The Issue Whether the license of the Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a beauty salon not under the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.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
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a cosmetology salon without a certificate of registration.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed against licensee, Virginia Jarnecke, who holds License No. Salon 24158, on the 31st of May, 1977, alleging that she did operate a cosmetology salon without a valid certificate of registration after having been warned and supplied with the proper form in July of 1976 at the La Petite Coiffures in Daytona Beach, Florida. The Respondent filed an Answer on the 24th day of June, 1977, entering a plea of not guilty to the Administrative Complaint. The inspector for the board inspected the Respondent shop in July of 1976 and found that there had been a change in ownership of the salon. She informed the Respondent new owner that the salon registration was nontransferable and that a new registration would have to be applied for and obtained. At that time she left a form designated BC-7 for use of the Respondent. On September 24, 1976 no license had been obtained and a violation of notice was written by the inspector. A license was obtained thereafter in November of 1976. The owner of the shop, Respondent Virginia Jarnecke, had waited to send in her application for registration of said shop until one of the employees obtained a license as master cosmetologist. She did not obtain a registration for the salon until November of 1976 although an application form had been' left by the Petitioner, State Board of Cosmetology, to change the registration from the former owner in July of 1976.
Recommendation Write a letter of reprimand to Respondent for the reason that there was unnecessary delay between the time the Respondent bought subject beauty salon and the time in which application for registration of the salon. 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 LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. David McFadden, Esquire 100 Seabreeze Boulevard, Suite 210 Daytona Beach, Florida 32018
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent engaged in the practice of cosmetology without a license, a legally prohibited act which, if performed, would warrant the imposition of sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Reyna I. Guzman ("Guzman") is an individual who, at all relevant times, was employed as a cashier or administrative assistant at Koko Cuts Hair and Color Salon ("Koko Cuts") in Miami, Florida. Although Koko Cuts is a Florida-licensed salon, Guzman herself is not licensed in Florida as a cosmetologist. On February 2, 2006, two investigators of Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation ("Department") entered Koko Cuts to perform an inspection. They observed Guzman "working on" a woman's hair. The woman was sitting in a stylist's chair and appeared to be a regular customer. In fact, however, the "customer" was Guzman's sister. Guzman's boss had granted Guzman permission to color her sister's hair, using the chemicals and supplies on hand at the salon. Guzman was performing this service for her sister for free. Guzman testified credibly, and the undersigned finds, that Guzman was not paid any money for coloring her sister's hair. There was, moreover, neither clear and convincing, nor even merely persuasive, evidence that Guzman received any other service or thing of value in consideration for the work that she performed on her sister's hair. Based on the instant record, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Guzman received no "compensation"— —as that term is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G5-18.00015——in exchange for performing the service of coloring her sister's hair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order acquitting Guzman of the charges that the Department brought against her in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2006 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Reyna I. Guzman 2257 Southwest 3 Street Miami, Florida 33135 Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0790 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Arled Corp., d/b/a Cadris Hair Design, has been licensed to operate a cosmetology salon in the State of Florida, having previously been issued license number CE 0046212. At all times material to this case, the Respondent corporation has been the owner and operator of a cosmetology salon known as Cadris Hair Design, which is located at 13635 Southwest 26th Street, Miami, Florida 33175-6377. On December 26, 1991, during the course of a routine inspection, an inspector employed by the Department of Professional Regulation discovered that Liliam de la Portilla was practicing a cosmetology specialty on the licensed premises without having a valid license to practice a cosmetology specialty. Further investigation revealed that Liliam de la Portilla had been practicing a cosmetology specialty on a regular basis on the licensed premises since approximately the middle of September of 1991. Liliam de la Portilla has previously been licensed to practice a cosmetology specialty, but her last license expired on June 30, 1990. During the period from the middle of September of 1991 through December 26, 1991, Liliam de la Portilla did not have a valid license to practice a cosmetology specialty in the State of Florida. Ms. Gladys Scheer is, and was at all material times, the president of and owner of Arled Corporation. Ms. Scheer granted permission for Liliam de la Portilla to practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design. Liliam de la Portilla was not an employee of Cadris Hair Design, but merely paid rent for the right to practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design. Ms. Gladys Scheer has known Liliam de la Portilla for approximately ten years. Ms. Scheer knew that Liliam de la Portilla had previously been licensed to practice a cosmetology specialty and assumed, but did not verify, that Liliam de la Portilla was still licensed. In September of 1991 when Ms. Scheer first allowed Liliam de la Portilla to practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design, she was not aware that Liliam de la Portilla's license had expired. Following the inspection on December 26, 1991, Ms. Gladys Scheer told Liliam de la Portilla that the latter could no longer practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design until such time as she was properly licensed.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order concluding that the Respondent is guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty consisting of a reprimand and an administrative fine in the amount of $100.00. 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. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire N-607 Rhode Building Phase 2 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Bureau Chief Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Ms. Gladys Scheer, President Cadris Hair Design 13635 Southwest 26th Street Miami, Florida 33175-6377 Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the respective Administrative Complaints filed in this case and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Tracey Renee Monroe, was licensed by the Florida Cosmetology Board, and Respondent, Martha Hylton, was licensed by the Florida Cosmetology Board. On or around December 10, 1988, customer, Mary Jean Hampton went to Cora's Beauty Salon in Miami, Florida, to have her hair done by her usual cosmetologist, Martha Hylton. Ms. Hampton had been a regular customer of Ms. Hylton for approximately two years. When Ms. Hampton arrived, Ms. Hylton examined Ms. Hampton's hair, and they both decided that it was time to apply a chemical relaxer to Ms. Hampton's hair. Without performing a test of the chemical's reaction to a strand of Ms. Hampton's hair (strand test), Ms. Hylton proceeded with the application using a chemical she had used previously on Ms. Hampton's hair. When the chemical was removed, a substantial portion of hair in the crown area of Ms. Hampton head broke, leaving her with the appearance of spot balding. Ms. Hampton also suffered from a pre-existing skin condition which Ms. Hylton protected with base. When the breakage was noted, Ms. Hylton conferred with other cosmetologists in the salon and with Ms. Hampton. Ms. Hampton then mentioned that she had recently used a shampoo and conditioner, Flex, which she had not previously used. A decision was made that Respondent, Tracey Renee Monroe, would apply a procedure, bonding, to Ms. Hylton's head. Bonding involves gluing hair to the scalp and weaving the glued hair in with the remaining hair. The damage to Ms. Hampton hair was caused by the chemical relaxer. The proof failed to demonstrate that the bonding procedure contributed to the hair loss. Although performing a strand test prior to any chemical application on the hair is the acceptable procedure, the proof demonstrated that the practice is not consistently followed when a practitioner is familiar with a client's hair as Ms. Hylton knew Ms. Hampton's hair. On balance, the proof fails to demonstrate that either Respondent, Tracey Renee Monroe or that, Respondent, Martha Hylton, committed fraud, deceit, gross negligence, incompetency or misconduct within the intent of the Florida Cosmetology Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, as to Respondent, Martha Hylton, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be dismissed.; and Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, as to Respondent, Tracey Renee Monroe, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th of August 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 August 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobi Pam, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 James W. Evans, Esquire Post Office Box 420187 Miami, Florida 33142 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Florida Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed cosmetologist in Florida and was so licensed at all times here relevant. In January, 1983, Respondent began employment as a cosmetologist at the Rose Unisex Hair Salon in Clearwater, Florida. This salon was owned by Rose Sousa, who had advertised the salon for sale. In response to that ad Respondent commenced working at the salon to learn if the salon would be a profitable purchase. In April, 1983, Respondent executed a chattel mortgage agreement in favor of Rose Sousa and her husband, Joe, in consideration of the transfer of the salon to her. An assignment of the lease was contingent on the payment of this chattel mortgage. The agreement further provided that Rose Sousa would continue working at the salon for one year. On May 2, 1983, Respondent gave Sousa a cashier's check for $7,000 which Respondent had borrowed from a friend, in satisfaction of the chattel mortgage. At this time the salon was licensed in the name of Rose Sousa and this license was due to expire in a few months. Respondent believed she could operate under that license until it expired and would then be required to put the salon license in her name. On June 21, 1983, an inspector from the Department of Regulations visited the salon and checked the license of Mary Carroll, who told him she owned the salon, and the salon license which still showed Rose Sousa as owner. Some three weeks after the closing Rose Sousa quit working at the salon and most of the customers left with her. Respondent testified that Rose Sousa had opened a salon in her garage and was servicing her customers there. Regardless of this allegation, the business dropped drastically, Respondent was unable to pay the rent, and the salon was padlocked by the owner of the building. Respondent subsequently declared bankruptcy. But for a friend who took her in as a houseguest, Respondent would, literally, have been out on the street.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Secret de Femme d/b/a Secret de Femme Hair Sculpture, operates a cosmetology salon at 65 Northwest 54th Street, Miami, Florida. It is the holder of cosmetology salon license number 0040317 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology (Board). Respondent, Gaston Eugene, does not hold any licenses issued by the Board. On or about November 5, 1987, a Board investigator, Frank Hautzinger, made a routine inspection of respondent's salon. 1/ When he entered the premises, he found a few persons in the salon, including one seated in a barber's chair. According to Hautzinger, respondent, Gaston Eugene, was "finishing up" the person seated in the chair. By this, Hautzinger meant that Eugene was brushing around the person's neck and collar as if he had just given that person a haircut. However, he did not actually see Eugene cutting hair, and Eugene received no compensation for his "services." Because Eugene speaks little or no English, Hautzinger was unable to carry on a meaningful dialogue with Eugene. He did learn that Eugene did not have a cosmetology license. A short time later, one of the owners, Amantha Jean-Joseph, returned to the salon. When questioned by Hautzinger about Eugene, she described Eugene as a temporary employee obtained through a local employment service. However, at hearing she denied making this statement. Both owners emphatically denied that Eugene was authorized to cut hair. Instead, they described his role as being limited to cleaning up the working area, cleaning barber tools, and opening and closing the shop. According to Amantha, on the day that Hautzinger visited the shop, Eugene had simply agreed to cut a nose hair of a friend and nothing more.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges be DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 22nd day of April, 1988.
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
