The Issue Whether Respondent, Bernice Benbow, allowed a non-licensed person to practice cosmetology in her beauty salon. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn, or suspended, or whether some other disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Bernice Benbow is doing business as Bernice's Beauty Salon in Cocoa, Florida. Notice of Service was entered without objection and marked Exhibit 1. The Complaint with the license attached thereto was entered into evidence as Exhibit 2 without objection. Respondent was working in said salon on the date reported herein and left the salon during working hours. Carrie Shingles, a non-licensed, non-registered person, washed the hair of a customer at said salon on said date. Carrie Shingles was not employed to serve as a cosmetologist and is not a registered cosmetologist. Carrie Shingles denied that she had the permission of Respondent to practice cosmetology. Said witness said that her duties were to fold towels and perform other non- cosmetology duties in the salon. When Respondent, Bernice Benbow, returned to the salon on the day in question, she set the hair of the customer that Carrie Shingles had shampooed and collected a fee for said shampoo and set but denied that she gave permission to Carrie Shingles to shampoo said customer.
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 Mrs. Marge Edwards, Inspector with the Florida State Board of Cosmetology, issued a notice of violation citing Respondent for "owner leaving one cosmetologist, one student permit working alone". The time of the violation notice was dated 2:10 p.m. on June 1, 1974. Respondent George D'Zanko was out of the George D's beauty salon, a business which he owns and operates as the master cosmetologist on June 1, 1974 during the hours which includes 2:10 p.m. Mr. D'Zanko admits that he was out of the shop at that time. Respondent entered a motion to dismiss contending that Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, did not require his presence in the shop while the cosmetologists were working therein. Section 477.04, Florida Statutes, states "no registered cosmetologists may independently practice cosmetology, but he may as a cosmetologist do any or all of the acts constituting the practice of cosmetology under the immediate personal supervision of a registered master cosmetologist". The attorney for Respondent D'Zanko equates Chapter 476, Florida Statutes, which regulates barbers with Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, which regulates cosmetologists, and cites Lett vs. Florida Barbers Salary Commission, Fla. App. 247 So.2d 335, for his position that inasmuch as Respondent was in the neighborhood of the salon the actual presence of Respondent was not necessary. The Board contends that the Respondent allowed a cosmetologist to practice cosmetology without the presence and supervision of a master cosmetologist in violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. The Board contends that the presence of a master cosmetologist in a salon where the art of cosmetology is being practiced is a protection for the public and that Respondent allowed his shop to be operated without the supervision of a master cosmetologist. That the license of the Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended. The Hearing Officer finds: That Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, requires that a master cosmetologist be present in a cosmetology salon at all times when the art of cosmetology is being practiced; That Respondent George D'Zanko, the owner of the salon, Styles by George D', Inc., allowed cosmetology to be practiced in his salon at a time when there was no master cosmetologist therein; That the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist is a protection for the customers in the application of materials used in practicing the art of cosmetology.
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 to the instant case, a State of Florida-licensed cosmetologist (license number CL 0127356) and the owner and operator of Marie's Beauty Salon, a State of Florida-licensed cosmetology salon (license number CE 0040980) located in Fort Lauderdale. Leonard Baldwin is an inspector with the Department. Baldwin has conducted various inspections of Marie's Beauty Salon. His last inspection was conducted on April 24, 1992. 2/ Nancy Victor is not now, nor has she ever been, licensed to practice cosmetology, or any specialty area thereof, in the State of Florida. Victor was hired by Respondent to work as a shampooist in Respondent's salon. Her first day of work was April 24, 1992. At around noon on that day the mother of a young customer walked into the salon to pick up her daughter. The daughter, however, was not ready to leave. She still had rollers in her hair. The mother was in a hurry. She approached Victor and asked her to remove the rollers from her daughter's hair. Victor obliged the mother and began removing the rollers. Respondent, who was working on the hair of a customer seated in the chair next to the one in which the daughter was seated, overheard the discussion between the mother and Victor. Respondent was aware that it was unlawful for a person to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida without a license. Furthermore, she knew that Victor did not have a license to practice cosmetology in this state. Nonetheless, inasmuch as she was busy with another customer and Victor did not have any shampooing that she needed to do, Respondent allowed Victor to remove the rollers from the daughter's hair. As Victor was removing the roller's from the daughter's hair, Baldwin entered the salon to conduct a routine inspection. When Respondent saw Baldwin, she instructed Victor to stop what she was doing and leave the area. Victor did what she was told and went to the rear of the salon. Respondent then went over to the daughter and finished removing the rollers from her hair.
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 finding that Respondent violated Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and fining her $75.00 for having committed said violation. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of September, 1992. 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 15th day of September, 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Katherine Zavattaro was licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CL 0076721. At all times material hereto, Katherine Zavattaro was licensed to operate a cosmetology salon named Kit's Beauty Spot and located at 3169 East Atlantic Boulevard, Pompano Beach, Florida. On January 25, 1968, Linda Jones was issued Florida cosmetologist license number CL 0060025. This license was subject to a biennial renewal condition that required it to be renewed by June 30 of each even-numbered year. (See Rule 21F-18.06, F.A.C. quoted in pertinent part below). On January 26, 1984, an inspector employed by Petitioner, observed Jones performing cosmetology services during a routine cosmetology salon inspection of Kit's Beauty Spot. Jones was unable to produce a current, active Florida cosmetologist license upon demand by the inspector. The license posted at Jones' work station had expired on June 30, 1982. Jones told the inspector that she had mistakenly left her current license at home. However, a check of Petitioner's licensing records indicated that Jones had never renewed the license which expired on June 30, 1982. A further check of Petitioner's files subsequent to the hearing revealed no correspondence or other evidence which would support Jones' claim. Jones testified under oath at hearing that in May, 1982, she applied to renew her Florida cosmetologist license. She further testified that around August, 1982, when she had not yet received her renewed license, she made a telephone call to Tallahassee, and was informed that her renewal application had not been received. She testified that in October or November, 1982, she reapplied to renew her cosmetologist license and that near the end of December, 1982, she received her renewed license. Respondent Jones was unable to produce any documentary evidence to corroborate this testimony. She stated that she apparently lost the license as well as the money order receipt which would have supported her claim that she tendered the license renewal fee. Petitioner and Respondent Jones were given a further opportunity to search for evidence of license renewal or attempted renewal. However, no late-filed exhibits were submitted which would support Jones' testimony. At all times material hereto, Katherine Zavattaro was the owner of Kit's Beauty Spot. In June, 1982, she hired Linda Jones to work there as a cosmetologist while Jones' license was still active. She did not require Jones to produce a current Florida cosmetologist license thereafter, and apparently relied on Jones' claim of renewal and her own knowledge that Jones had previously been employed at other cosmetology salons. Jones continued to work for Zavattaro as a cosmetologist at Kit's Beauty Spot, and was so employed at the time of Petitioner's inspection on January 26, 1984. The conflicting evidence regarding Jones' licensure status is resolved against her. Respondent Jones' inability to produce any evidence to support her testimony that she had paid for and/or been issued a license, along, with the absence in Petitioner's public records of any evidence that such license had been applied for, paid for or issued, establish that Jones' testimony is a product of mistake or fabrication.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order fining Respondent Linda Jones $500, and issuing a reprimand to Respondent Katherine Zavattaro, DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 13th day of September, 1984.
