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
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed cosmetologist in the state of Florida, holding license number CL-0167327. She makes her home at 882 Anita Avenue, Pensacola, Florida, along with her husband and children. Respondent works at a relative's beauty salon in another location. Respondent has been interested in hair weaving or braiding for several years. Hair weaving or braiding is done by hand, by intertwining strands of hair. No tools are used other than a needlelike instrument used for lifting up strands of hair and sewing in synthetic or human hair. An individual's hair is not treated with any type of chemical, nor is it cut or shampooed. Such manipulation of the hair is somewhat difficult and requires practice in order to weave hair well. On or about October 20, 1987, Lutrel M. Raboteaux, an investigator for the Board of Cosmetology, contacted Respondent regarding a complaint they had received about her from Denise Bryant. 1/ Mr. Raboteaux's investigation centered on whether Respondent was maintaining a cosmetology salon in her home. The only items Mr. Raboteaux found at Ms. Freeman's home were a broken chair type hair dryer and a couple of well used bottles of hair supplies for black hair. Ms. Freeman had been given the broken hair dryer. She had never used the dryer since it was not in working order. The bottles were for personal use and were only used by Ms. Freeman and her family. About two years ago, Respondent met Marie Smith. They became good friends. Through their friendship, Ms. Smith discovered that Ms. Freeman knew how to do hair weaving. Ms. Smith was interested in having her hair woven, and asked Respondent to weave her hair. Ms. Smith, in return for Respondent's weaving her hair, tutored one of Respondent's children. The hair weaving and tutoring took place at Ms. Freeman's home and consisted mostly of tightening the weave as Ms. Smith's hair grew. Ms. Smith viewed the hair weaving arrangement as more of a quid pro quo for tutoring Respondent's child. Respondent viewed the hair weaving arrangement on more of a friendship basis as a favor for a favor. Other than this one arrangement, Ms. Freeman would practice hair weaving on her family and some of her friends. They would ask her to weave their hair. As was the case with Ms. Smith, they would ask her to weave their hair and she would perform that task for them. Again as with Ms. Smith, Respondent would weave the hair of her friends at her home. She did not charge for her services. Any hair weaving that took place in Ms. Freeman's home was for free. She never received any money from the individuals she practiced on at her home. The only time she may have received anything was the tutoring swap described earlier involving Ms. Smith. Likewise, Ms. Freeman supplied no chemicals or other supplies necessary for her friends to get their hair woven. Her friends supplied those items at their own expense. Ms. Freeman's sole reason for weaving her friends' hair was to practice the art of hair weaving which she wished to specialize in. It is clear that Ms. Freeman never intended to operate a hair weaving business in her home and did not consider her home in anyway to be a beauty salon. Her home is not open to the public. Her home did not contain any equipment or chemicals used in a beauty salon. No evidence was presented that she keeps regular hours or appointments at her home. On the contrary, she in fact works at another beauty salon in Pensacola. Additionally, Ms. Freeman asked one of her teachers at a cosmetology school in Pensacola if it was all right for her to practice hair weaving at her home for free. She was informed that it was not against Florida Law and was otherwise completely unaware that there may be a problem with not having her home licensed as a salon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED: That the complaint against Ms. Freeman be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 12th day of April, 1988.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the alleged violations occurred and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Great Expectations Precision Haircutters, is a cosmetology salon located in Melbourne, Florida. Its owner, Twin Towers Hair Stylists, Inc. is a New York corporation authorized to do business in Florida. Sharon Bross manages the salon and is the corporate owner's resident agent in Florida. The amended administrative complaint in this proceeding was served, by certified mail, on Sharon Bross. In August 1987, Sara Kimmig, an inspector for various boards within the Department of Professional Regulation, visited the Respondent salon in Melbourne. She found the salon open and conducting business, with three persons in the waiting area and four operators engaged in performing services. She found that the salon's license number CE 0038872 expired in October 1986. The salon opened for business in April 1986. All licenses expire on October 31st of even-numbered years, therefore the license expired shortly after it was obtained. Ms. Bross was informed of the violation and she immediately applied for and obtained a renewal license. At the hearing, Ms. Bross conceded that the license had expired, but that she had not received a renewal notice and the expiration was an oversight. The license on its face, however, indicates the October 31, 1986, expiration date. There was no evidence of past or other concurrent violations by this salon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of the violations, as charged, and fined $500.00 DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 5th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Ray Shope, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Sharon Bross, Resident Agent Twin Towers Hair Stylists, Inc. Great Expectations Precision Haircutters 1525 West New Haven West Melbourne, Florida 32904 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against the licenses of A Dazzles Hair Designers and Noris Quintana (Respondents) based upon violations of Sections 477.029(1)(a) and (h), and 477.0265(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondents in this case.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Nicholas Montano has been the owner and operator of a cosmetology salon named A Dazzles Hair Designers located at 7317 Miami Lakes Drive, Miami Lakes, Florida, which has been issued license number CE-0041059. Noris Quintana has been employed, at all times material hereto, at A Dazzles Hair Designers. She is not licensed as a cosmetologist in the State of Florida, but has been issued specialty license number FV-0510891 under the provisions of Section 477.013(6)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, which authorizes the holder thereof to perform manicures and pedicures, but not facial services as described in Section 477.013(6)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondents do not dispute this limitation on Quintana's specialty license. The Department is the state agency with responsibility to file and prosecute administrative complaints alleging violations of Chapters 455 and 477, Florida Statutes, in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. There is no evidence in the record of any prior license disciplinary action involving Respondents. On or about September 22, 1989, the Department's investigator, Richard J. Braun, conducted an inspection of A Dazzles Hair Designers and observed Noris Quintana, an employee at A Dazzles Hair Designers, remove wax or some other facial compound from a customer's face. Nicholas Montano and Noris Quintana admitted that Quintana did remove wax from the customer's face on the day when Braun conducted his inspection. Therefore, it is clear that Quintana was performing facial services for this client. Subsequent to the facts involved in this case, all facial chairs have been removed from A Dazzles Hair Designers, and wax facials are no longer performed at this salon. On or about July 28, 1990, an inspection of the salon was conducted by another inspector of the Department, and at that time it was found that all cosmetologists and specialists were properly and currently licensed for the activities in which they were engaged.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine of $200 on the Respondent A Dazzles Hair Designers, and an administrative fine of $125 on Noris Quintana. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of February 1991 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Mone', Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Nicholas Montano A Dazzles Hair Designers 7317 Miami Lakes Drive Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Noris Quintana 7060 West 2nd Lane Hialeah, FL 33014-5314 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the fact that the Petitioner has jurisdiction over both Respondents. In addition, Petitioner presented the licensing history of each Respondent which reflected that both possess current appropriate licenses. On March 4, 1985, Respondent, at his shop, accomplished a foil frosting on the complainant, Ms. Young, who had visited Respondent's shop for hair dressing services several times in the past. On each occasion, Respondent worked on her himself giving her over the period three permanent waves and four frostings. Ms. Young was familiar with the frosting process having had her hair done that way since 1967. There are several legitimate ways a hair frosting can be done. One is through a cap placed over the head with strands of hair pulled through small holes and bleached. In the foil frosting method, the affected strands of hair are isolated, bleach is applied, and the bleached hair is wrapped in a piece of foil until done. Frosting can be considered light, medium, or heavy, depending upon the amount of hair that is frosted. Ms. Young usually has a heavy frosting done. The last two times Respondent frosted her hair prior to the incident complained of here, Ms. Young contends her hair came out orange and red instead of blonde. She complained to Respondent about this both in person and by phone and Respondent allegedly told her he would correct the problem by first applying a dye to her hair and then frosting it. On the day in question, according to Ms. Young, Respondent did as he said he would and dyed her hair a deep brown. He then started to frost it even though she advised him at the time the dye had come out too dark. According to Ms. Young, Respondent told her not to worry about it. Ms. Young relates that Respondent left the bleach on her hair almost four hours. He checked her hair several times during that period but did nothing to stop the bleaching process. She contends she told Respondent that she was under the dryer too long but he either ignored her or told her to be quiet. After she became seriously concerned that her hair might be damaged, Ms. Young took herself out from under the dryer and began to remove the foil. At this point, she contends, Respondent came and took her to the wash area where he unwrapped the remaining foil packets and had Ms. Ayotte wash the bleach out of Ms. Young's hair. After this was done, Ms. Young was put back under the dryer and at this point, Ms. Young alleges, when she felt her hair, it had the consistency of taffy . She poked at it with a hair pick and found that large amounts of hair broke off each time she touched it. When she showed this to Respondent, he allegedly stated it was only dead ends coming off. At this point, convinced she would get no satisfaction from the Respondent, she paid him the charge for a frosting and left the shop. Respondent, she claims, refused to do anything more for her at the time but merely told her to go home and put a conditioner on her hair. According to Ms. Young, her hair continued to come out all evening each time she touched it which highly distressed and upset her, a state confirmed by her neighbor. By the following morning, she claims, she had accumulated seven or eight baggies of her hair which had come out. No matter how much she washed it and put conditioner on it, nothing helped and her hair continued to come out. The day after her visit to Respondent's shop, Ms. Young went to a beauty supply house where she was sold a vitamin treatment for her hair which she applied. Several days later she went to the beauty shop run by Ms. Kuhn where her hair was examined not only by Ms. Kuhn but also by Ms. Korman, both of whom concluded that her hair had been overly processed. She was given a procedure to follow for conditioning her hair which was trimmed back to a maximum length of two to three inches all over her head. Ms. Young indicates that the previous frostings she was given by Respondent were satisfactory as to hair texture if not as to color. However, she contends that the procedure he used on this occasion was different than that he used previously. She believes 75 percent of her hair had bleach applied to it. As a result of her dissatisfaction with Respondent, Ms. Young wrote a letter of complaint to DPR followed up by a formal complaint. The resultant file was forwarded to Ms. Markowitz, the local investigator, whose report was forwarded to Ms. Jimenez for consultation. Ms. Jimenez neither examined Ms. Young nor spoke with any of the witnesses involved but, based solely on her evaluation of the file only, which included Ms. Young's written statement, concluded Respondent was guilty of extreme negligence. She based her opinion on Ms. Young's recitation of the procedure followed by Respondent, and she readily admits that if the information given her was not accurate, her opinion would not be valid necessarily. Mr. Bannett does not deny applying a bleach solution to Ms. Young's hair and admits to having done each of her three previous frostings. He contends, however, that she was satisfied each time. 12 As a professional beautician, he has done thousands of frostings over the thirty or more years he has been in the business and has not experienced any problems until this time. He claims to work as a mechanic rather than as an artist in that he does a frosting the same way each time and does not deviate from his procedure. He believes that only through a routine can he effectively accomplish the process successfully. He categorically denies having dyed Ms. Young's hair before frosting it stating that to do so would have been counterproductive. It would require the bleaching of not only the natural hair color but also the dyed and would mean the bleach would have to stay on far too long. In a situation needing a color change, he puts the coloring on the hair remaining uncovered after the application of the foil packs. In a frosting Mr. Bannett starts at the bottom of the head applying the bleach and wrapping the treated area. He then does the sides the same way and works his way up to the top. It takes him about 20 to 25 minutes to accomplish all the treating and wrapping, after which he places the customer under the dryer for another 25 minutes. At that point, after 45 to 50 minutes, he checks the color of the hair. If it appears to be appropriate, he has the bleach washed from the customer's hair. If the color is not right, he replaces the wrapper and lets the bleach stay a little longer. Mr. Bannett contends that when he checked Ms. Young's hair it was right and Ms. Ayotte washed out the bleach. Not only Mr. Bannett, but also Ms. Ayotte and Ms. Ascola, both of whom were present and observed Ms. Young during the process contend she was happy with the result. They also deny that prior to the frosting Ms. Young's hair was orange or red. If Ms. Young was unhappy, they say, it was because of other matters because she left the shop happy with the way her hair looked when Mr. Bannett was through. Unfortunately, though Mr. Bannett indicates he routinely makes records of the service he gives each of his customers, if the customer does not return to the shop within a short period of time, he destroys them. Here, even though Ms. Markowitz interviewed him only slightly more than three months after the incident in question, the records had already been destroyed and he could not recall what was on them. As a result, his testimony is based solely on his limited recollection and his usual routine. It is most unlikely, however, that if Ms. Young were as unhappy as she relates, some other customer in the shop would not have overheard her discussions with Respondent or observed the state of her hair. She presented no evidence other than her own allegations as to what happened in the shop. The other evidence as to the cause of the damage was not incident specific. The over application could have been by anyone, including the complainant. On balance, therefore, it would appear that without question Mr. Bannett did a frosting of Ms. Young's hair on the date alleged. There is also no doubt that the hair was damaged by the improper application of chemicals to it. However, Petitioner has failed to conclusively show that it was Respondent who improperly applied these chemicals.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint in this case against the Respondents Ronald Bannett and Style and Color of Sunrise, Inc., be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of November, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 10th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1581 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1-4 Accepted and incorporated. 5-8 Rejected as unproven. 9 Accepted and incorporated. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as irrelevant to resolution of the issues of fact. 3&4 Rejected as recitations of the evidence and not findings of fact. 5 Rejected as commentary on the evidence and not as finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Jane H. Shaeffer, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Fogan, Esquire 2170 S.E. 17th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings S. Benton, General Counsel 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.
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.
