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 Respondent violated Sections 477.21(1); 477-15(8) and 477.02(4), Florida Statutes, by operating a cosmetology salon on at least three different occasions to-wit: January 23, 1975, January 24, 1975 and January 30, 1975, without the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact Notice of this hearing was served on Respondent. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the proceeding. Respondent holds a current cosmetology salon license No. 14954 and cosmetologist license No. 68986 Respondent, by her own written admission, has, on January 23, January 24 and January 30, 1975, operated her salon without the supervision of a master cosmetologist.
The Issue Respondents' alleged violation of Sections 477.02(4), 477.15(8) & 477.27(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Corporation operates the Get Your Head Together Cosmetology Salon at 687 N.E. 79 Street, Miami, Florida, under Certificate of Registration Number 15219 issued by Petitioner on February 15, 1971. On April 7, 1975, Petitioner's Inspector visited Respondent's place of business and found two cosmetologists, Sergio Ruiz Calderon and Silvia Gonzalez, engaging in the practice of cosmetology without the presence of a master cosmetologist. Calderon was drying a customer's hair with a blower and Gonzalez was providing another customer with frosting and a hair cut. (Testimony of Patrick). Respondent's President, Geno Tranchida, testified that his brother, a master cosmetologist, was due to arrive at the salon at noon on April 7, and that he therefore left for lunch about 11:45 after instructing his employees not to perform any work while he was gone. The employees disregarded these orders and when Geno Tranchida returned his brother called and informed him that he was ill. (Testimony of Geno Tranchida).
Recommendation That Respondent be issued a written reprimand for the 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 Geno and Peter Tranchida c/o Get Your Head Together, Inc. 687 N.E. 79 Street Miami, Florida
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
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 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
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. During times material, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida to practice cosmetology and has been issued license number CL 0075643. During approximately March or May of 1977, Esther's Beauty Salon, located at 3326 NW 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida, was open for business and operated as such with the public as a cosmetology salon under Respondent's ownership. On February 23, 1977, Florida cosmetology salon license number CE 0024609 was issued to the Respondent for Esther's Beauty Salon. While that license, as issued, was a permanent license, it subsequently became subject to a biennial renewal. As such, the first renewal deadline thereunder was June 30, 1980. [Section 477.025(8), Florida Statutes (supp. 1978)] Respondent did not renew her cosmetologist salon license number CE 0024609. Although the Respondent first contends that she did not receive a renewal notice for her license, she later admitted that she was the subject of numerous personal problems stemming from a divorce and pregnancy with her first child and that she may have overlooked the renewal notice. It is here found that the Respondent's failure to renew her cosmetology salon license was the result of an oversight on her part. On February 2, 1983, Petitioner, through its inspector, Steven Granowitz, inspected Esther's Beauty Salon. At that time, Respondent was operating Esther's Beauty Salon. She was advised that her cosmetologist salon license number CE 0024609 was not valid. Respondent subsequently applied for a new Florida cosmetology salon license and on May 12, 1983, salon license number CE 0034670 was issued to Respondent for Esther's Beauty Salon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings and fact and conclusions of law, the fact that the Respondent upon notification by inspector Granowitz that her license was, in fact, delinquent, immediately applied for and obtained a currently active cosmetology salon license, and other mitigating factors, I hereby recommend that Respondent shall pay an administrative fine of $250. 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 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.
The Issue Whether Seligman and Latz, Inc., d/b/a May Cohen Beauty Salon did operate a cosmetology salon without the presence and supervision of a master cosmetologist in violation of Sections 477.27(1), 477.15(8), and 477.02(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Notice of this hearing was duly served on Respondent and Counsel for both parties were present. The Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration has jurisdiction over the proceedings. Respondent holds a current cosmetologist salon license Number 7150. Two inspectors from the Board of Cosmetology entered the premises of the Respondent Seligman and Latz, Inc. late in the evening on September 19, 1974 and observed the Respondents' employee Joyce McClain practicing the art of cosmetology, to wit: combing out the hair of a customer. The employee, Joyce McClain, was not a master cosmetologist at the time. The inspectors for the Board observed the employee, discussed the violation with her and wrote a violation, presented it to her and left the premises, having inspected the area which was used as the public space in which the customers were invited and which the employees performed services for and on the customers. No master cosmetologist was in the room in which the employee, Joyce McClain, was arranging the hair of a customer and no master cosmetologist was in direct supervision of the salon at the time the inspectors were inspecting the salon as a part of their employment by the Board of Cosmetology. The Hearing Officer further finds upon consideration of all the facts and the evidence that the violation by the employee, Joyce McClain, to wit: combing and arranging the hair of a customer while a master cosmetologist was not present and was not directly supervising the operation is contrary to the requirements of Section 477.04, F.S. The Hearing Officer further finds that the time of the inspection was late in the day; that the Work being done by the cosmetologist, Joyce McClain, was not an inherently dangerous procedure; that the salon had master cosmetologists in its employment although said master cosmetologists were not in direct supervision of the cosmetologist at the time of the inspection; that the comb-out or combing and arranging of the hair of a customer is the practice of cosmetology as defined in Section 477.03(e), F.S.: "(e) Hairdressing or the arranging, waving, dressing, curling, cleansing, thinning, cutting, singeing, bobbing, bleaching, tinting, coloring, steaming, straightening, dyeing, brushing, beautifying or otherwise treating by any means the hair of any person."
Recommendation Suspend the license of Respondent or not less than one day and not more than thirty (30) days. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of January, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. LaFace, Esquire Counsel for Petitioner John R. Forbes, Esquire Counsel for Respondent ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 75-594 LICENSE NO. 7150 SELIGMAN & LATZ, INC., d/b/a May Cohen Beauty Salon, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Respondent, Patsy Arline and Roberta Stein, doing business in a partnership allowed a non-licensed person to practice cosmetology in their beauty salon, to-wit: one Gloria Gann. Whether Respondent's License No. 19208 should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact 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. The Respondents were duly sworn. Respondents admit that they allowed a person who was non- registered to practice cosmetology in the salon known as the Yellow Tulip which they own and operate as a partnership under License No. 19208. Respondents did not know of the serious consequences of their act.
