The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a cosmetology salon without a certificate of registration.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed against licensee, Virginia Jarnecke, who holds License No. Salon 24158, on the 31st of May, 1977, alleging that she did operate a cosmetology salon without a valid certificate of registration after having been warned and supplied with the proper form in July of 1976 at the La Petite Coiffures in Daytona Beach, Florida. The Respondent filed an Answer on the 24th day of June, 1977, entering a plea of not guilty to the Administrative Complaint. The inspector for the board inspected the Respondent shop in July of 1976 and found that there had been a change in ownership of the salon. She informed the Respondent new owner that the salon registration was nontransferable and that a new registration would have to be applied for and obtained. At that time she left a form designated BC-7 for use of the Respondent. On September 24, 1976 no license had been obtained and a violation of notice was written by the inspector. A license was obtained thereafter in November of 1976. The owner of the shop, Respondent Virginia Jarnecke, had waited to send in her application for registration of said shop until one of the employees obtained a license as master cosmetologist. She did not obtain a registration for the salon until November of 1976 although an application form had been' left by the Petitioner, State Board of Cosmetology, to change the registration from the former owner in July of 1976.
Recommendation Write a letter of reprimand to Respondent for the reason that there was unnecessary delay between the time the Respondent bought subject beauty salon and the time in which application for registration of the salon. 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 LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. David McFadden, Esquire 100 Seabreeze Boulevard, Suite 210 Daytona Beach, Florida 32018
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Enchanted Mirror, Inc., is licensed as a cosmetology salon under License No. CE0034033. Respondent owns and operates several beauty salons in central Florida and has for 30 years. Licenses for all salons except the one in question here were properly renewed and maintained. License No. CE0022297 for a cosmetology salon was issued for Augie's Enchanted Mirror salon, located at 278 East Michigan Avenue, Orlando, Florida, on September 26, 1975. In 1977, Respondent moved Augie's Enchanted Mirror to a new location at 314 East Michigan Avenue, Orlando, Florida. When this move was made, Respondent did not obtain a new license for the salon at its new location, though it continued to operate the salon. At all times from the time of original licensure in 1975, Respondent operated Augie's Enchanted Mirror as a cosmetology salon open to the public, with whom it did business as such. Sometime between 1977 and 1979, License No. CE0022297 was removed from the records of the Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Cosmetology. In 1980, neither the Board of Cosmetology nor the Department of Professional Regulation mailed to Respondent a renewal notice for a cosmetology salon license for Augie's Enchanted Mirror. However, routine inspections of the facility were made by inspectors of the Board of Cosmetology on September 13, 1978, and August 9, 1979. The report of the former inspection bears the 314 East Michigan Avenue address and that of the latter, the 298 East Michigan Avenue address. Therefore, though the records did not reflect the license and no renewal application forms were sent out, the Board was aware of the salon and inspected it, raising no question as to the license status until 1982 or 1983. The inspection of October 25, 1982, revealed a current license was not posted, but the inspection report of February 14, 1983, the "new establishment" inspection reveals the CE0034033 license number. Therefore, as late as October 25, 1982, the salon was operating without a current license as a result of the transfer from one location to another and the failure of the Board to send out renewal forms after 1980.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of Florida statutes relating to the operation of a cosmetology salon, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Board of Cosmetology. Petitioner contends that the Respondent was properly notified of her responsibility to renew her cosmetology salon license and that she failed to do so. Respondent contends that she was never properly notified of this new statutory responsibility.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been licensed as a cosmetologist in the State of Florida. She holds License No. CL- 0071047 issued by the Board of Cosmetology. For many years, and at all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has owned and operated a cosmetology salon named "Ramona's Beauty Salon." The salon is located at 130 Dixie Highway, Auburndale, Florida. The salon has, at all material times, been open for business and doing business with the general public as a cosmetology salon. Prior to July 1, 1980, cosmetology salons were required to be registered with the Board of Cosmetology; however, there was no requirement that the registration, once obtained, be renewed. Registration of a salon was permanent. In 1978, the Legislature amended provisions of law relating to registration of cosmetology salons. Effective July 1, 1980, cosmetology salons were required to have renewed their salon license and to renew it again every two years. Because of the change in the law which imposed a new obligation to renew the registration for a salon, the Board of Cosmetology endeavored to advise its licensees of the obligation to renew the salon registration. In March, 1980, the Board mailed a newsletter to its salon licensees advising them about the change in the law. In May, 1980, the Board mailed renewal cards to its licensees. The cards were to be filled out and returned to the Board with the appropriate fee. The Board endeavored to send these notices to its salon licensees at their currently registered addresses. The address that the Board had for the Respondent's salon was the proper one. The Respondent did not receive the notices. The evidence does not reveal whether this was the result of the Board's not forwarding them to her, an error on the part of the postal service, or an error by the Respondent. The precise system that the Board used to assure that the notices were properly forwarded to its licensees was not made a part of the record. The evidence is insufficient to establish why the Respondent did not receive the notices. Prior to 1979, the Board of Cosmetology inspected the premises of its licensees on at least an annual basis. Typically, inspections were conducted more frequently than that. When the Legislature reorganized the Department of Professional Regulation, these periodic inspections ceased during the transition period. The Respondent's salon was inspected in September, 1979. It was not inspected again, however, until December, 1982. The Board endeavored to help apprise its licensees of the need to renew salon licenses by having its inspectors inform the licensees during inspections. Since the Respondent's salon was not inspected during that period, she did not receive the benefit of that advice. The Respondent's salon had been registered with the Board since 1971. She never had any reason to believe that she needed to renew her salon's registration until sometime in 1981. The Respondent's daughter was attending a cosmetology school and heard that salon licenses needed to be renewed, and passed this information on to her mother. Her mother called a representative of the Board at the Winter Haven office. Prior to the reorganization, the Board maintained its principal offices in Winter Haven. Thereafter the offices were moved to Tallahassee, but the testing function continued to be administered from the Winter Haven office. The person who the Respondent talked to at the Winter Haven office advised her that she would be receiving registration forms from Tallahassee and that she did not need to take any action until she received those forms. The Respondent attended continuing education programs during the period following the change in the registration requirement. At none of these programs was she advised of the new obligation to renew the salon license. On December 3, 1982, an inspector with the Department of Professional Regulation inspected the Respondent's salon. The inspector observed that the salon license had not been renewed. The Respondent was advised of her responsibility to obtain a current registration for the salon, and she took immediate steps to accomplish that. Her salon is now properly registered.
Recommendation That the allegations against Respondent be dismissed. 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 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Neil P. Linden, Esquire 17071 West Dixie Highway North Miami Beach, Florida 33160
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida to practice cosmetology, having been issued license number CL 0030044. On September 27, 1966, the Respondent was issued a cosmetology salon license numbered CE 0009517 authorizing the operation of a cosmetology salon called "Bonnie's Boutique," located at 426 South Pineapple Avenue, Sarasota, Florida, owned by the Respondent. The petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, as that relates to licensing and regulation of the activities and practices of cosmetologists and cosmetology salons. After assuming ownership of, and obtaining licensure for the operation of a cosmetology salon, the Respondent began operating Bonnie's Boutique, She operated Bonnie's Boutique as a cosmetology salon until approximately June 30, 1980, when her cosmetology salon license became ripe for renewal. She was leasing the premises in which she operated her business, which lease continued through August of 1983. The Respondent failed to renew her cosmetology salon license number CE 0009517 after it expired on June 30, 1980. From that time until August, 1983, when the lease on the premises expired, the Respondent operated Bonnie's Boutique, albeit on a limited basis due to health problems, performing cosmetology services primarily for friends and relatives. Sometime in January, 1983, in the course of an investigation of the Respondent's activities with regard to the salon premises, it was discovered by petitioner's investigator that the Respondent was operating the cosmetology salon at the above address on at least an intermittent basis without a current cosmetology salon license. Due to health problems, the Respondent has never sought to operate a fully active cosmetology salon business since the expiration of her salon licensure on June 30, 1980. Aside from the subject action there has never been any other disciplinary proceeding instituted against the Respondent with regard to her licensure status.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the evidence of record, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered imposing the penalty of a reprimand on the Respondent Bonnie J. Wagoner. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 20th day of February, 184. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bonnie J. Wagoner 1714 Devanshire Sarasota, Florida 33577 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's license as a cosmetology specialist should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for the alleged violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida, Board of Cosmetology, as a nail specialist having been issued license no. FV 513107. Respondent obtained her license by examination. Respondent resides at 286 31st Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida. Respondent has obtained an occupational license from Indian River County to operate as a manicurist, pedicurist or nail extension specialist out of her home. Respondent used her state license to obtain her occupational license from Indian River County. Respondent has not obtained a salon license from the Board of Cosmetology. There is no dispute that Respondent operates her business out of her home. However, there is a dispute as to exactly what services are performed there. Respondent testified that she does not and has never performed pedicures at her home. Instead, the only services she offers are foot massages and/or reflexology. Petitioner's investigation of Respondent was initiated when an allegation was made that Respondent was practicing massage in her home without a license. Petitioner's investigator interviewed Respondent and contends that she admitted she was performing pedicures in her home. However, Respondent contends that she only advised the investigator that she "worked on people's feet" and that she has never performed a pedicure. The evidence established that Respondent does not perform pedicures or other traditional cosmetology services out of her house. Respondent does perform foot massages and/or reflexology out of her house. Respondent had previously practiced reflexology in another state. Upon moving to Florida, she tried to determine the legal steps necessary to continue her practice in this state. Since pedicure is defined in Chapter 477 to include massaging the feet, she sought a license for this specialty service. She has never sought to operate a traditional salon out of her house. Respondent did not think that she needed a salon license to work on people's feet. In a Notice of Cease and Desist dated April 25, 1990, the Department of Professional Regulation has notified Respondent that engaging in the services of reflexology while not duly licensed by the Board of Massage constitutes the unlicensed practice of massage in violation of Section 480, Florida Statutes. The purported violation of Chapter 480 is not part of this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 477.0265(1)(b)(1), and therefore, Section 477.029(h), issuing a reprimand and imposing a fine of $50.00. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of December 1990, 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 20th day of December 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1 Adopted in pertinent part in Findings of Fact 6, 7 and 8 Adopted in pertinent part in Findings of Fact 3 Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4 Rejected as irrelevant Copies Furnished To: Laura P. Gaffney, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ms. Kathleen Demarzo 286 31st Avenue, S.W. Vero Beach, Florida Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0729 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Florida Department of Cosmetology 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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology pursuant to Section 20.30, Chapters 455 and 477, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Nadine Alice Walker d/b/a Nadine's Styling Salon, is licensed to practice cosmetology and to operate a cosmetology salon, having been issued license number CL 0102000 and CE 0032562. During times material hereto, Respondent Walker has been the owner/operator of a cosmetology salon named "Nadine's Styling Salon" located at 1014 East Cass Street, Tampa, Florida 33602. Respondent Hunt, during times material, was not a licensed cosmetologist in Florida. During a routine inspection of Respondent Walker's salon on June 16, 1990, inspector Steve Yovino, who is employed by Petitioner to conduct routine inspection of, inter alia, cosmetology salons to determine their compliance with Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, observed Respondent Hunt using an electric dryer to "blow dry" a customer's hair which she had shampooed. Respondent Hunt was compensated for her services. On the day of the inspector's routine inspection of Respondent Walker's salon, it was the first day that Respondent Hunt had assisted Respondent Walker at Walker's styling salon. Respondent Hunt is presently enrolled in a cosmetology school to become trained and licensed as a cosmetologist in Florida. Respondent Walker engaged the services of Respondent Hunt to assist her in those duties in which an unlicensed cosmetologist can engage in, to wit, performing routine maintenance around the salon to include sweeping and cleaning the booth areas. Respondent Walker's aim was to assist Respondent Hunt in gaining experience in those areas of cosmetology which did not require a license. Neither Respondent Hunt nor Respondent Walker have been the subject of prior disciplinary action by the Petitioner.
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 Nadine Alice Walker in the amount of $100, payable to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the entry of its Final Order and issue Respondent Nadine Alice Walker a letter of guidance. Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent Tracy Hunt in the amount of $100, payable to Petitioner within thirty days of the entry of its Final Order and issue Respondent Tracy Hunt a letter of guidance. 1/ RECOMMENDED this 28th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 28th day of February, 1991.
