The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent practice cosmetology without being licensed and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: The Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology in Florida. On December 8, 1987, Leonard Baldwin, inspector for Petitioner, inspected a cosmetology salon known as "The Hairstylist" which is located at 8672 Griffin Road, Cooper City, Florida. During inspector Baldwin's routine inspection at that time, Respondent was working at the Hairstylist as a cosmetologist. Respondent had been so employed for approximately two weeks. Respondent was not licensed as a cosmetologist at the time of inspector Baldwin's inspection on December 8, 1987, nor was she licensed at the time of Petitioner's official records search on March 18, 1988. Respondent did not appear at the hearing to contest or otherwise refute the charges that she had engaged in the practice of cosmetology without a license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) payable to Petitioner within 30 days of issuance of its Final Order. Respondent be issued a letter of reprimand by Petitioner with guidance instructions. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of September, 1988, 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 29th day of September, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Lucien A. Jonet took the practical examination administered by the Board of Cosmetology for licensure on February 17, 1981. Jonet obtained a score of 71.5 percent on this examination in which 75 percent is a passing score. Jonet lost three points for failure to properly drape his model for Chemical Straightening, Bleaching and Shampooing. The model used by Jonet in the examination stated she moved, loosened and removed the drape at times because of the heat and her personal discomfort. When Jonet was present, he redraped the model; however, as required by the examination procedure, Jonet was not present when the model was examined. The Board's instructions do not advise the models or the examinees that the models should not touch their drapes or towels. The Board's confidential instructions to examiners provide that points be deducted for failure to properly drape the model. At least one of the examiners testified she would take points off for this performance criteria if the drape were loose or the towel off when she checked the model. Jonet's model had hair that was of minimal length, and Jonet stated her hair was so uneven that it could not be cut to a blended, even length. He gave the model a styled, uneven shag cut. The Board's confidential instructions to the examiners require that examinees' performances be graded on an even, blended haircut with even edges and necklines. Although the instructions to examinees advise that models should have hair of sufficient length that after an inch has been cut from the hair it may be curled, there are no specific instructions that they will be graded on a blended, even cut. The Board's only instructions to examinees on haircutting at the examination are as follows from the Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1: "We recommend a basic haircut. An extremely short style cut would interfere with the performance of molding and pin curl portion of your exam. You may use the hair cutting implements of your choice. Any hair falling on the floor must be cleaned up before grading. Are there any questions?" The examiners also stated that the examinees should report problems with their models' hair that would affect the examinees performances, and that when such problems existed they would not deduct points. However, the instructions to the examinees do not contain this caveat. Jonet lost eight points on haircutting: two points for gaps left behind his model's ears, two points twice for an uneven neckline, and two points for uneven blending of the hair. One of the examiners stated that the last portion of the curriculum for most Florida cosmetology schools is spent in simulation of the Board's examination, and that these schools are well versed in the specific criteria which the Board uses in assessing performance. Jonet had sought a reexamination but was denied because he had taken the first examination with 600 hours of evaluated credit, and the Board's rules require a person with only 600 hours of school who fails the examination to finish another 600 hours. The Board denied Jonet the opportunity to seek an added 600 hours of evaluated credit. Jonet has more than 40 years' experience in cosmetology, is a graduate of a European program, was licensed in Illinois prior to an examination being required, and held an Illinois license for 23 years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that Lucien A. Jonet be permitted to take the Board of Cosmetology's examination again, and that the instructions for the examination be amended to fairly advise examinees of the examination's actual requirements and instruct the models not to touch or interfere with their hair, drapes or towels. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 14th day of January, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Lucien A. Jonet 12500 Ulmerton Road, #16 Largo, Florida 33540 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Angela Maria Wynter, has not, at any time material hereto, been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. On January 25, 1992, during a routine inspection of Geta's Beauty Phase II, 19905 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida, respondent was observed "combing out" the dry hair of a woman seated in a beauty chair. When asked for her cosmetology license, respondent replied that she did not have one because she was only the shampoo girl. When informed that the services she was performing were beyond those of shampooing, which the inspector advised were limited to washing the hair and drying it with a towel, respondent ceased her activities and the customer moved to another chair where she was attended by a licensed person. 1/ Regarding respondent's employment at the salon, the proof demonstrates that she was employed to work Saturdays, at a rate of $30.00 a day, to shampoo customers' hair, and had been so employed for approximately three weeks before the subject inspection. In addition to shampooing hair, respondent's employment also included "combing out" customers' hair after it had been dried. Respondent was not, however, shown to have engaged in hair arranging or styling, as those terms are commonly used, nor was she shown to have engaged in hair cutting or other activities that might be perceived as the practice of cosmetology as defined by Section 477.013(4), Florida Statutes, discussed infra, or to have held herself out to the public as being available to perform such activities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of April 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 14th day of April 1993.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent failed to document resident elopement drills for facility staff in violation of Subsection 429.41(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2008),1 and, if so, whether Petitioner should impose a civil penalty of $500.00.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating assisted living facilities (ALFs) in Florida. Respondent is a licensed ALF in Florida identified in the record as Wildspring Adult Care Center, Inc., doing business as Wildspring. A surveyor for Petitioner conducted a survey of Wildspring on October 5, 2007. The caregiver at Wildspring at the time of the survey was a person identified in the record as J. Westergaard. The caregiver, in relevant part, was unable to locate any record of facility staff drills concerning resident elopement. The caregiver contacted the administrator of Wildspring. The administrator came to the facility, but was not able to locate and was unable to produce any record of facility staff drills during 2007. The surveyor cited Wildspring for a Class III deficiency, explained the deficiency to the administrator, and scheduled a mandatory correction date of November 5, 2007. Petitioner did not conduct a follow-up survey until December 28, 2007. The Wildspring caregiver at the time of the second survey was Simon Brown. The caregiver at the time of the follow-up survey was unable to locate the Wildspring record of facility staff drills on resident elopement conducted during the year. The caregiver admitted to the surveyor that Wildspring had not conducted any resident elopement drill during the year. At the conclusion of the second survey, the surveyor cited Wildspring for a Class III deficiency and scheduled a mandatory correction date. At the time, Wildspring had eight residents at the facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent committed one State Class III violation and imposing an administrative fine of $500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Bart Sklansky is the President of Sunshine Hair Fashions, Inc., which is the owner of a salon operating under the name of Sunshine Scissors, located at 5568 Flamingo Road, cooper city, Florida. At all times material hereto, Sunshine Hair Fashions, Inc., was licensed by the State of Florida, to operate a cosmetology salon under License No. CE0040983, and the Sunshine Scissors Salon located at 5568 Flamingo Road, Cooper City, Florida operated under that license. Mr. Sklansky owns several other salons and he visits each location from time to time to oversee the operations. Petitioner was and is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology in the State of Florida. On January 20, 1988, Leonard Baldwin, an inspector for the Department of Professional Regulation, entered the Sunshine Scissors Salon (hereinafter the "Salon") for the purpose of conducting a routine inspection of the premises. Mr. Baldwin has been an inspector for the Department of Professional Regulation for approximately four years. As part of his job, he inspects approximately 32 cosmetology salons per week and prepares a written inspection report reflecting his visit. He generally reviews those reports with the employees who are present. He will generally inspect a salon only once a year unless there are problems. At the time of Mr. Baldwin's inspection in January of 1988, the Salon was basically in good shape with the exception of the work station of one of the operators, Kenneth Hayman. The shop is professionally cleaned once a week and the employees make sure that the floors, mirrors and waiting areas are clean at all times. However, each individual operator is responsible for the cleanliness of his particular work station. While Mr. Hayman is not deliberately unsanitary, he is sometimes careless and needs constant prodding and reminders to keep his work station clean. As noted on his inspection report (Petitioner's Exhibit 3), Mr. Baldwin found certain conditions which he felt were unsatisfactory during his January 20, 1988 visit. Among the conditions he noted were the following: the back bar of at least one of the work stations was dirty and had excessive dust; there was excessive hair on the floor; combs and brushes from at least one of the work stations contained excessive hair; and it appeared that the implements and utensils from at least one work station were not being properly cleansed, sanitized, or stored. However, no direct testimony was presented as to the proper method for sanitizing or cleaning the implements and no evidence was presented as to how Respondent's procedures failed to meet the regulatory standards. Although Mr. Baldwin's investigation report (Exhibit 3) indicates as an additional deficiency that "sanitary towels/neck strips were not being placed around patrons necks," no explanation was given as to the basis for this noted deficiency and no direct testimony was offered to support this contention. All of these deficiencies, identified under the pertinent rules of the Board's, were brought to the attention of Pam Greco, one of the operators at the Salon. Bart Sklansky was not made aware of the deficiencies until several months later. He never noticed any problems during his visits to the Salon. On October 2, 1988, Mr. Baldwin again inspected the Salon. The general condition of the shop was satisfactory. However, the work station of Kenneth Hayman was again found deficient in certain areas. More specifically, the back bar area around this work station was dirty and it appeared that utensils may have been used on more than one patron without being sanitized. Mr. Baldwin did not explain how he reached this conclusion. After the second inspection, Mr. Hayman paid more attention to the cleanliness of his work station and kept it clean the majority of the time. However, on December 9, 1988, Mr. Baldwin against inspected the salon and noted similar deficiencies to those he found during the October 1988 inspection. Mr. Hayman's work station has never been the source of any customer complaints. Mr. Hayman has been informed that his work station must be kept clean and he has kept his work station clean since the last inspection.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of cosmetology enter a final order in this case finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(9), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty consisting of a reprimand and an administrative fine in the total amount of $100. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 5th day or May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobi C. Pam Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Bart Sklansky Sunshine Hair Fashions Post Office Box 601667 North Miami Beach, FL 33160 Myrtle Aase Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-075010
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondents, Gary Smith and Brian Dobson, operated two businesses from the premises located at 4905 Sheridan Street, Hollywood, Florida. The first business, Scruples Hair Design, Inc. (Scruples) was a duly licensed cosmetology salon which employed licensed cosmetologists. The second business, Gary Smith and Brian Dobson, d/b/a Hair Replacement Systems (HRS) sold and serviced hairpieces. Neither Smith nor Dobson are licensed barbers or cosmetologists. Although operated from the same location, Scruples and HRS are physically distinct. Separate entrances admit customers to each business. Although an interior passage does permit access to each of the businesses, HRS's office space is clearly separate from that of Scruples. HRS's business consists primarily of the sale and servicing of hairpieces. In the course of that business Respondents take molds of customers' heads from which the hairpieces are designed, cut and fit the hairpieces, and provide incidental services such as cleaning and restyling the hairpieces. Although any actual cutting or styling of a customer's own hair is done by a licensed cosmetologist from Scruples, Respondents do shape and fit the hairpiece. The shaping or cutting of the hairpiece is done both on and off the client's head. Additionally, in fitting the hairpiece Respondents "occasionally" comb or brush some of the client's hair. Smith asserts that any such contact with the client's hair is unintentional. Smith's assertion is inherently improbable. Clearly, if a client has existing hair which the hairpiece is designed to match, the brushing or combining of the hairpiece on the client's head, during a "fitting," will necessarily result in the combing or brushing of the client's own hair where it meets the hairpiece. Dobson conceded that he worked the hairpiece into the natural hairline so the two blended, a technique he referred to as braiding.
The Issue The central issue in this cause is whether or not Respondent is guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(b), Florida Statutes which prohibits the operation of a cosmetology salon without a current license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Respondent, Before & After, Inc. d/b/a Design of Miami, is not licensed as a cosmetology salon. Respondent does business at 8200 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. Bernard R. Gaeta is the secretary/treasurer of the Respondent corporation and was present at the business location on or about January 9, 1986. On or about January 9, 1986, Providence Padrick went to the business location (8200 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida) in response to an advertisement for cosmetology services. The purpose of the visit was to inspect the premises regarding the services claimed by the ad. An individual known as Jerry Schrank shared space with Respondent and had been responsible for the ad in question. When Ms. Padrick made the inspection she was attended by Mr. Gaeta who showed her the area used by Mr. Schrank. Additionally, Mr. Gaeta furnished Ms. Padrick with a brochure which outlined the services offered by Respondent. During her inspection of the Respondent's premises Ms. Padrick observed three or four shampoo bowls of the type normally used in cosmetology salons. As a result of her inspection of Respondent's business premises, Ms. Padrick interviewed Carmen Cannizzo to determine what services were being performed by Respondent's employees. Ms. Cannizzo is a licensed cosmetologist employed on a salaried basis by the Respondent. According to Ms. Cannizzo, Respondent sells hairpieces or wigs which are fitted and then attached to the customers' heads. Respondent uses two methods of wig or hairpiece attachment: weaving and taping. The weaving method requires the weaving of an anchor thread through the customer's natural hair which then holds the hairpiece in place once it is similarly secured to the woven thread. Regardless of the method of attachment, the customer's hair must be styled to blend in with the hairpiece. Customer preference and the amount of natural hair available determine which attachment method is used. While it is not part of the fee charged by Respondent, Ms. Cannizzo will also trim a customer's hair or shampoo it upon request. Ms. Cannizzo has been directed not to perform these services but does so to augment the tips she receives. Prior to the inspection of Respondent's business premises Ms. Padrick identified herself and her occupation to Mr. Gaeta. Ms. Padrick inspected the public areas of Respondent's business and, by invitation, an office area used by Mr. Gaeta.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order finding Respondent in violation of Section 477.029(1)(b), Florida Statutes and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3689 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 1 is accepted in finding of fact paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 is rejected. Whether Respondent has been licensed as a salon in the past is unclear. That Respondent operates as a cosmetology salon is a question of law addressed in the conclusions. Paragraph 3 is accepted. It should be noted, however, that all services described in the brochure may not be offered at the Respondent's business. Only those services found to be performed by Respondent are included in the findings of fact. Paragraph 4 is accepted. See paragraph 3 above. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Respondent does not dispute that it shampoos hairpieces for its customers. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 are accepted. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: None submitted COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0760 Frank E. Freeman 2930 North East Second Court Miami, Florida 33137 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0760 William O'Neil General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
