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.
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.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a cosmetology salon, permitted an unlicensed person to perform cosmetology services as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, dated April 24, 2007, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are found: At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed and regulated by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, as a cosmetology salon owned by Immacula Evans. Respondent is a licensed cosmetology salon, license number CE9966208, whose address of record with Petitioner is 11329 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33612. At all times material hereto, John R. Miranda was employed by the Petitioner as an Inspector. On or about March 8, 2006, Miranda conducted an inspection of Respondent's establishment located at 11329 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Miranda observed that an unidentified male was practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was personally issued to Respondent's owner. On or about March 17, 2006, Miranda conducted a re- inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of this inspection, Miranda observed that Pierre Elionze was practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was issued to Respondent. On or about March 24, 2006, Miranda conducted another inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of this inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet, Christine Marc, and Moveta S. Swalters were each practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was issued to Respondent. On or about June 7, 2006, Miranda conducted a further inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet was again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. On or about July 29, 2006, Miranda conducted another inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet yet again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. On or about August 11, 2006, Miranda conducted an inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet was again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. Respondent has engaged in the unlawful and repeated violations of Subsection 477.0265(1), Florida Statutes, between March 8 and August 11, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order revoking Respondent's cosmetology establishment license number CE 9966208, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Rhonda Welker, is a licensed cosmetologist operating under License No. CL0116241. Her original license was issued on November 24, 1980, and expired on June 30, 1982. On November 9, 1982, Respondent was employed as a cosmetologist, and acting as such, by Coiffures by Kenneth, a beauty salon owned and operated by Respondent's father and mother, located at 887 Semoran Boulevard, Apopka, Florida. At that time, her license had expired and was denied renewal by the Board because she had failed to take 16 additional hours of continuing professional education subsequent to issuance of her license, but instead had only taken eight. As a result, she did not meet the Board requirements for renewal of her license, which became inactive at the date of expiration. When Valerie Flowers, an inspector for the Board of Cosmetology, performed her follow-up inspection of the salon where Respondent worked, on November 17, 1982, she observed Respondent styling a customer's hair. At this time, though Respondent had completed the required 16 hours of continuing professional education, her license had not yet been renewed. Respondent Rhonda Welker's current license was issued on January 30, 1983, and expires on June 30, 1984. Respondent failed to secure the required 16 hours of continuing professional education on the honest but mistaken belief that she only needed eight hours' worth. She felt that since her licensure was initially issued for less than two full years, she would only need the eight hours of continuing education for one year, which she had. Under the circumstances, Respondent, Rhonda Welker, was holding herself out as a cosmetologist when she did not have an active current Florida cosmetologist's license.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be ordered to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $50. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 30th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Rhonda Welker 887 Semoran Boulevard Apopka, Florida 32703 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Arled Corp., d/b/a Cadris Hair Design, has been licensed to operate a cosmetology salon in the State of Florida, having previously been issued license number CE 0046212. At all times material to this case, the Respondent corporation has been the owner and operator of a cosmetology salon known as Cadris Hair Design, which is located at 13635 Southwest 26th Street, Miami, Florida 33175-6377. On December 26, 1991, during the course of a routine inspection, an inspector employed by the Department of Professional Regulation discovered that Liliam de la Portilla was practicing a cosmetology specialty on the licensed premises without having a valid license to practice a cosmetology specialty. Further investigation revealed that Liliam de la Portilla had been practicing a cosmetology specialty on a regular basis on the licensed premises since approximately the middle of September of 1991. Liliam de la Portilla has previously been licensed to practice a cosmetology specialty, but her last license expired on June 30, 1990. During the period from the middle of September of 1991 through December 26, 1991, Liliam de la Portilla did not have a valid license to practice a cosmetology specialty in the State of Florida. Ms. Gladys Scheer is, and was at all material times, the president of and owner of Arled Corporation. Ms. Scheer granted permission for Liliam de la Portilla to practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design. Liliam de la Portilla was not an employee of Cadris Hair Design, but merely paid rent for the right to practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design. Ms. Gladys Scheer has known Liliam de la Portilla for approximately ten years. Ms. Scheer knew that Liliam de la Portilla had previously been licensed to practice a cosmetology specialty and assumed, but did not verify, that Liliam de la Portilla was still licensed. In September of 1991 when Ms. Scheer first allowed Liliam de la Portilla to practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design, she was not aware that Liliam de la Portilla's license had expired. Following the inspection on December 26, 1991, Ms. Gladys Scheer told Liliam de la Portilla that the latter could no longer practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design until such time as she was properly licensed.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order concluding that the Respondent is guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty consisting of a reprimand and an administrative fine in the amount of $100.00. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of August 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire N-607 Rhode Building Phase 2 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Bureau Chief Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Ms. Gladys Scheer, President Cadris Hair Design 13635 Southwest 26th Street Miami, Florida 33175-6377 Kaye Howerton, 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
The Issue Whether Respondent allowed cosmetologists to work in Otto's Beauty Salon without a master cosmetologist being present. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn, or suspended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent appeared in person and admitted the violation as charged by the Complainant. Respondent is the occasional manager of Otto's Beauty Salon. Respondent is the master cosmetologist and the only master cosmetologist working in Otto's Beauty Salon. Respondent was absent from the shop as charged by the Board during working hours and during the time cosmetologists were working in said salon.
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for allowing two unlicensed persons to practice cosmetology in the beauty salon licensed as May Cohen's Soul Sissors.
Findings Of Fact A joint motion to consolidate the above styled cases was made for the reason that the charges grew out of the same incident. The motion was granted. A motion was made requesting permission for the Respondent to file affidavits late and the permissions was granted without objection by the Petitioner but with a reservation to file objections when the affidavits were filed. The affidavits were filed July 26, 1977 and are a part of the record. No objection has been filed by Petitioner and the thirty days from date of hearing allotted by the Hearing Officer has expired. The statements in the affidavit are consistent with the evidence and testimony at the hearing and with the findings of facts herein. The Administrative Complaints were issued on May 31, 1977 against John S. Kubie, President of Seligman & Latz, Inc., and against the salon May Cohen's Soul Sinners charging: "That you, said SELIGMAN & LATZ, INC. d/b/a May Cohen's Soul Sissors on January 7, 1977 did allow two unlicensed persons to practice in your salon, at May Cohen's Soul Sissors, Jacksonville, Florida." On January 7, 1977, the inspector for the Board entered the May Cohen's Soul Sinners Beauty Shop and found therein two unlicensed persons. One person, Willie Dock, who is an employee of Nay Cohen's Soul Sinners, had not secured a Florida license and was working without a license in the subject salon and without a license or permit posted as required. He had not informed the manager that his permit had expired on December 30, 1976. The other person, Margaret Florence, was working although her license had been altered to appear as if it were current. It was of a different color than the current licenses of other cosmetologists in the shop and in fact it had expired. The manager should have ascertained whether these people were duly licensed and knew or should have known they were not properly licensed.
Recommendation Suspend the license of May Cohen's Soul Sissors for a period of seven (7) days. DONE and ORDERED this 26th 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: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee,, Florida 32302 Charles A. Sorenson, Esquire Forbes and Meide 400 Guaranty Life Building 137 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether Respondent should be fined for alleged violations of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, occurring prior to her licensure.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Catherine Shepherd, is the owner of a cosmetics studio named Merle Norman Cosmetics. The studio is located at 13275 South 14th Street, Leesburg, Florida 32748. Her primary business is the sale of cosmetics to the public. A very small portion of her business is nail sculpting. Except for the nail sculpting, Respondent is not otherwise subject to the strictures of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. Respondent, dba Merle Norman, is a licensed cosmetology salon in the State of Florida having been issued license number CE 0048712. Respondent obtained her license January 24, 1989, after Petitioner's investigator informed her that the law required her to have a cosmetology salon license in order to do nails at her establishment. Prior to January 24, 1989, Respondent was not licensed as a cosmetology salon. When the cosmetology statutes were last adopted, Respondent was informed by the Board's investigator that she would have to employ a licensed cosmetologist in order to do nails at her studio. Respondent thence forward employed a licensed nail sculptor to perform this service. However, the Board's investigator did not inform Respondent that she was also required to have a cosmetology salon license to employ a licensed nail sculptor. She was, therefore, unaware that the law required such a license. Respondent operated as a cosmetology salon without a license for approximately two years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order fining the Respondent one hundred dollars ($100.00). DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of July, 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 18th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-2445 The proposed facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact are adopted, in substance, in so far as material. The proposed facts contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia Gelmine, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation North wood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0760 (904) 488-0062 Catherine Shepherd dba Merle Norman 1327 South 14th Street Leesburg, Florida 32748 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729 Kenneth Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729
