The Issue Whether the Respondent did practice cosmetology in her home without a valid salon license in violation of Section 477.02(1)(3), F.S. and Rule 21F-3.10, F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Brenda J. Lopsenzski is the holder of cosmetology license No. 0081729. Mrs. Margaret L. Boswell, Inspector for the Board of Cosmetology, entered the home of Respondent at which time Respondent was shampooing a lady's hair in her home. The home was not properly equipped as a beauty salon at the time of the inspection b Mrs. Boswell and there were no patrons in the home other than the lady upon whose hair the Respondent was working. The testimony of the Respondent which I believe to be the facts and which were not denied by the Inspector for the Board were as follows: Respondent held a junior license and in order to keep her skill and in order to do favors for a few friends, would style hair for these friends. She charged them no fee and "practiced" both for her benefit and the benefit of a few friends. The actions of Respondent as shown by the testimony and evidence are not a violation of Chapter 477, F.S. or Rule 21F-3.10, F.A.C.
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of August, 1976. 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 Brenda J. Lopsenzski 406 North Boyd Street Winter Garden, Florida
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 477.029(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2007),1/ regulating licensure as a cosmetologist by the State of Florida, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 477, Florida Statutes (2015). The Board is the professional licensing board charged with disciplinary final agency action against cosmetologists pursuant to chapters 455 and 477. Ms. Jorge was issued Florida cosmetology license number CL 1196463 on April 9, 2008. The Florida license was issued based upon the submission of an application for initial cosmetology license by endorsement. Supporting licensure by endorsement, the application submitted to the Board included a certification dated February 15, 2007, purporting to have been issued by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. That certification indicated that Tania Jorge2/ had completed 1200 hours of study and had been duly licensed as a certified cosmetologist since January 26, 1989. It indicated that her Puerto Rican license number was 71770. Ms. Jorge's application file also contained a transcript purportedly issued by the Academia de Belleza Maruggie in Puerto Rico indicating that her studies began on August 7, 1988, and were completed on May 30, 1989, reflecting the completion of 18 courses totaling 1200 hours of study, and the name, number, and grade received by Ms. Jorge for each course taken.3/ Puerto Rican cosmetology license number 71770 was never issued to Ms. Jorge. Ms. Jorge came to the United States from Cuba in 1980. She testified at hearing that she had never attended cosmetology school in Puerto Rico, had never lived there, and in fact had only visited there once for a few hours on a cruise. Ms. Jorge testified that she went to Specialized Beauty Center (SBC) in Kissimmee in order to prepare for and complete the Florida cosmetology licensure examination. She testified that she paid SBC for a week-long review course to prepare for the examination and that the following week SBC sent her to a different place to take the examination. She testified that she took the examination on a computer, in Spanish. She could not recall the address. Ms. Jorge testified that prior to the examination, she submitted documentation to SBC at its request showing that she had completed 1200 hours of study and completed a course on HIV. She testified that she thought she had completed all of the coursework necessary to obtain cosmetology licensure by examination. Ms. Jorge testified that she did not know that SBC had submitted an endorsement application and not an examination application. The only document introduced at hearing indicating completion of 1200 hours of study is the transcript from the Puerto Rican beauty school in Ms. Jorge's application file. The only document showing completion of an HIV course in her file is a Certificate of Completion for a four-hour course entitled "HIV/Aids 104" and dated March 17, 2008, indicating by heading and signature that it was issued by SBC. Ms. Jorge admitted that she did take that course at SBC. It was not clear why SBC would have required her to take another HIV course if she had submitted documentation showing that she had already met that requirement. Ms. Julie Roland, government analyst with the Department, credibly testified that the cosmetology exam is given at 22 locations around the state by a vendor company called Pearson VUE. She testified that Pearson VUE specializes in developing and administering various types of examinations, has had the state contract at least since 2002, and always gives the examinations at their facilities. There was no documentation in Ms. Jorge's application file from Pearson VUE indicating that Ms. Jorge had taken or passed their cosmetology examination. As Ms. Roland testified, endorsement candidates do not take the examination. Ms. Jorge's application file maintained by the Department contains some documents that do not belong there, although they are all marked with her application number. Her file contains duplicate "Attest Statement" pages: one is signed by Ms. Jorge; the other appears to contain the signature of a Katia (with no letter "h") Mathelier. It similarly contains two "Affirmation Statement" pages: one containing the signature of Ms. Jorge; the other containing a signature reading Katia Mathelier. Curiously, the Affirmation Statement page from the cosmetology license application file of Kathia (with an "h") Mathelier and the Mathelier Affirmation Statement page in Ms. Jorge's file are not identical. Not only is the first name spelled differently, the signatures appear to be in different handwriting, and they display different dates. Similarly, the two Mathelier Attest Statement forms are not simply duplicates. The name is spelled and written differently. It is not clear why the Department did not become aware of these anomalies at the time Ms. Jorge's application was submitted, when it did become aware of them, or what action, if any, was taken when it was discovered.4/ Licensing information records of the Department indicate that Kathia Mathelier is an Orlando cosmetologist who was initially licensed on April 9, 2008. Her application also contains a certificate from SBC showing completion of the HIV/AIDS 104 course. Her application also contains a certification dated February 15, 2007, purporting to have been issued by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico indicating that Kathia Mathelier was the holder of a Puerto Rican cosmetology license. Her application also contains a transcript purportedly issued by the Academia de Belleza Maruggie in Puerto Rico showing the completion of the same 18 courses totaling 1200 hours of study, the same beginning and ending dates of enrollment, exactly the same grade received in every course, and the same typographical errors as the transcript in Ms. Jorge's file. Ms. Jorge testified at hearing that she had no knowledge of Ms. Mathelier and that she did not submit any documents to SBC that were not her own. She testified that SBC prepared and organized all of the application paperwork for her and that she just signed where they told her she needed to sign. The remainder of the application was not in her handwriting. Ms. Jorge signed her application everywhere a signature was required prior to its submission to the Board, and she acknowledged that signing a document places liability on the signee for the contents of that document. There was no deposition or live testimony from Ms. Mathelier at the hearing. There was no testimony from SBC. There was none from the Academia de Belleza Maruggie. No evidence was introduced as to the roles that Academia de Belleza Maruggie or SBC may have played in the fraud, or the relationship between these entities. The inconsistencies and questions about the application are not fully explained on this record, and any complicity on the part of the schools is only a matter of speculation. Ms. Jorge's testimony is not at all credible, however. No evidence in the record supports Ms. Jorge's testimony that she completed 1200 hours of study at a school other than the Puerto Rican school. It is simply not reasonable that SBC discarded school transcripts she provided to it and unilaterally substituted a different forged transcript and a false licensure certification from Puerto Rico without the knowledge or cooperation of Ms. Jorge. The only reasonable inference is that Ms. Jorge paid SBC to submit her licensure application on her behalf, that she was aware that it contained false information, and that she knew she was not licensed as a cosmetologist in any jurisdiction. The evidence is clear and convincing that false documents were submitted to obtain Ms. Jorge's license and that she personally intended for that false application to be submitted. Ms. Jorge is a single mother of two children, one of whom is in college. Revocation of her license will greatly impact her livelihood. Other than the present action, she has practiced cosmetology without complaint since she was licensed in 2008, and no previous discipline has been imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation finding Tania Jorge in violation of section 477.029(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2007), as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; imposing an administrative fine of $500; and revoking her license to practice as a cosmetologist in the State of Florida. It is further recommended that should the board establish, by rule, requirements for reapplication by applicants whose licenses have been revoked, that Tania Jorge be permitted to apply for re-licensure upon satisfying then-current requirements for an initial license. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Certificate No. 11680. The Complaint, Notice of Hearing, and receipt of certified mail were offered into evidence as requested without objection and marked Exhibit 1. Respondent failed to have her photograph with her certificate of registration after repeated warnings by the employee of the Board whose duty is to see that Chapter 477, F.S., and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder are adhered to by those persons holding certificate of registration from the State Board of Cosmetology.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 477.02(6); 477.15(8); 477.27(1), Florida Statutes by allowing an unlicensed person to practice cosmetology in the Respondent's salon. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner-manager of the salon doing business as Hairworks, 600 East Business Hwy. 98, Panama City, Florida. Respondent appeared and admitted the fact of the two violations with which the Florida Board of Cosmetology had charged him and which were the subject of this hearing. Respondent admitted allowing Mary Whitfield to practice cosmetology in his salon with a valid cosmetology license. Said Mary Whitfield, has, as of the date of this hearing, a current Florida Cosmetology License No. 19649.
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.
The Issue Whether the certificate of registration No. 866914 should be revoked, annulled, suspended or withdrawn for violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, for practicing without a license.
Findings Of Fact Receipt for certified mail notifying Respondent of this hearing was offered into evidence as Exhibit 1 and marked without objection. The Election of Remedies, a composite exhibit marked Exhibit 2, was entered as requested without objection. Respondent was charged for practicing cosmetology without a license. Respondent admitted the violation and submitted such plea to the Board which was included in the Board's Exhibit 1. After the violation for which Ms. Gould was noticed and for which this hearing is held, Respondent took the examination for master cosmetologists, passed the examination, and was issued a Florida license.
Recommendation Suspend the certificate of registration Respondent now holds for a period of one (1) week. 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. Gertie Campbell 7409 Huntley Avenue Tampa, Florida Ms. Rose Gould 1904 Bruce Street Kissimmee, Florida 32741 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. 75-1016 LICENSE NO. 86691 Rose Gould, Respondent. /
