Findings Of Fact Robert S. Garcia is the new owner of the 7th Street Beauty School. Silvia Laucirica is a cosmetologist holding License No. 0038775. Said license is either a master cosmetologist or instructor's license and is in the name of Silvia Diez. The license of Silvia Laucirica is not a subject of this hearing. The subject of this hearing is the license of the 7th Street Beauty School, License No. 165-054. Six students were in attendance at the 7th Street Beauty School, 2437 N.W. 7th Street, Miami, Florida, who had previously been enrolled in Willfred Academy, 1102 S.W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida. On March 31, 1977, an inspection was made pursuant to the statutes and rules and regulations and students were at .the subject school but held no transfer to it from the Willfred Academy. A violation was written by the inspector of the Petitioner.
Recommendation Suspend the license of the 7th Street Beauty School for a period of fourteen (14) days. DONE and ORDERED this 8th 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 Robert S. Garcia Educational Director Seventh Street Beauty School 2537 N. W. 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-1032 LICENSE NO. 165-054 SILVIA LAUCIRICA, d/b/a 7th STREET BEAUTY SCHOOL, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue presented 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 At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed by the State of Florida as a cosmetologist, having been issued license number CL200634. At all times material hereto, her business, Karline's Beauty Spa of the Palm Beaches, has been a licensed cosmetology salon, having been issued license number CE74123. On Friday, September 26, 2003, the Department's inspector Yvonne Grutka performed an inspection of Karline's Beauty Spa from 3:24 to 4:35 p.m. When she arrived, she noticed a pregnant woman styling a female client's hair with marcel irons. When the pregnant woman saw Grutka, she left her client and left the salon. Grutka asked Respondent the identity of the pregnant woman, and Respondent told her the woman was Venus Pope. Respondent then showed Grutka a license with Venus Pope's photograph on it, but the picture did not look like the woman who had been styling the client's hair. At first, Respondent represented that Venus Pope had gone to lunch and would return. Later, Respondent said the Pope had gone to pick up her children and would not return until the following Wednesday. However, Grutka checked the computer at the front desk and learned that Pope was scheduled to work the following day, Saturday, September 27. Grutka subsequently returned to the salon when Pope was working. She asked the woman her name, and the woman identified herself as Venus Pope. Pope was not the pregnant woman who had been styling the female client's hair. Grutka concluded that Respondent was interfering with her inspection by not properly identifying the pregnant woman who was styling hair. Grutka noticed that various personal items and papers were located in the same open drawer in which sanitized combs and brushes were being stored. A blow dryer was also resting on the open drawer. The salon's license and previous inspection sheet were not displayed within view of the front door, as required. In addition, the stylists' licenses with their photographs were not displayed at their workstations, as required. These violations were admitted by Respondent during the final hearing. When Grutka arrived at the salon on September 26 Respondent was in her office in the back of the salon and was not "on the floor."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,600 to be paid within 30 days of the date the final order is entered. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Malone, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Karline Ricketts, pro se 1900 Okeechobee Boulevard, South 8A West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
The Issue Whether Respondent practiced cosmetology in her home without a salon certificate of registration. Whether the certificate of registration for a master cosmetologist held by the Respondent should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a valid certificate of registration as a master cosmetologist No. 73476. Respondent does not hold a certificate of registration for a salon. Respondent was practicing the art of cosmetology in her home which was not in compliance with the requirements of Section 477.24(7), Florida Statutes. Said residence would not be eligible for a salon registration.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed May 31, 1977, against Jack Diftler, owner of the Haircuttery, charging: "That you, said Jack Diftler on March 25, 1977 did allow a cosmetologist to practice in your salon without the supervision of a master cosmetologist at The Haircuttery, St. Augustine, Florida." The Respondent, Jack Diftler, is a master cosmetologist who had left the beauty shop he owned to make an emergency trip to Miami. The cosmetologist who works in his shop and who is not a master cosmetologist failed to obey his instructions which were to cease his cosmetology work and work repairing the shop while he, the master cosmetologist, was absent. The cosmetologist, Michael Diamond, failed to obey instructions and did perform cosmetology work in the absence of the master cosmetologist.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to the Respondent. The disobedience of an employee is an extenuating circumstance. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jack Diftler, Owner The Haircuttery 52 Spanish Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Respondent pleaded nolo contendere on the election of remedies furnished by the Petitioner; however, Respondent Dannie Richardson appeared in proper person at this hearing. As the result of a normal inspection trip by the State Board of Cosmetology's beauty salon inspector Ardie Smiley Collins found the Respondent Mrs. Richardson draping a patron for service in a non licensed beauty salon. The beauty salon did not have a proper sign as required by the rules and regulations of the State Board of Cosmetology. Subsequent to the inspection noted in Findings of Fact Number 2, Respondent Richardson secured and now holds a personal license number 0051868 and also holds a salon license number 21957. The administrative complaint filed by the Board notified the Respondent that the Board seeks to revoke, annul, suspend or withdraw the personal and salon license of Dannie Richardson. However, at the hearing a representative of the Board suggested that inasmuch as the offense of Respondent was a first offense, that in the opinion of the inspector a letter of reprimand would be sufficient to satisfy the objectives of the statutes, rules and regulations of the Board.
Recommendation Dismiss the present complaint and warn Respondent that a violation of the state laws and regulations governing cosmetologists could jeopardize her personal and salon license. 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 Dannie Richardson 319 S. Childs Street Leesburg, Florida
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology (Board), is charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of cosmetology. Among its responsibilities are the routine inspections of cosmetology salons to insure that all Board requirements are being met. On January 13, 1988 a Board inspector inspected the premises of From Hair on Etc., a licensed cosmetology salon in Clearwater, Florida. During the course of the inspection, the inspector observed a work station set up for respondent, Kristie J. Wheatley. The inspector also reviewed the salon's appointment book and noted manicure appointments for "Kristie" beginning around October 13, 1987 and continuing until January 19, 1988. However, the inspector did not find a license for respondent, and a subsequent search of Board records revealed that respondent was not registered with the Board. The inspector later talked with respondent by telephone. Respondent acknowledged that she had been employed as a manicurist at the salon since October 1987 and was not registered with the Board. She informed the inspector that she was unaware that the Board had begun enforcing a new law that required manicurists to be registered. According to owners of the salon, respondent performed manicure services in the salon for a three month period from October 1987 until January 1988. She was compensated for these services. In response to their inquiry as to her registration status, Wheatley told them she had filed an application for registration. Later on, she advised them the registration was at her home. When the owners learned from the inspector that respondent was not registered with the Board, her services were terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as charged in the amended administrative complaint, that she be assessed a $150 fine, and that she not be permitted to register with the Board until such fine is paid. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 24th day of February, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kristie J. Wheatley 14194 Darts Drive Fenton, MI 48430 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Rule 21f-3.10, Florida Administrative Code. Receipt of the Administrative Complaint and the Notice of Hearing was acknowledged by the Respondent. (Exhibit 1) Counsel for the Petitioner announced at the commencement of the hearing that Respondent's cosmetology salon was out of business and that said Respondent possessed no personal Certificate of Registration as a cosmetologist. Petitioner therefore interposed no objection to dismissal of the allegation.
Recommendation That the allegation against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Larry C. Wojtowicz c/o Nancy's Beauty Salon 2931 West Gate Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of Beauty Salon Mayelin Unisex (Salon), a cosmetology salon located at 1442 Northeast 163rd Street in North Miami Beach, Florida. The Salon was first licensed by the Department on December 19, 1990. Respondent has never been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Her application for licensure is currently pending. Charles E. Frear is an inspector with the Department. On May 16, 1990, Frear went to 1442 Northeast 163rd Street with the intention of inspecting a licensed cosmetology salon operating under the name "Hair to Hair." When he arrived at the address, Frear noticed that the sign outside the establishment reflected that Beauty Salon Mayelin Unisex now occupied the premises. The Salon was open for business. Upon entering the Salon, Frear observed Respondent removing curlers from the hair of a customer who was seated in one of the chairs. 1/ Frear asked Respondent to show him her license to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Respondent responded that she did not have such a license yet, but that she was scheduled to take the cosmetology licensure examination later that month. After learning from Respondent that she was the owner of the Salon, Frear asked to see the Salon's license. Respondent thereupon advised Frear that the Salon had not been licensed by the Department. Although she told Frear otherwise, Respondent was aware at the time that a Department-issued cosmetology salon license was required to operate the Salon. Frear gave Respondent an application form to fill out to obtain such a salon license. Respondent subsequently filled out the application form and submitted the completed form to the Department. Thereafter, she received License No. CE 0053509 from the Department to operate the Salon.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent committed the violations of law alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint; and (2) imposing upon Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 for having committed these violations. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of April, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 24th day of April, 1991.
