The Issue Whether the license of the Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a cosmetology salon not under the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on May 31, 1977, against Barbara Hagan d/b/a Hair Fashion Wig Craft by B & B charging: "That you, said BARBARA HAGAN d/b/a Hair Fashion Wig Craft by B & B on January 11, 1977 did operate a cosmetology salon without the direct supervision of a master cosme- tologist; at Hair Fashion Wig Craft by B & B, Lakeland, Florida." The Respondent, Barbara Hagan, is a master cosmetologist who had left the beauty shop she operated to make a trip to the hospital. The cosmetologist who works in Respondent's shop and who was working at the time of the notice of violation had finished school but was not a master cosmetologist at the time of the violation. The Respondent admitted that he did not have a master cosmetologist license at the time of the violation but asserts that he now is a master cosmetologist.
Recommendation Suspend the license of the Respondent for a period of not more than thirty (30) days inasmuch as this was the second time the statute was violated. The first time no written violation notice was entered but the inspector orally warned the Respondent of the violation. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of October, 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 Barbara Hagan Hair Fashion Wig Craft by B & B 1336 North Florida Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33802 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact A complaint and Notice of Hearing to show cause was issued against Respondent, Mary Jorge, and a copy of notice of violation was served upon her citing her for operating a cosmetology salon without direct supervision and mangement of a master cosmetologist. The complaint was dated May 24, 1974. The Respondent was renoticed to appear at the subject hearing inasmuch as she failed to appear or moved for a continuance at the original hearing date The Respondant testified and presented witnesses to show that although there was no master cosmetologist in the shop at the time of the inspect ion by the Petitioner there was no work being done in the shop during the time the master cosmetologist was out of the shop at the lunch period. There is insufficient evidence to show that the Respondent was performing the business of cosmetology at the time that the violation notice was written.
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. 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 Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mary Jorge 7742 W. Hillsborough Tampa, Florida 33615
Findings Of Fact A copy of the Administrative Complaint with an attachment of Ms. Rolling's Salon License No. 10810 and receipt of certified mail was entered into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1 without objection. Ms. Rolling's Election of Remedies form was entered into evidence and marked Exhibit 2 without objection. The Respondent holds License No. 10810. Respondent admitted that she did allow two (2) cosmetologists to work in her salon while she was absent. Respondent is a master cosmetologist who ordinarily works in the salon which she supervises and manages. The Respondent, Frances Rolling, has been in ill health and did leave the salon to visit a doctor's office and during the time she allowed cosmetologists to work without the direct 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 Whether Respondent violated Section 477.15(8)(9), Florida Statutes, and Regulation 21F-301, Florida Administrative Code, by operating a cosmetology salon without a salon license.
Findings Of Fact Notice of this hearing was attempted by mail and notice was left at the proper address. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the proceeding. Respondent holds a current cosmetologist license No. 18927. Respondent is or has been practicing the art of cosmetology in her home without first having secured a certificate of registration for a cosmetology salon.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 477.02(6); 477.15(8); 477.27(1) and (2), F.S. by allowing a person to practice the art of cosmetology in her salon without said person being a registered cosmetologist by the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Marlene Fletcher, d/b/a the Beauty Parlour, did allow one Victoria Kane to practice the art of cosmetology, to-wit: the giving of a permanent wave to a customer in Respondent's salon at a time in which she held no Florida license. Respondent discussed by long distance telephone the circumstances attending the giving of said permanent wave by the said Victoria Kane. The said Victoria Kane was not in the employ of the Respondent; however, said Victoria Kane was under the control of the Respondent inasmuch as the practice of the art of cosmetology was in the salon of Respondent and at a time in which the Respondent was present.
