The Issue Whether Respondent, Nancy Jo Gupton, allowed a non- licensed person to practice cosmetology in her beauty salon contrary to Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is doing business as Nancy Jo's Hair Stylist in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent was working in said salon and left the salon to take a customer to the hospital. Sue Dalton, a non-registered person washed and set the hair of one Mrs. Latham, a customer of said salon. Sue Dalton was not employed to serve as a cosmetologist.
The Issue Whether the licenses of Respondents and the license of the subject salon should be revoked, annulled, suspended or withdrawn for violation of Sections 477.28(2), 477.15(9), Florida Statutes, and Rules 21F-3.02, 21F-3.07 and 21F- 3.08, Florida Administrative Code, in that the Pretty Girl Beauty Salon, Inc., received a sanitary rating below 70 three times in the calendar year of 1976 and had numerous individual sanitary violations.
Findings Of Fact Alex Fisher, Respondent, holds licenses: Personal No. MC 0018356 and Salon No. 12211. Barry Fisher holds license No. MC 0039695. On November 12, 1976, October 7, 1976, and August 31, 1976, the Respondents received three sanitary ratings below 70 in the year 1976 at the Pretty Girl Beauty Salon, Inc. , Hollywood, Florida, a corporation in which Respondents, Alex Fisher, was the president and Barry Fisher the manager. The subject beauty salon is a twelve station beauty salon which does a large business. On each of the occasions in which the inspector made an inspection trip, the inspector found violations of the sanitary rules and regulations. On one occasion formaldehyde tablets were not in the drawers as they should have been and were in plastic containers. The garbage cans were not covered and there was dirt on the ceiling. Towels had not been properly put up and the clean hairbrushes were left out to dry together with dirty brushes which should have been removed until they could be properly sterilized. Sterilizers were not active and hair was on the floor and the operator stations were dirty at time of inspection. On the last inspection by the Petitioner in 1977 the Respondents each received a good rating and there obviously has been an attempt to keep the salon clean and sanitary.
Recommendation Send a written reprimand to the Respondents and place the salon on probation. DONE and ORDERED this 5th 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 and Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Alex Fisher, President Barry Fisher, Manager Pretty Girl Beauty Salon, Inc. 4237 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida 33022
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondents Rene L. and Carol A. Couture have been licensed to practice cosmetology and operate a cosmetology salon in this state with licenses numbered CL-0116811, CL-0122446 and CE-0031848, respectively. Respondents have owned and operated a cosmetology salon named Rene Couture World Champion Stylist Image Makers (Image Makers) located at 1515 22nd Avenue North in St. Petersburg at all times material hereto. Respondent Nancy Winch is not, at all times material hereto has not been, licensed to practice cosmetology or barbering in this state. Respondent Winch has been employed at Image Makers as the receptionist and manager at all times material hereto. In her position, Respondent Winch is responsible for making appointments for from ten to thirteen licensed cosmetologists who work at Image Makers, welcoming customers, ordering hair care products used and sold at retail in the salon, and also keeps the books for Image Makers. On March 28, 1984, the Board of Cosmetology issued a Final Order imposing a $100 administrative fine against Rene Couture following a stipulated settlement of a prior case involving the practice of cosmetology by Nancy Winch at Image Makers on or before to June 3, 1983. The testimony produced at the hearing concerning whether Nancy Winch performed cosmetology services at Image Makers between June 3, 1983 and August 1984 conflicts. Two former employees and a customer at the salon testified that Winch had performed these services. and four current employees, one former employee and three customers testified that she had not practiced cosmetology during this time. Respondents deny that she continued to practice cosmetology after June 3, 1983. After weighing the evidence presented and the credibility of a witnesses who testified, it is the finding of the undersigned Hearing Officer that Petitioner has not established that Nancy Winch performed cosmetology services. between June 3, 1983 and August 1984. It is unlikely that a receptionist/manager of a salon that employs ten to thirteen cosmetologists and who handles all appointments for those cosmetologists, orders all of the products used in the salon and also handles the bookkeeping, would have time to also shampoo and rinse customers' hair. The most persuasive and apparently unbiased testimony was that of the customers of Image Makers. While one customer, Helen Packett, testified that Winch had shampooed her hair once in 1984, she was uncertain and vague as to when this occurred. On the other hand, two customers, Barbara Earle and Sharon Calkins, who have each been going to Image Makers at least once a week for four years testified that Winch acted solely as the receptionist/manager each time they went to the salon. Petitioner also presented the testimony of former employee, Krista McLean, who had been fired in March 1984 for not reporting to work, and Patricia Wolfe, also a former employee who resigned in June 1984. Respondent presented the testimony of current employees Carl Galambos, Frank Lasito, Pam Wolf and Debra Antunovich, and former employee Walta Gaskill. The most persuasive and unbiased testimony from these current and former employees was that given by Gaskill who was employed at the salon during the times in question and could see the reception area from his station. He testified that the reception area was constantly busy and Winch was always in that area acting as the receptionist.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued dismissing the charges against all Respondents contained in the Administrative Complaints filed herein. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of August, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 8th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. Dawn Hayes, Esquire 333-31st Street North, Suite 14 Post Office Box 13188 St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire 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
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent has been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida since August 13, 1979. He currently holds license number CL 0110182, which has an expiration date of June 30, 1992. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of Best Cuts, Inc. (Best Cuts), a licensed cosmetology salon located at 5331 West Atlantic Boulevard in Margate, Florida. In late October, 1990 or early November, 1990, Luis Villate applied and interviewed for a hair stylist position at Best Cuts. During the interview, Respondent asked if Villate was licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. In response to this inquiry, Villate showed Respondent a completed State of Florida application for licensure by examination. The application contained a certification, dated January 6, 1990, and signed by the Educational Supervisor of the cosmetology school Villate had attended, that Villate met the educational and training requirements for eligibility to sit for the cosmetology licensure examination. Following the interview, Respondent telephoned the Department's offices in Tallahassee to find out if there was any legal impediment to his hiring Villate to work as a hair stylist at Best Cuts. Respondent explained to the Department representative with whom he spoke that Villate had "all his hours" of schooling and training and that he had applied for a cosmetology license. The representative told Respondent that, if such were the circumstances, it would be permissible for Respondent to employ Villate at his salon. 1/ Respondent shortly thereafter hired Villate to work at Best Cuts. The representations made to him by the Department representative did not play a role in his decision to hire Villate. Because he desperately needed a competent hair stylist to work at the salon, he would have hired Villate even if he had been told that Villate's unlicensed status rendered him ineligible for lawful employment. Villate remained an employee of Best Cuts for approximately two months, until December 4, 1991. During the period of his employment, Villate cut, washed and blow dried customers' hair. At no time during this period was he licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. The termination of Villate's employment with Best Cuts was precipitated by an inspection of the salon made by Louis Morganstern, an inspector with the Department, on December 3 and 4, 1990. During the first day of his inspection, Morganstern observed Villate cutting the hair of a customer. Upon his return to the office, Morganstern ran a computer check on Villate, which revealed that Villate had taken and failed the licensure examination and therefore was still unlicensed. The following day, at Morganstern's request, Villate signed a document agreeing to "cease and desist" from the practice of cosmetology in the State of Florida.
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 (1) finding that Respondent committed the violation of law alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and (2) imposing upon Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $100 for having committed this violation. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of August, 1991. 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 19th day of August, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent practiced cosmetology in a salon in Florida without a cosmetologist license as required by Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. Whether the Board has jurisdiction over Respondent. Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was practicing cosmetology by shampooing the hair of a customer of Bernice Benbow d/b/a Bernice's Beauty Salon at a time when Respondent, Carrie Shingles had no certificate to practice cosmetology. Respondent admitted she was not a registered cosmetologist; that she did shampoo the hair of a customer in Bernice's Beauty Salon; that she performed such work without the permission of Bernice Benbow, the owner of the salon; that she did not know said action was contrary to the Florida Statutes or the rules and regulations of the Board of Cosmetology. Notice of Service was entered without objection and marked Exhibit 1. The witnesses were duly sworn
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. August 27, 1975 date DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Bernice Benbow 702 Magnolia Street Cocoa, Florida Ms. Carrie Shingles 606 Poinsett Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ms. Artie Leigh Mitchell 427 Roosevelt Avenue Merritt Island, Florida Ms. Mary Alice Palmer Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Post Office Box 9087 Winter Haven, Florida 33880
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for the reason that Respondent's beauty salon was operated in an unsanitary manner.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on May 31, 1977, against Rosie L. Tillman and Sarah Flanders citing the licensees for operating Flanders & Tillman Beauty Salon: "That you, said ROSIE L. TILLMAN AND SARAH FLANDERS d/b/a Flanders & Tillman Beauty Salon on April 28, 1977 did after numerous warnings, operate with combs and brushes full of hair; with hair and dust all over floors, inside drawers and in roller trays. Personal equipment was not sanitized." Respondent, Rosie L. Tillman, filed an election of remedies pleading "not guilty." The inspector for the Board had inspected subject shop on numerous occasions and had given verbal warning to keep a clean salon. On the date of the last inspection hair was found in the drawer, cloths were dirty, dirty brushes were left near clean brushes, brushes were inside the roller trays, and dust was on the floor. The Board's inspector requested the Respondent to correct the unsanitary conditions and returned for a second inspection in ten days. The salon had not been cleaned and the unsanitary conditions had not been corrected. Respondent contended that there was no way to keep the cited conditions from occuring in a beauty salon.
Recommendation Suspend Respondents' licenses for not less than thirty (30) days. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd 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 Rosie L. Tillman Flanders & Tillman Beauty Salon 955-F University Boulevard Melbourne, Florida 32901 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-1019 LICENSE NO. SALON 16888 ROSIE L. TILLMAN and SARAH FLANDERS, d/b/a FLANDERS & TILLMAN BEAUTY SALON, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed May 31, 1977, against Jack Diftler, owner of the Haircuttery, charging: "That you, said Jack Diftler on March 25, 1977 did allow a cosmetologist to practice in your salon without the supervision of a master cosmetologist at The Haircuttery, St. Augustine, Florida." The Respondent, Jack Diftler, is a master cosmetologist who had left the beauty shop he owned to make an emergency trip to Miami. The cosmetologist who works in his shop and who is not a master cosmetologist failed to obey his instructions which were to cease his cosmetology work and work repairing the shop while he, the master cosmetologist, was absent. The cosmetologist, Michael Diamond, failed to obey instructions and did perform cosmetology work in the absence of the master cosmetologist.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to the Respondent. The disobedience of an employee is an extenuating circumstance. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jack Diftler, Owner The Haircuttery 52 Spanish Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
