Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1968, the Respondent, Elke H. M. Richey, was issued cosmetology license number CL 0060439 by the Florida Board of Cosmetology. The Respondent renewed this license as required until June 30, 1982. However, during the period from July 1, 1982, through January 10, 1983, the Respondent did not hold an active license to practice cosmetology. On November 18, 1982, Agostino Lucente, an inspector employed by the Department of Professional Regulation, went to the premises of a business named Hair Fashions by Elke, located at 1790 State Road 13, Switzerland, Florida to conduct an inspection. This business was selected for inspection because it appeared on a list of cosmetology salons whose licenses were not current. The Respondent was present during this inspection, and she admitted that she was the owner of the salon. Although the Respondent was not actually observed performing any cosmetology services, the inspector observed the Respondent make appointments for such services by telephone and with persons who came in. In addition, there was on the premises equipment used in the practice of cosmetology such as hair dryers and shampoo stations, hair rollers, creams and lotions. There was an exterior sign advertising Hair Fashions by Elke, there were business cards available for distribution inside the premises, the salon was open for business and there was displayed an occupational license with the Respondent's name on it. This evidence supports a finding that the Respondent was engaged in the practice of cosmetology. On November 24, 1980, the Florida Board of Cosmetology issued to the Respondent license number CE 0030890 for a cosmetology salon named Hair Fashions by Elke, located at 1790 State Road 13, Switzerland, Florida. This license expired on June 30, 1982, and it was not in effect when the Respondent's salon was inspected on November 18, 1982. After the inspection of November 18, 1982, the Respondent attempted to renew her cosmetology license number CL 0060439 and her cosmetology salon license number CE 0030890. On January 11, 1983, the Board of Cosmetology issued a renewal of the Respondent's cosmetology license number CL 0060439, but it did not issue to the Respondent a renewal of her cosmetology salon license number CE 0030890, and the Respondent eventually sold Hair Fashions by Elke in August of 1983.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Elke H. M. Richey, be found guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and that license number CL 0060439 be suspended for one year as penalty for count one, and that the Board of Cosmetology issue a reprimand to the Respondent, Elke H. M. Richey, as penalty for count two. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 9th day of December, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 9th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Elke H. M. Richey 1790 State Road 13 Switzerland, Florida 32043 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation - Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent held a salon registration certificate at the time of this violation. The salon certificate of registration was not displayed inasmuch as the certificate was for a salon from which Respondent had moved and Respondent had not secured a certificate for the salon in which she was operating. Respondent has secured a certificate of registration to operate the beauty salon in which she is not operating. The Notice to appear, Complaint, and receipt for certified mail was entered into evidence as Composite Exhibit 1 without objection.
Recommendation Suspend the certificate of registration of the Respondent for a period of thirty (30) days or less. August 29, 1975 (date) Delphine C. Strickland Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ms. Artie Leigh Mitchell 427 Roosevelt Avenue Merritt Island, Florida Ms. Bertha Stockton 1717-16th Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 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, Complaintant, vs. CASE NO. 75-1013 BERTHA STOCKTON, Respondent. /
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Sections 477.15(8), 477.231(c) & (2), Florida Statutes, Rules 21F-3.01 & 21F-3.10, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent was furnished notice of hearing and acknowledged receipt of said notice and the administrative complaint. (Exhibit 2)
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a certificate as a master cosmetologist 0048790 issued by Petitioner on an unspecified date. He also holds a certificate of registration to operate a cosmetology salon license #22903 issued by Petitioner on February 2, 1976. The salon is called Mister Andrew Coiffure, and is located at 1259 East Los Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On January 28, 1976, Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's place of business, but Respondent was absent. The inspector had visited the shop on previous occasions at which time the Respondent had told him he was in the process of buying the salon, and the inspector had left an application for a state certificate of registration for a cosmetology salon. The inspector noticed there was no sign near the front door indicating that the premises were occupied by beauty or cosmetology salon. There was a card in the window which read "Mister Andrew Coiffure" (Testimony of Rubin). Respondent submitted a letter on his behalf dated June 9, 1976, which stated that he had not owned the salon at the time Petitioner's inspector had provided him with application forms for a state license. He claimed that he had had a card attached to the sign in his window which read "Beauty Salon" on January 28, 1976, but that since the inspector had not been satisfied with the card he has since changed the sign and put up 1 inch decal letters on the door spelling "Beauty Salon" (Exhibit 1). Respondent's application for a salon certificate was executed on January 29, 1976 and received by Petitioner on February 2, 1976.
Recommendation That the allegations against the 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 (904) 488-8675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P. O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Charles R. Gannon c/o Mister Andrew Coiffure 1259 East Las Olas Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
The Issue The issue at the hearing was whether Respondent's cosmetology salon license was subject to discipline for alleged violations of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated thereunder.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Hattie Nesbit, is licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. The Respondent also holds a Florida cosmetology salon license for her beauty salon, Nesbit's Beauty Salon. 1/ Ms. Nesbit works part-time at her salon. She employs two to three other very experienced licensed cosmetologists. The salon has four beauty stations. Ms. Nesbit's beauty station is the first station after entering the salon premises. The other employees occupy the other stations. They are aware of the Board's rules for the operation and sanitation of a beauty salon. Additionally, Respondent has the Board's sanitation rules posted on the wall of the salon. The salon in general is clean and well-kept. Eileen Thomas, the Petitioner's inspector, conducted a random inspection of the Respondent's salon on February 21, 1989. Ms. Nesbit was not present during the inspection. While there the inspector observed that the container for the deposit of hair was a garbage can located in the back room. The room was closed off from the beauty salon. At the time of the inspection the container had hair in it. The garbage can cover was not on the container and the lid was not located at the time of the inspection. The Board's rules provide that a lid must be kept on the container for the deposit of hair. Respondent's receptacle for the deposit of hair was not maintained in such a manner. Therefore, Respondent is subject to discipline under the Board's rules governing the maintenance of container for the deposit of hair. The inspector, also, observed Ms. Blount, one of the beauticians employed by Respondent, apply chemicals to a patron's hair without using a spatula. Since Ms. Nesbit was not present at the salon she was unaware of the employee's disregard of the Board's rule that all chemicals be applied with a spatula. However, the salon owner is the person responsible for the operation of the salon and is responsible for violations committed by the employees of the salon. Respondent's lack of knowledge only goes to mitigate the penalty which should be imposed for the employee's failure to observe the Board's rules. The evidence showed that Respondent had reasonably instructed her employees on sanitary procedure and required them to follow that procedure. Respondent posted the sanitation rules on the wall of the salon as a reminder of those rules. Respondent's violation is nominal. In light of these facts Respondent should receive a nominal penalty. A letter of reprimand would be an appropriate penalty for this type of violation. Additionally, the inspector observed that the wet sanitizers located in four of the stations at the salon were only one third to one half full of a sanitizing solution. A wet sanitizer is any type of container that is large enough to hold a sanitizing solution in which a comb or brush can be completely immersed for proper sanitation. In this case, the containers provided by Respondent were large enough to allow for the complete immersion of a comb or brush in a sanitizing solution. There were combs and brushes in the wet sanitizers at the four stations. Those combs and brushes were not completely immersed in the sanitizing solution because the solution was low. The Rule on the provision of wet sanitizers does not require that the containers be filled all the time. The rule only requires that the containers be large enough to allow for immersion. The Rule requires only that a comb or brush be immersed prior to its use. The Rule does not require that a comb or brush be immersed all of the time. In this case Respondent provided containers of the correct size. However, no evidence was presented that the Respondent's operators were using the combs or brushes in the wet sanitizers without first properly sanitizing them. The fact that the jars were low in solution at the limited point in time of the inspection does not clearly and convincingly support a conclusion that Respondent's operators were not utilizing proper sanitation procedures before the combs and brushes were used on a customer. Without evidence of such use Respondent cannot be guilty of a violation of the Board's rule on the provision of wet sanitizers and the sanitation of combs or brushes before their use.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order reprimanding Respondent for violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes and imposing a $25 fine. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 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 19th day of December, 1989.
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent William L. Hamilton should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for violation of Section 477.27(5) and 477.17, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, to-wit: 21F-3.01 in that said Respondent was charged with operating a cosmetologist salon without a salon license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent William L. Hamilton received notice of this hearing and in his election of remedies stated that the violation notice did not constitute a violation of law and sent a letter of explanation as to the violation notice and stated that he would not attend this hearing. Inspector Madge Evans of the State Board of Cosmetology entered the salon operated by William L. Hamilton as Bill's Hair Shack in Palatka, Florida in which he was doing business without a salon license. Mrs. Evans notified the Respondent that he must apply for an obtain a salon license before operating a beauty salon and left an application form with Respondent. On several occasions the inspector for the Board entered a place of business in which William L. Hamilton was operating a beauty salon without a salon license. The salon license is not transferable from location to location and each location that is to be used as a beauty salon must be certified by the Board and a salon license issued. Respondent Hamilton is not now operating a beauty salon under a valid beauty salon license and salon license No. 22621, which Respondent holds is now invalid inasmuch as the location has burned. He holds personal license No. 62269 which entitles him to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Suspend the personal license No. 62269 of Respondent William L. Hamilton for a period of three months for violation of Section 477.15, Florida Statutes and 477.17(s). DONE and ORDERED this 23rd 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 William L. Hamilton Route 1, Box 30 East Palatka, Florida 32301 Mrs. Mary Alice Palmer Post Office Box 9087 Board of Cosmetology Winter Haven, Florida 33880 =================================================================
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 Patricia Strange began as a cosmetologist in North Carolina in 1966. Since October of 1977 she has practiced cosmetology in Panama City, Florida. The administrative complaint filed in the present case is the first complaint ever made by any public authority against her as a cosmetologist. Ms. Strange holds cosmetology license No. CL0059441. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. On November 13, 1970, the State Board of Cosmetology issued a "Certificate of Registration To Operate A Cosmetology Salon," No. 14877, for Pat's Petite Beauty Salon, 1848 Beck Avenue, Panama City, Florida. Under this license, respondent Strange operated a beauty salon for ten or eleven years. In early 1981, the building in which respondent operated her salon was sold, and she was asked to move the salon. She was given one month's notice that the salon lease, which expired April 30, 1981, would not be renewed. During the busy month that ensued, she effected a move to a new building at 2347 St. Andrews Boulevard in Panama City, where she opened for business under the name St. Lynn Gallery of Hair Design on the first Wednesday in May of 1981. She inquired about her city occupational license and was told that she need not worry about getting another until her current occupational license expired. Respondent was unaware of any requirement to obtain a new salon license from petitioner, until August 20, 1981. Charles I. Deckard, an investigator in petitioner's employ, called on respondent on August 20, 1981. When she showed him the salon license, he told her she needed to secure another license for the new location and issued a citation. The very next day respondent closed her shop, telephoned petitioner's Tallahassee office to inquire what documents she would need to secure a new salon license, gathered up all such documents, and made the trip to Tallahassee. She took with her a $40 cashier's check in petitioner's favor, as payment for a new salon license, dated August 21, 1981. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. Petitioner then issued a new cosmetology salon license to respondent for St. Lynn Gallery of Hair Design.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Cosmetology reprimand respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 20th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Russell R. Stewart, Esquire Post Office Box 2542 Panama City, Florida 32401 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 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.
