaint was amended to reflect that Hersam Beauty Salons, Inc., operates the Respondent salon, Grant's Beauty Salon. The Notice of Hearing was answered by letter from Hersam Beauty Salons, Inc., through its Secretary and Treasurer, Sam Friedman, by letter dated June 6, 1975. Said letter expressed amazement that the master cosmetologist employed by said Hersam Beauty Salons, Inc., who directs and supervises Grant's Beauty Salon, Tamps, Florida, was not on duty at the time the violation was written up and during the time the salon was open for the business of practicing the art of cosmetology. Grant's Beauty Salon was in operation and not under the direct supervision or management of a master cosmetologist.
Recommendation Suspend the registration of Grant's Beauty Salon for a period of thirty (30) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 29 day of August 1975 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 G. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ms. Gertie Campbell 7409 Huntley Avenue Tampa, Florida Grant's Beauty Salon 11311 N. Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33612 Hersam Beauty Salons, Inc. 142-144 N. 7th Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Ms. Mary Alice Palmer Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Post Office Box 9087 Winter Haven, Florida 33880 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Complainant, vs. CASE NO. 75-1018 GRANT'S BEAUTY SALON, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the alleged violations occurred and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Great Expectations Precision Haircutters, is a cosmetology salon located in Melbourne, Florida. Its owner, Twin Towers Hair Stylists, Inc. is a New York corporation authorized to do business in Florida. Sharon Bross manages the salon and is the corporate owner's resident agent in Florida. The amended administrative complaint in this proceeding was served, by certified mail, on Sharon Bross. In August 1987, Sara Kimmig, an inspector for various boards within the Department of Professional Regulation, visited the Respondent salon in Melbourne. She found the salon open and conducting business, with three persons in the waiting area and four operators engaged in performing services. She found that the salon's license number CE 0038872 expired in October 1986. The salon opened for business in April 1986. All licenses expire on October 31st of even-numbered years, therefore the license expired shortly after it was obtained. Ms. Bross was informed of the violation and she immediately applied for and obtained a renewal license. At the hearing, Ms. Bross conceded that the license had expired, but that she had not received a renewal notice and the expiration was an oversight. The license on its face, however, indicates the October 31, 1986, expiration date. There was no evidence of past or other concurrent violations by this salon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of the violations, as charged, and fined $500.00 DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 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 5th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Ray Shope, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Sharon Bross, Resident Agent Twin Towers Hair Stylists, Inc. Great Expectations Precision Haircutters 1525 West New Haven West Melbourne, Florida 32904 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether the license of the Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for allowing a cosmetologist to practice cosmetology without the supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed against Licensee Alice M. Gaskin on May 31, 1976, charging: "That you, said ALICE M. GASKIN on October 5, 1976 did allow a cosmetologist to practice Cosmetology without the supervision of a master cosmetologist at Southside Beauty Salon, Gainesville, Florida." At the time of the inspection a cosmetologist, White Demarional, was practicing the art of cosmetology without being under the supervision of a master cosmetologist. The owner of the shop was the Respondent, Alice M. Gaskin.
Recommendation Suspend the license of Respondent for not more than thirty (30) days. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 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: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Alice M. Gaskin 1418 S.E. 4th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601
The Issue Whether the Respondent did violate Section 477.02(6); 477.27(1) and Section 477.15(8), Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations of the State Board of Cosmetology promulgated pursuant there to in that he did allow students to work in the La Marick Beauty Salon, a salon owned by licensee, prior to making application and/or renewing an application for such work from the Board of Cosmetology.
Findings Of Fact Respondent F. W. Lorick, Jr. received notice of this hearing and filed his election of remedies stating no contest and that he did not plan to attend this hearing. Respondent does not personally work in the La Marick Beauty Salon, therefore employs a manager to manage the salon although it is licensed in the company's name. The company of which Respondent is president is one of a chain of beauty salons. Mrs. Madge Edwards, inspector for the State Board of Cosmetology, on or about February 24, 1976 entered Respondent Lorick's beauty salon and found a student working as a cosmetologist. The student was a non-licensed person who held no permit to work in a beauty salon. The inspector wrote a violation which is the subject of this hearing.
Recommendation Advise the Respondent F. W. Lorick, Jr. that he is guilty of violating Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, and rules and regulations promulgated thereto and that if other violations occur, his license may be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended. DONE and ORDERED this 19th 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 Mr. F. W. Lorick, Jr., President La Marick Beauty Salon 2350 S. Ridgewood Avenue - Sunshine Mall South Daytona, Florida
The Issue The Respondent is charged in a two count amended administrative complaint. Count I alleges a violation of Section 477.029(1)(a) F.S., practicing cosmetology without a current active license. Count II alleges a violation of Sections 477.029(1)(i) and 477.0263(1) F.S., engaging in cosmetology services in areas other than in a licensed cosmetology salon.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology. Respondent Cathy Runkle has never been a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida. She has learned her hair cutting/trimming skills from books and video tapes borrowed from the public library. At all times material hereto, Cathy's Place, Cathy Runkle, and Cathy's Hair Design have been unlicensed as cosmetology salons. Sometime during "the Christmas holidays" (between December 25, 1990 and January 1, 1991) Respondent, her daughter, and two women friends, one of whom was Mildred Schwarz, were gathered socially at Respondent's home in Daytona, Florida. Because Respondent had just given her daughter an attractive "home permanent" and hair trim, the subject came up of whether or not the four women could start a business doing the same thing for others in their own homes and in the homes of prospective customers. Respondent prepared a sample advertising flyer in pencil on an 8 1/2 by 11-inch piece of paper that read, "Cathy's Hair Designs, Perms $40.00, Cut $10.00, Hair styling in your home." Respondent's name, home address, and telephone number were also on the sample flyer. Mildred Schwarz traced over some of the pencilled lettering on the sample flyer. The next day, Respondent gave a copy of the sample flyer to each of the three other women who had been part of the discussion. She did this so that they could decide if they wanted to be involved in such a project with her. Later during the holiday period, Respondent and her daughter visited another friend, Pam Rendon, in Mrs. Rendon's home, also in Daytona, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Rendon had been friends of Mr. and Mrs. Runkle for at least two years prior to this occasion. Mrs. Rendon runs a motel which is attached to her home. The office of the motel is also in the home. During this particular visit, a copy of the sample flyer was shown to Mrs. Rendon. Mrs. Rendon cautioned against any such business venture because it was too much hassle for Respondent, a housewife. Mrs. Rendon explained some of the pitfalls of running one's own business, including the need to purchase insurance. When Respondent and her daughter went home, the copy of the flyer brought by Respondent and her daughter was inadvertently left on Mrs. Rendon's office desk. It was never re- copied or distributed at the motel, and it was never even posted on the motel bulletin board. Mr. and Mrs. Rendon testified that it must have been thrown out in the trash. Respondent thought about the proposed project and decided against going into business. Mildred Schwarz confirmed that the business idea was never seriously considered in the first place and that Respondent never approached her about it again. Ms. Schwarz does not know what became of her copy of the flyer. There is also no evidence as to what became of the remaining two copies of the flyer. Respondent never created or distributed any more copies. Petitioner received a copy of the flyer in the mail as part of an anonymous complaint and presented no evidence that other copies were ever publicly circulated by anyone. On one occasion either before or after the creation of the original flyer but still at a time material to the period of March 1, 1990 through March 6, 1991, the dates alleged in the amended administrative complaint, Respondent had a prearranged date for lunch with Mildred Schwarz. When Respondent arrived to pick up Ms. Schwarz at Ms. Schwarz' Daytona, Florida home, Ms. Schwarz asked Respondent to trim her hair. Respondent complied with the request. Later, Ms. Schwarz picked up Respondent's lunch check, but not as a quid pro quo for the hair trim. There is no reasonable monetary correlation between the price of this particular shared meal and the cost of a hair cut as listed on the flyer. In fact, Ms. Schwarz testified that she had "owed" Respondent the meal before and apart from the hair cut. On another occasion, Respondent used a home permanent kit on Ms. Schwarz in Ms. Schwarz' home. Later, Ms. Schwarz also administered a home permanent to Respondent at Respondent's home. Both women apparently followed the directions for laymen included in the kits. These events were a courtesy exchange of favors between the two women without any disparity of cost in the permanent wave kits, which were not purchased from a cosmetology supply house. Neither Respondent nor Ms. Schwarz was ill or incapacitated at any material time. Respondent never held herself out to be a licensed cosmetologist, and Ms. Schwarz never thought she was one. Either before or after the creation of the original flyer, but still at a time material to the dates alleged in the administrative complaint, Respondent trimmed the hair of Pam Rendon and of her husband, Frank Rendon. She did this for each of them on several occasions. The Runkles and the Rendons play tennis together regularly and regularly visit in each others' homes. Respondent often invites herself or is invited by Mrs. Rendon to have coffee and sun herself beside Mrs. Rendon's motel pool. Respondent frequently babysits for Mrs. Rendon. No witness remembers exactly when or how the hair cutting occasions arose but each was spontaneous. Sometimes they occurred during a pick-up lunch when the families were gathered in the Rendons' kitchen. Sometimes they occurred when just Respondent and Mrs. Rendon were together and Mrs. Rendon asked Respondent to "do something" with Mrs. Rendon's hair. Once, at Mrs. Rendon's request, Respondent left what she was doing in her own home and came to Mrs. Rendon's house and "finished" a bad haircut Mrs. Rendon had started on herself. Respondent did not expect to be compensated for her helpfulness. Mrs. Rendon never offered Respondent compensation for her services. Mr. Rendon offered to pay Respondent on at least four separate occasions when she trimmed his hair, and Respondent consistently refused to take any money. Neither Mr. or Mrs. Rendon was ill or incapacitated during any of these events. Respondent never held herself out to be a licensed cosmetologist, and the Rendons never thought she was one. Neither the Schwarz home nor the Rendon home is a licensed cosmetology salon. Petitioner also established that on a single occasion within the time frame of the amended administrative complaint Respondent's husband took her out to dinner at a Daytona, Florida restaurant in exchange for her stopping what she was doing (presumably preparing their dinner) so as to cut and permanent his hair. Respondent's husband knew she was not a licensed cosmetologist. On one other occasion, Respondent had a prearranged social visit with an old friend elsewhere in Florida. The friend telephoned and asked Respondent to buy a home permanent kit on the way. Respondent bought the kit at a Pic'N'Save for approximately $7.00 and used it on the friend when she visited with the friend. After Respondent refused the friend's offer to reimburse her for the permanent wave kit and her gas, the friend secretly slipped a $10.00 bill into Respondent's purse to cover the monies expended by Respondent. The Respondent did not return the $10.00 because she did not look in her purse until she got home. This event occurred during the time frame alleged in the amended administrative complaint. Petitioner also established that at a social luncheon Respondent and other women guests, mostly Respondent's relatives by marriage, did various things to one another's hair. As a result, the bottle of wine and the food which were already on the hostess' table were dedicated to Respondent for her skill and efforts. Petitioner did not affirmatively prove that this event took place in Florida, and therefore jurisdiction of it has not been proven. Petitioner also established that while in New Mexico, Respondent gave her mother a home permanent and trimmed her mother's hair and that Respondent's mother bought Respondent lunch on a quid pro quo basis. New Mexico is outside Petitioner's jurisdiction. Neither of these incidents clearly occurred during the time frame alleged in the amended administrative complaint.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 26th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1-3, 5-7, 9 Accepted. 4, 8, 10, 15, Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. 11-14, 17-19 Rejected as stated because not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole or rejected as containing legal argument. Covered in FOF 5-11. 16 Accepted that this is a direct quotation from an exhibit but it is out of context and misleading from the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. Respondent's PFOF: COUNT I 1-2, 4 Rejected as legal argument. 3 The first sentence is rejected as legal argument. The second sentence is accepted. 5, 10-15 Accepted in substance but otherwise is rejected as incomplete or subordinate or as mere recitation of testimony. Legal argument is also rejected. 6-9 What is not legal argument on credibility issues or is not subordinate to the facts as found has been accepted. COUNT II 1-2 Rejected as legal argument but covered in substance. Copies furnished to: Herbert Runkle 2075 South Halifax Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Lois B. Lepp, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ms. Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
