The Issue The issue presented 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 At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed by the State of Florida as a cosmetologist, having been issued license number CL200634. At all times material hereto, her business, Karline's Beauty Spa of the Palm Beaches, has been a licensed cosmetology salon, having been issued license number CE74123. On Friday, September 26, 2003, the Department's inspector Yvonne Grutka performed an inspection of Karline's Beauty Spa from 3:24 to 4:35 p.m. When she arrived, she noticed a pregnant woman styling a female client's hair with marcel irons. When the pregnant woman saw Grutka, she left her client and left the salon. Grutka asked Respondent the identity of the pregnant woman, and Respondent told her the woman was Venus Pope. Respondent then showed Grutka a license with Venus Pope's photograph on it, but the picture did not look like the woman who had been styling the client's hair. At first, Respondent represented that Venus Pope had gone to lunch and would return. Later, Respondent said the Pope had gone to pick up her children and would not return until the following Wednesday. However, Grutka checked the computer at the front desk and learned that Pope was scheduled to work the following day, Saturday, September 27. Grutka subsequently returned to the salon when Pope was working. She asked the woman her name, and the woman identified herself as Venus Pope. Pope was not the pregnant woman who had been styling the female client's hair. Grutka concluded that Respondent was interfering with her inspection by not properly identifying the pregnant woman who was styling hair. Grutka noticed that various personal items and papers were located in the same open drawer in which sanitized combs and brushes were being stored. A blow dryer was also resting on the open drawer. The salon's license and previous inspection sheet were not displayed within view of the front door, as required. In addition, the stylists' licenses with their photographs were not displayed at their workstations, as required. These violations were admitted by Respondent during the final hearing. When Grutka arrived at the salon on September 26 Respondent was in her office in the back of the salon and was not "on the floor."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,600 to be paid within 30 days of the date the final order is entered. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 17th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Malone, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Karline Ricketts, pro se 1900 Okeechobee Boulevard, South 8A West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of Florida statutes relating to the operation of a cosmetology salon, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Board of Cosmetology. Petitioner contends that the Respondent was properly notified of her responsibility to renew her cosmetology salon license and that she failed to do so. Respondent contends that she was never properly notified of this new statutory responsibility.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been licensed as a cosmetologist in the State of Florida. She holds License No. CL- 0071047 issued by the Board of Cosmetology. For many years, and at all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has owned and operated a cosmetology salon named "Ramona's Beauty Salon." The salon is located at 130 Dixie Highway, Auburndale, Florida. The salon has, at all material times, been open for business and doing business with the general public as a cosmetology salon. Prior to July 1, 1980, cosmetology salons were required to be registered with the Board of Cosmetology; however, there was no requirement that the registration, once obtained, be renewed. Registration of a salon was permanent. In 1978, the Legislature amended provisions of law relating to registration of cosmetology salons. Effective July 1, 1980, cosmetology salons were required to have renewed their salon license and to renew it again every two years. Because of the change in the law which imposed a new obligation to renew the registration for a salon, the Board of Cosmetology endeavored to advise its licensees of the obligation to renew the salon registration. In March, 1980, the Board mailed a newsletter to its salon licensees advising them about the change in the law. In May, 1980, the Board mailed renewal cards to its licensees. The cards were to be filled out and returned to the Board with the appropriate fee. The Board endeavored to send these notices to its salon licensees at their currently registered addresses. The address that the Board had for the Respondent's salon was the proper one. The Respondent did not receive the notices. The evidence does not reveal whether this was the result of the Board's not forwarding them to her, an error on the part of the postal service, or an error by the Respondent. The precise system that the Board used to assure that the notices were properly forwarded to its licensees was not made a part of the record. The evidence is insufficient to establish why the Respondent did not receive the notices. Prior to 1979, the Board of Cosmetology inspected the premises of its licensees on at least an annual basis. Typically, inspections were conducted more frequently than that. When the Legislature reorganized the Department of Professional Regulation, these periodic inspections ceased during the transition period. The Respondent's salon was inspected in September, 1979. It was not inspected again, however, until December, 1982. The Board endeavored to help apprise its licensees of the need to renew salon licenses by having its inspectors inform the licensees during inspections. Since the Respondent's salon was not inspected during that period, she did not receive the benefit of that advice. The Respondent's salon had been registered with the Board since 1971. She never had any reason to believe that she needed to renew her salon's registration until sometime in 1981. The Respondent's daughter was attending a cosmetology school and heard that salon licenses needed to be renewed, and passed this information on to her mother. Her mother called a representative of the Board at the Winter Haven office. Prior to the reorganization, the Board maintained its principal offices in Winter Haven. Thereafter the offices were moved to Tallahassee, but the testing function continued to be administered from the Winter Haven office. The person who the Respondent talked to at the Winter Haven office advised her that she would be receiving registration forms from Tallahassee and that she did not need to take any action until she received those forms. The Respondent attended continuing education programs during the period following the change in the registration requirement. At none of these programs was she advised of the new obligation to renew the salon license. On December 3, 1982, an inspector with the Department of Professional Regulation inspected the Respondent's salon. The inspector observed that the salon license had not been renewed. The Respondent was advised of her responsibility to obtain a current registration for the salon, and she took immediate steps to accomplish that. Her salon is now properly registered.
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 The Respondent plead "no contest" on his election of remedies, but stated that he planned to attend the hearing. The inspector for the Petitioner, State Board of Cosmetology, wrote a violation for the J & B Beauty Corner upon finding a girl shampooing a customer in said salon and upon inquiry found that the girl was not licensed to perform such cosmetology services. The Respondent stated that he did in fact employ said girl but was just trying to help out the young people in his area. He stated that another of his employees allowed the girl to do the shampooing when the shop was very busy on the day the inspection was made. He stated he knew nothing about the incident until after the inspector had left. The girl who was found shampooing without a license and the employee who had allowed her to practice cosmetology were discharged immediately after Respondent learned of the incident.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to Respondent for violating Section 477.02(7), Florida Statutes. 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 William Gassman, Jr. J & B Beauty Corner 4051 Ocean Drive Lauderdale by the Sea, Florida 33308
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for employing a student without a permit to work who had not yet taken the state board examination for cosmetologists.
Findings Of Fact Elaine York is the owner and operator of the Act II Salon of Beauty. Mary Mainello, also called Kathy Mainello, is employed to work in he subject beauty salon. At the time of the inspection Miss Mainello had not yet obtained her work permit and had not taken the state board examination or been licensed to practice cosmetology. She told the inspector that she had been working doing shampoos and sets but that no damage was done. Therefore a violation notice was written against the owner of the salon. At the time of the inspection Miss Mainello was in the beauty shop of Respondent for the purpose of observing and was not on the payroll of the subject beauty salon. Although the inspector did not actually see her work, there was a station for her to work which . had been used at the time of the inspection. She said that she had been observing for a period of two (2) weeks. At the time of the inspection the owner, Mrs. York, was not in the shop, having gone to the bank. The Hearing Officer finds that the student, Mary Mainello, was in fact performing the duties of a cosmetologist, that is, shampooing and setting hair but without the knowledge or permission of the Respondent owner.
Recommendation Write a letter of reprimand for lack of close supervision of the student who should have learned the laws and rules pertaining to cosmetology. DONE and ORDERED this 19th 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. Kermit Coble, Esquire Coble, McKinnon, Reynolds, A Rothert, Bohner & Godbee, P.A. Post Office Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32020
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Section 477.02(4) & 477.15, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates Kemp's Beauty Salon, 404 N.E. 10th Street, Boynton Beach, Florida, under Certificate of Registration Number 16286 to operate a cosmetology salon issued by Petitioner on November 18, 1971. (Stipulation). On May 22, 1975, Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's salon and observed a man styling the hair of a patron. On May 23, the Inspector returned and observed the same man doing the same thing. He informed her that he did not have a state license. Respondent was not present on either occasion. (Testimony of Jennings) Respondent testified at the hearing that he had had no idea that the individual in question, who was a patron of the shop, was going to work on customers. On May 23rd Respondent had left the shop to have lunch. (Testimony of Kemp).
Recommendation That Respondent's salon license 16286 be suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Thomas Kemp Kemp's Beauty Salon 404 N.E. 10 Street Boynton Beach, Florida
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 Whether the license of the Respondent, Carmelina Denur, should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a cosmetology salon without a salon registration certificate.
Findings Of Fact The inspector for the Petitioner, State Board of Cosmetology, entered a large utility room at the home of Respondent and found therein a cosmetology station with the usual mirrors, chairs , desks and cosmetology supplies, including an appointment book near the telephone. At the time of the visit of the inspector on May 27. 1977, the Respondent, Carmelina Debur, was doing a comb-out. Another woman was sitting in a chair in the area. The inspector determined that the Respondent was operating a beauty salon in her home without a registration and wrote a violation notice. The Respondent contended: that she had been retired six months from her job as a cosmetologist and that the furnishings for a salon in her home were for the benefit of her relatives and close friends and that she was not operating a beauty salon in her home. She stated that the area was a residential area and that her uncle gave her the salon equipment when he remodeled his store, and that she bought the cosmetology supplies inasmuch as she had a license and could buy it for personal use. She testified that she received no money from anyone and was not conducting a business in the beauty salon area of her home. There was no testimony or other evidence to show that the Respondent was in fact operating a beauty salon in her home.
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 17th 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 Carmelina Denur 5295 S.W. 8th Court Margate, Florida 33063
The Issue Respondents' alleged violations of Section 477.02(6), 477.15(8), and 477.27, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Corporation operates Aries House of Beauty, 9310 A1A Alternate, Lake Park, Florida, under Certificate of Registration to operate a cosmetology salon number 20754 issued by Petitioner on October 25, 1974. Respondent was advised of the hearing and acknowledged receipt of notice of same. (Exhibit 2) Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's place of business on January 14, 1976, and observed Van Thi Nguyen giving a patron a shampoo and set on the premises. She acknowledged to the Inspector that she had no Florida state license to practice cosmetology. (Testimony of Padgett) Respondents' Officers, Patricia J. Cantrell & Sharon J. Riseling, submitted a letter prior to the hearing in which it was conceded that they had employed a non-licensed beautician under the mistaken belief that she had a Florida license. The letter indicated that the employee had impressive credentials as a cosmetologist and had possessed an Illinois license. They did not see a Florida license. The employee now holds Florida license number 022943. (Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That Respondent be issued a written reprimand for violation of Section 477.02(6), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Patricia J. Cantrell & Sharon Riseling c/o Aries House of Beauty 9310 A1A Alternate Lake Park, Florida
