The Issue The issue for consideration in this case was whether Respondent, Nikki Gamber, should be disciplined by the Board of Cosmetology for the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact On December 14, 1990, Frank Paolella, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation, went to Booth 85 in a Flea Market in Fort Myers, Florida, to investigate a complaint of unlicensed activity purportedly going on there. When he arrived, he asked for the owner, Ms. Gamber, who was present with an employee. He told her why he was there and since she was then working on someone's nails, waited for her to finish. While he was waiting, he observed Respondent's employee, Nikkae Jurgens, applying false nails to another customer. This involved sanding and buffing the client's natural nails before applying the false ones. When he brought all this to the attention of the Respondent, she freely admitted she was engaged in unlawful activity but claimed she was not aware that Ms. Jurgens, who was only two feet away from her, was also doing it. When he brought it to her attention, Respondent said she would tell Ms. Jurgens to stop. Ms. Jurgens indicated that she did not have any identification on her but that Respondent had it all. When Mr. Paolella asked Respondent for it, she said she would provide it later. When she did do so later, by phone, she also said that Ms. Jurgens had been working for her for about 7 to 10 days. Mr. Paolella checked on the licensure status of both Respondent and Ms. Jurgens and determined that neither had a license to do this type or work, nor did either hold a salonlicense. The operation was a booth in a flea market - a counter with two chairs for clients. There was no sanitary equipment there, no disinfectant for implements, and no closed compartments for storing clean supplies and equipment. Mr. Paolella's investigation revealed that Respondent's booth is open for business only on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, but whenever he went there before December 14, 1990, she was never there. As of August 22, 1991, the owner of the Flea Market where Respondent had operated indicated she was no longer in business there. Records of the Department show that Ms. Gamber held neither a cosmetologist's license or a cosmetology salon license during the time in question, nor did Ms. Jurgens, her employee. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be issued by the Board of Cosmetology imposing a fine of $500.00 for each of the two violations established as outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of September, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 27th day of September, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark E. Harris Paralegal Specialist Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nikki Gamber P.O. Box 8155 Sarasota, Florida 34278 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kaye Howerton Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee. Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Lawrence R. Crawford was licensed as a cosmetologist by DPR, having been issued License No. CL 0081100. By Final Order dated December 31, 1985, Respondent was found guilty of practicing cosmetology without being properly licensed and fined $450 with suspension of license until the fine was paid. (Exhibit 1) Respondent paid $225 of this fine in February 1986, but has made no subsequent payment nor has he renewed the cosmetology license which expired June 30, 1984. An inspection of Respondent's salon at 1383 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida, was conducted March 11, 1987, and Respondent was observed working on a client of the salon. At this time he had no active license. By Final Order dated August 12, 1983, the Board of Cosmetology found Respondent guilty of operating as a cosmetologist without an active salon license, assessed a fine of $50, and suspended his license until the fine was paid. (Exhibit 1). The record (Exhibit 1) fails to disclose whether this fine was paid; however, no current license was issued to Respondent. On October 2, 1987, Petitioner's inspector passed the address of Respondent's salon on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and noticed all equipment had been removed as well as the sign containing the name of the salon.
The Issue The issue presented herein is whether or not the Respondent operated a cosmetology salon without a current active salon license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, a post- hearing memorandum, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. Respondent, James F. Tobin, was at all times material herein licensed by the State of Florida to practice cosmetology and has been issued cosmetologist license number CL 0096393. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) During December, 1980, Respondent purchased a cosmetologist salon then named Sisters Two which is located at 17036 W. Dixie Highway, North Miami Beach, Florida. Respondent thereafter renamed the salon "All About Hair" and at all times subsequent to December, 1980, owned and operated All About Hair as a cosmetologist salon. During July or August, 1981, Respondent submitted to the Petitioner an application for a cosmetology salon license for All About Hair enclosing therewith a check made payable to the Petitioner in the amount of $40. On August 13, 1981, Petitioner received the application and on the following day, August 14, 1981, Petitioner cashed the Respondent's $40 check. The Department did not approve the application and on August 19, 1981 returned the application to Respondent together with a cover letter stating the following three reasons: The application was not accompanied by a diagram of the salon, The lease was not in the Respondent's name, and The application failed to specify the type of dry sanitizer that Respondent was using in the salon. Upon receipt of the returned application from the Petitioner, the (Respondent) gave it to his mother for completion and for resubmittal to the Petitioner. A completed cosmetology salon license application form for All About Hair was not received by the Petitioner from Respondent until August 8, 1983. Upon receipt of the completed application, the Department issued its cosmetology salon license number CE 0035291 for All About Hair on September 10, 1983. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Respondent, by and through its business manager, acknowledged that it never received from the Petitioner a cosmetology salon license in the name of All About Hair prior to September 8, 1983. Although the Respondent assumed that his mother immediately re-submitted the returned application to the Petitioner, other than the finding herein that the returned application was re-submitted to Petitioner on August 8, 1983, there was no direct testimony offered in support of that assumption. On September 30, 1982, Petitioner's investigator and inspector, Dorsey Hayes, made a routine inspection of All About Hair. During the course of that inspection, inspector Hayes discovered a discrepancy between the salon named All About Hair and the license which it was operating under, Sisters Two. At no time prior to September 10, 1983, did the Respondent hold a valid current license for the cosmetology salon All About Hair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent shall pay an administrative fine to the Petitioner in the amount of $250 within thirty days of the date of the Final Order herein. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, Women's Exchange, Inc., possessed a valid Florida license to operate a cosmetology salon at 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue, Miami, Florida, under License No. CE 0032221, which license was issued on September 16, 1982, and expires on October 31, 1984. On January 20, 1983, Steven M. Granowitz, an investigator for Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, entered Respondent's salon for a routine inspection. When he entered the salon, which was located in what appeared to be a home, he noticed it was quite busy. Customers were being waited on at all operator positions, and others were waiting their turn. Upon entering the salon, Mr. Granowitz tried to find the manager to identify himself and present his credentials, but no manager was present, so he talked to the receptionist, showing her his credentials and advising her he was going to do an inspection. At first, he looked at the salon license and went to examine the four operators and their licenses. These licenses are required to be displayed prominently in the shop. None of the four operator stations were displaying licenses. Two operators indicated they had licenses, but did not have them present. Mr. Granowitz made a phone call to his board and verified that these two individuals, Yvonne Eberhart and Clara Ann Edden, were in fact licensed. The two other individuals who he observed to be at operator stations with customers in the chairs, to whom they were applying curly perms, Jacqueline Dulippe and Jeanette Toussaint, were not licensed either by the Board of Cosmetology or Barbers' Board. He, admittedly, did not watch these two unlicensed operators during the entire period he was there. Consequently, it may well be that other licensed operators also worked on the same customers. There is no doubt in his mind, however, that what he observed these two do were cosmetology operations. Licenses are required to perform the work being performed by these two individuals, though not all functions in a cosmetology salon require a license. When Mr. Granowitz discussed this situation shortly thereafter that day with Antonia Gary, one of the officers of Respondent corporation, in the salon, she indicated she was not the manager of the salon, that none of the corporate officers were involved in the day-to-day operation of the salon, and that she did not know these two individuals were not licensed. However, there was no claim that either had misrepresented their license status. Joyce Ann Hanks-Knox, President of Women's Exchange, Inc., the corporation which owns the corporation which now owns Fingertips, the salon in question, admits that the license is in the name of Women's Exchange, Inc. There is no question, however, that Women's Exchange, Inc., holds the license in question for Fingertips and that the current Fingertips salon is that which is described in the license. She is not a licensed cosmetologist, and while she spends as much as 20 hours per week in the business of Women's Exchange, Inc., these duties do not include active management of the salon. She further relates, however, that it has never been the policy of either the parent corporation or the management of Fingertips to permit unlicensed operators to work, unsupervised, on customers. She admits that both women in question worked at Fingertips and, in fact, one was hired by her. Their duties were to be trained as operators and to perform other small tasks within the salon, such as moving patrons from one area to another, cleaning the salon, and insuring that supplies were at the work stations as needed. They were also allowed to wash hair, but, in this apprentice program, nonlicensed personnel were not to give permanents or do anything else that could be considered cosmetology. All of the licensed operators knew what the apprentice program consisted of, its limitations, and that these two individuals were not licensed. As such, they should have stopped them from performing unauthorized tasks. Neither individual was hired as a cosmetologist, nor was she paid as a cosmetologist. Since neither Ms. Knox nor Ms. Gary actively supervise the operation of the salon, since Mr. Granowitz could find no one there during his visit who admitted to being in charge, and since there was no evidence presented that there was any manager assigned to the salon, it is obvious that the salon was left, for the most part, to run itself without effective management supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent corporation be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $250 for each count proven -- a total of $500. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 15th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Mr. Fred Roche Department of Professional Secretary Regulation Department of Professional 130 North Monroe Street Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32301 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joyce Hanks-Knox, Esquire President Women's Exchange, Inc. 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue Miami, Florida 33142 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Sections 477.02(4), 477.27(1) & 477.15(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates a cosmetology salon, Mourine's of Palm Beach, located at 261 Sunrise Avenue, Palm Beach, Florida, under Certificate of Registration to operate a cosmetology salon No. 18118 OB. Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's salon at 1:30 P.M. on April 23, 1976 at which time she found Respondent working on two patrons. Respondent is not a master cosmetologist and informed the Inspector that her master cosmetologist was out to lunch. After the Inspector has remained on the premises for approximately 45 minutes Respondent stated that the master cosmetologist was not working that day. (Testimony of Padgett) Respondent submitted an affidavit that on the date in question while working in her salon Inspector Padgett found patrons under dryers without the presence of her master cosmetologist who had taken her lunch hour in order to go to the doctor. Respondent stated that she was not working on patrons at this time and had not after the master had left the shop. Respondent further stated that the master operator returned approximately 20 minutes after the inspector had left the premises. (Affidavit of Witmer)
Recommendation That Respondent be issued a written reprimand for violation of Section 477.02(4), Florida Statutes. 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Mourine Witmer 6361 South Atterly K Lantana, Florida 33462 Donald Kohl, Esquire 3003 South Congress Avenue Palm Springs, Florida 33461
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology (Board), is charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of cosmetology. Among its responsibilities are the routine inspections of cosmetology salons to insure that all Board requirements are being met. On January 13, 1988 a Board inspector inspected the premises of From Hair on Etc., a licensed cosmetology salon in Clearwater, Florida. During the course of the inspection, the inspector observed a work station set up for respondent, Kristie J. Wheatley. The inspector also reviewed the salon's appointment book and noted manicure appointments for "Kristie" beginning around October 13, 1987 and continuing until January 19, 1988. However, the inspector did not find a license for respondent, and a subsequent search of Board records revealed that respondent was not registered with the Board. The inspector later talked with respondent by telephone. Respondent acknowledged that she had been employed as a manicurist at the salon since October 1987 and was not registered with the Board. She informed the inspector that she was unaware that the Board had begun enforcing a new law that required manicurists to be registered. According to owners of the salon, respondent performed manicure services in the salon for a three month period from October 1987 until January 1988. She was compensated for these services. In response to their inquiry as to her registration status, Wheatley told them she had filed an application for registration. Later on, she advised them the registration was at her home. When the owners learned from the inspector that respondent was not registered with the Board, her services were terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as charged in the amended administrative complaint, that she be assessed a $150 fine, and that she not be permitted to register with the Board until such fine is paid. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 24th day of February, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kristie J. Wheatley 14194 Darts Drive Fenton, MI 48430 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
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.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Adelina Portuondo, is the holder of License Number CL 0089302 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida State Board of Cosmetology. The license authorizes Respondent to perform cosmetology services. She has held the license since 1976. On or about December 24, 1982, a Department inspector visited the premises known as Delores Beauty Salon, located at 2214 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. The visit was prompted by the fact that the Delores Beauty Salon was delinquent in renewing its license with Petitioner. While conducting the inspection, the inspector observed two apparent employees working with customers in chairs. Before the inspector was able to check the license of one of them, a Latin male, who was performing cosmetology services on a client, the Latin male quickly departed the premises. The inspector was told the male's name was either "Jorge" or "Jose," but that no other information regarding that individual was available. Respondent was not on the premises when the inspection was made, but, after being called from her other shop, she arrived a short time later. Portuondo advised the inspector that the male's name was "Jose," that he was there for a "tryout," had just arrived from Cuba and had been referred by someone at her other beauty salon. She also advised that she had just purchased the salon and was in the process of transferring ownership to her name. At the time the inspection was made, Delores Beauty Shop held no current licenses to provide either cosmetology or barber services to the public. The inspector then visited Respondent's other salon, Lena's of New York, and learned that the Latin male's name was actually Jose Bahamonde. Respondent told the inspector that Bahamonde was only a manager of the salon, whose duties included opening and closing the shop, cleaning and the like, but that he performed no professional services. Lena's of New York was apparently licensed by the Board as a cosmetology salon. On April 5, 1983, a Department inspector again visited the beauty salon operated by Respondent at 2214 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach. Respondent had signs indicating the business was now being operated as Lina Beauty Salon II, Inc. The inspector found Bahamonde on the premises and told him it was illegal to practice cosmetology and barbering without appropriate licenses. Bahamonde told the inspector he had taken the examination and was awaiting the results. The inspector returned the next day, April 6, and found Bahamonde cutting a customer's hair. The Respondent was not present on the premises. After being called by telephone, Respondent arrived shortly thereafter and denied that Bahamonde was providing professional services. Instead, she claimed he was working as a cashier and cleaning up the premises. At that time, she also produced records to show she had purchased the salon on October 5, 1982. Official Department records reflect that Bahamonde was issued cosmetology License No. CL 0141942 on July 26, 1983. Those records also reflect that as recent as October 20, 1983, Lina Beauty Salon II, Inc., held no active cosmetology or barbershop licenses. The records do indicate, however, that Respondent applied for a cosmetology salon license for the establishment in April, 1983, but the application was denied on May 9, 1983, on the ground it was incomplete. No license has been issued to Delores Beauty Salon, Inc., since its purchase by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 477.029(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in December, 1982, and April, 1983; violating Subsection 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in December, 1982; and violating Subsections 477.028(2)(b) and 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in April, 1983. It is further RECOMMENDED that a $250 administrative fine be imposed on Respondent for each violation, for a total of $1,000, and that such fine be paid within thirty (30) days of the date of the final order entered in this cause. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 November, 1983.
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. /
