Findings Of Fact Respondent held a salon registration certificate at the time of this violation. The salon certificate of registration was not displayed inasmuch as the certificate was for a salon from which Respondent had moved and Respondent had not secured a certificate for the salon in which she was operating. Respondent has secured a certificate of registration to operate the beauty salon in which she is not operating. The Notice to appear, Complaint, and receipt for certified mail was entered into evidence as Composite Exhibit 1 without objection.
Recommendation Suspend the certificate of registration of the Respondent for a period of thirty (30) days or less. August 29, 1975 (date) Delphine C. Strickland Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ms. Artie Leigh Mitchell 427 Roosevelt Avenue Merritt Island, Florida Ms. Bertha Stockton 1717-16th Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Ms. Mary Alice Palmer Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Post Office Box 9087 Winter Haven, Florida 33880 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Complaintant, vs. CASE NO. 75-1013 BERTHA STOCKTON, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether the certificate of registration of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for the reason that Respondent, Arguster Jackson, did work as a master cosmetologist without a valid certificate of registration.
Findings Of Fact A copy of the Complaint with attached license, the certificate, and receipt for certified mail were entered into evidence as requested and marked Exhibit 1 without objection. Respondent entered a guilty plea, a copy of which was entered into evidence as requested without objection and marked Exhibit 2. Respondent Jackson did operate without a current registration required by Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. Respondent secured her master cosmetologist certificate within a time laps after the filing of this Complaint.
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 Whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Jerrold D. Bass was owner and president of J. D. Bass & Company, Inc., which held cosmetology license number CE 0040858. On or around November 2, 1988, Respondent employed Mr. Thomas J. Tilelli to practice cosmetology. Mr. Tilelli's license to practice cosmetology had expired on approximately July 1, 1988. On or around November 2, 1988, and , again, on or around January 6, 1989, combs and brushes were out on work stations at the salon. However, the proof fails to support the Petitioner's contention that combs and brushes were dirty and were used on more that one patron without sanitizing them between patrons. Rather, the combs and brushes were in use on each occasion and were not used on more than one patron of the salon without being sanitized between each patron. On balance, the proof fails to demonstrate that Respondent committed any sanitary violations. But, by employing Mr. Tilelli with his expired license and by allowing him to practice without a valid license, Respondent did violate the provisions of the Florida Cosmetology Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED the a final order be entered imposing on Respondent an administrative fine of $200. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 30th day of June 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobi Pam, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Jerrold D. Bass 5579 North University Drive Lauderhill, Florida 33321 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
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 =================================================================
The Issue The issue at the hearing was whether Respondent's cosmetology salon license was subject to discipline for alleged violations of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated thereunder.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Hattie Nesbit, is licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. The Respondent also holds a Florida cosmetology salon license for her beauty salon, Nesbit's Beauty Salon. 1/ Ms. Nesbit works part-time at her salon. She employs two to three other very experienced licensed cosmetologists. The salon has four beauty stations. Ms. Nesbit's beauty station is the first station after entering the salon premises. The other employees occupy the other stations. They are aware of the Board's rules for the operation and sanitation of a beauty salon. Additionally, Respondent has the Board's sanitation rules posted on the wall of the salon. The salon in general is clean and well-kept. Eileen Thomas, the Petitioner's inspector, conducted a random inspection of the Respondent's salon on February 21, 1989. Ms. Nesbit was not present during the inspection. While there the inspector observed that the container for the deposit of hair was a garbage can located in the back room. The room was closed off from the beauty salon. At the time of the inspection the container had hair in it. The garbage can cover was not on the container and the lid was not located at the time of the inspection. The Board's rules provide that a lid must be kept on the container for the deposit of hair. Respondent's receptacle for the deposit of hair was not maintained in such a manner. Therefore, Respondent is subject to discipline under the Board's rules governing the maintenance of container for the deposit of hair. The inspector, also, observed Ms. Blount, one of the beauticians employed by Respondent, apply chemicals to a patron's hair without using a spatula. Since Ms. Nesbit was not present at the salon she was unaware of the employee's disregard of the Board's rule that all chemicals be applied with a spatula. However, the salon owner is the person responsible for the operation of the salon and is responsible for violations committed by the employees of the salon. Respondent's lack of knowledge only goes to mitigate the penalty which should be imposed for the employee's failure to observe the Board's rules. The evidence showed that Respondent had reasonably instructed her employees on sanitary procedure and required them to follow that procedure. Respondent posted the sanitation rules on the wall of the salon as a reminder of those rules. Respondent's violation is nominal. In light of these facts Respondent should receive a nominal penalty. A letter of reprimand would be an appropriate penalty for this type of violation. Additionally, the inspector observed that the wet sanitizers located in four of the stations at the salon were only one third to one half full of a sanitizing solution. A wet sanitizer is any type of container that is large enough to hold a sanitizing solution in which a comb or brush can be completely immersed for proper sanitation. In this case, the containers provided by Respondent were large enough to allow for the complete immersion of a comb or brush in a sanitizing solution. There were combs and brushes in the wet sanitizers at the four stations. Those combs and brushes were not completely immersed in the sanitizing solution because the solution was low. The Rule on the provision of wet sanitizers does not require that the containers be filled all the time. The rule only requires that the containers be large enough to allow for immersion. The Rule requires only that a comb or brush be immersed prior to its use. The Rule does not require that a comb or brush be immersed all of the time. In this case Respondent provided containers of the correct size. However, no evidence was presented that the Respondent's operators were using the combs or brushes in the wet sanitizers without first properly sanitizing them. The fact that the jars were low in solution at the limited point in time of the inspection does not clearly and convincingly support a conclusion that Respondent's operators were not utilizing proper sanitation procedures before the combs and brushes were used on a customer. Without evidence of such use Respondent cannot be guilty of a violation of the Board's rule on the provision of wet sanitizers and the sanitation of combs or brushes before their use.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order reprimanding Respondent for violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes and imposing a $25 fine. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 December, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida, having been issued Florida cosmetology license, number CL 0057719. At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent had been the owner of a cosmetology salon named Bikini Unisex Beauty Salon, located at 2500 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida, although at the time of the hearing Respondent had sold his interest in Bikini Unisex Beauty Salon. At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent was licensed to operate the Bikini Unisex Beauty Salon as a cosmetology salon, having been issued Florida cosmetology salon license number, CE 0025617. On September 7, 1984, Alexa Aracha (Aracha), an inspector employed by Petitioner, conducted a routine inspection at Bikini Unisex Beauty Salon to check for compliance with sanitation and licensure requirements. At the time of the inspection, Mamie L. Thompson (Thompson) was shampooing the hair of a salon customer. Respondent has admitted that Thompson was employed by him, d/b/a Unisex Bikini Beauty Salon, as a cosmetologist the past fourteen (14) years. Thompson's cosmetology license, number CL 0031825, expired on June 30, 1984, and was not renewed until November 17, 1984. Although it appears that Thompson had completed the necessary hours of continuing education to have her license renewed, the record is clear that between July 1, 1984 and November 17, 1984 Thompson's cosmetology license, number CL 0031825, was in an inactive status. Respondent, due to Thompson's length of employment with him, did not check Thompson's license to see if it was current and was unaware that her license had expired. At the time of the inspection, Linda S. Marlowe (Marlowe) was present in the salon but was not working. Respondent's appointment book indicated that Marlowe had scheduled appointments for the afternoon of the day of the inspection. Respondent admitted that Marlowe was employed by him, d/b/a Bikini Unisex Beauty Salon, as a cosmetologist, and had worked a couple of days just prior to the inspection. The record is clear that Marlowe's cosmetology license, number CL 0057700, expired June 30, 1984, and was not renewed until January 16, 1985. Although it appears that Marlowe had completed the necessary hours of continuing education to have her license renewed the record is clear that between July 1, 1984 and January 16, 1985 Marlowe's cosmetology license, number CL 0057700, was in an inactive status. The record shows that there had been sickness in Marlowe's family and due to this sickness, she did not have the necessary funds to renew her license. Again, due to Marlowe's length of employment with Respondent, Respondent did not check Marlowe's license to see if it was current and was unaware that her license had expired. At all times material to this proceeding, Linda S. Marlowe and Mamie L. Thompson were not licensed to practice barbering in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the charge of violating Section 477.0265(1)(b)2., (1)(d), Florida Statutes (1983) be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of the violation of Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statues (1983). For such violation, considering the mitigating circumstances surrounding the violation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology issue a letter of Reprimand to the Respondent. Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 25th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Valentino Malloggi Pro se 2500 E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard Hallandale, Florida 33009 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 is now, and has been since September 10, 1980, licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Her current license expires June 30, 1992. At all times material hereto, including August 8 and 17, 1990, Respondent has been an employee of the Salon D'Angelo, a cosmetology salon located in Coral Springs, Florida. Lewis Morganstern is an inspector with the Department. On August 8, 1990, Morganstern conducted an inspection of the Salon D'Angelo, including Respondent's work station. During his inspection, Morganstern observed that (a) Respondent did not remove hair from combs and brushes before using them on the next patron; (b) the barbacide Respondent used to sanitize her combs and brushes had hair floating in it; and (c) the drawer in which Respondent stored her combs and brushes also contained her personal belongings. Morganstern warned that these practices were unlawful and therefore should cease. Upon leaving, he advised that he would return to conduct a follow-up inspection. As promised, Morganstern returned to the salon on August 17, 1990. He found the same violations that he had observed during his initial inspection nine days earlier.
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 violations of law alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint; and (2) imposing upon Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00 for having committed these violations. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of September, 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 6th day of September, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire Mark Harris, Qualified Representative Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kim Raffaelli Salon D'Angelo 4623 North University Drive Coral Springs, Florida 33065 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
