The Issue Whether Respondent Margrea Hudson allowed a nonlicensed person to practice cosmetology in her salon d/b/a Margrea's Beauty Salon in Lakeland, Florida.
Findings Of Fact A copy of the Administrative Complaint with Election of Remedies, Salon License No.l 6766, and the receipt for certified mail were received into evidence without objection and marked Composite Exhibit 1. Respondent admitted that she was guilty of the violation charged.
The Issue Whether Respondent practiced cosmetology in a salon in Florida without a Florida cosmetologist license as required by Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent admitted the violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, as charged by the Florida State Board of Cosmetology. Respondent practiced cosmetology without a Florida license. Respondent now has a current Florida Cosmetologist License No. 19649.
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.
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.
The Issue Whether Respondent allowed cosmetologists to work in Otto's Beauty Salon without a master cosmetologist being present. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn, or suspended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent appeared in person and admitted the violation as charged by the Complainant. Respondent is the occasional manager of Otto's Beauty Salon. Respondent is the master cosmetologist and the only master cosmetologist working in Otto's Beauty Salon. Respondent was absent from the shop as charged by the Board during working hours and during the time cosmetologists were working in said salon.
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.
