The Issue By Administrative Complaint filed October 22, 1975, the Florida State Board of Massage seeks to revoke, annul, withdraw, or suspend the license of Mary W. Kenny, License No. 0002352 on grounds that she allowed unlicensed persons to perform work constituting the practice of massage at Lady Fair Massage Parlor, Goldenrod, Florida on or about July 10, 1975. Four witnesses testified on behalf of the Board, and Mary W. Kenny testified in her own behalf.
Findings Of Fact Mary Kenny is licensed by the Florida State Board of Massage and operates the Lady Fair Massage Parlor in Goldenrod, Florida. On July 9, 1975, Deputy Sheriff David Moore of the Orange County Sheriff's Office made an appointment for a massage at the Lady Fair Massage Parlor and was given a massage by Debra Huggins who is not licensed as a masseuse. During the course of the massage he was offered a complete massage with hand relief for $15.00. He declined and upon completion of the massage paid Ms. Huggins $10.00. On the morning of July 10, 1975 Deputy Sheriff Alexander Andrews accompanied by agent Marcos, both of the Orange County Sheriff's Office, entered the Lady Fair Massage Parlor to inquire about a massage. When told they needed appointments they advised they were taking the place of two customers who had appointments. At this time Debra Huggins and Nila Schnur were operating the salon. Andrews was given a massage by Ms. Huggins and was also offered a complete massage which he declined. Upon completion of the massage he paid $10.00 to Ms. Schnur. On the afternoon of July 10, 1975 Agents Andrews and Moore accompanied by Sgt. Harris, also of the Orange County Sheriff's Office entered the Lady Fair Massage Parlor with a search warrant. Mary Kenny and Debra Huggins were the only females present. After producing the search warrant and searching the premises Ms. Kenny and Ms. Huggins were arrested. The latter was charged with operating as a masseuse without a license and the former with aiding and abetting Debra Huggins and Nila Schnur to practice massage without a license. On September 17, 1975 Debra Huggins and Nila Schnur pleaded guilty to practicing massage without a license and Mary Kenny pleaded nolo contendere to aiding and abetting the unlicensed practice of massage, all in violation of Chapter 480, Florida Statutes. Ms. Kenny acknowledged that she knew Debra Huggins and Nila Schnur and that both were desirous of becoming apprentice masseuses. Ms. Huggins had been on the premises for approximately three years and had helped Ms. Kenny move her salon to its present location. Ms. Kenny's testimony that she locked the salon when she was not present and that neither Ms. Huggins or Schnur had a key is not credible. Likewise her testimony that she was unaware that either girl had ever given massages is also not worthy of belief.
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of section 477.02(1), (3), (6), Florida Statutes. A copy of the Administrative Complaint and Notice of Hearing was received by Respondent, but he did not appear at the hearing. (Exhibit 1) At the commencement of the hearing, Petitioner's representative stated that Respondent's place of business, Jane's Beauty Salon, Fort Myers, Florida, is out of business and that Certificate of Registration to operate a beauty salon in that name No. 19330 issued by Petitioner in December, 1973, is no longer valid. Accordingly, counsel for Petitioner interposed no objection to dismissal of the matter.
Recommendation The the allegations against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Leon Rizzuto 2351 East Mall, Apartment 103 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether or not during the period of April, 1975 until September, 1976, Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon, the President, Manager and Licensed Instructor, allowed an unlicensed person, namely one, Dennis R. Nevels, to teach at the school, in violation of Rule 21F-2.17(b), Florida Administrative Code and Section 477.08(1), Florida Statutes; thereby violating Section 477.15(7) and (9), Florida Statutes. Whether or not during the period of April, 1975 until September, 1976, Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon, the President, Manager and Licensed Instructor, allowed an unlicensed person, namely one Cora Bracy, to teach at the school, in violation of Rule 21F-2.17(b), Florida Administrative Code and Section 477.08(1), Florida Statutes; thereby violating Section 477.15(7) and (9), Florida Statutes. Whether or not during the period of April, 1975 until September, 1976, Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon, the President, Manager and Licensed Instructor, allowed an unlicensed person, namely one Renee Boren Hayes, to teach at the school, in violation of Rule 21F-2.17(b), Florida Administrative Code and Section 477.08(1), Florida Statutes; thereby violating Section 477.15(7) and (9), Florida Statutes. Whether or not during the period of April, 1975 until September, 1976, Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon, the President, Manager and Licensed Instructor, allowed an unlicensed person, namely one, Annette Calloway, to teach at the school, in violation of Rule 21F-2.17(b), Florida Administrative Code and Section 477.08(1), Florida Statutes; thereby violating Section 477.15(7) and (9), Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about December 10, 1976, Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon as President, Manager and Licensed Instructor, allowed the school to operate on members of the public without any licensed instructor being present in violation of Rules 21F-2.24 and 21F-2.25, Florida Administrative Code; thereby violating Section 477.15(9), Florida Statutes, and Section 477.27(12), Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about September 4, 1976, Henry Dixon, was drinking and became publicly intoxicated during the day time hours at his school and in doing such violated Section 477.15(6) and (7), Florida Statutes. Whether or not between September, 1976 and January, 1977, the students of the Respondent were not receiving experience and a receptionist in violation of Rule 21F-2.16, Florida Administrative Code; the school did not have an adequate library in violation of Rule 21F-2.20, Florida Administrative Code; the school did not have the required number of thermal units, heat caps or steamers, in violation of Rule 21F-2.07, Florida Administrative Code; the school did not have separate junior and senior departments in violation of Rules 21F-2.23, 21F- 2.24 and 21F-2.25, Florida Administrative Code; the school did not have the required minimum equipment of six shampoo bowls and six manicure tables in violation of Rule 21F-2.08, Florida Administrative Code; and the Respondents had not posted their inspection rating sheets as required by Rule 21F-2.07, Florida Administrative Code; thereby violating Sections 477.08, 477.15(7), (8) and (9) and Section 477.27(8) and (12), Florida Statutes. Whether or not during the period of April, 1975 until September, 1976, Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon, the President, Manager and Licensed Instructor, allowed an unlicensed person, namely one, A. J. Quentaro, to teach at the school, in violation of Rule 21F-2.17(b), Florida Administrative Code and Section 477.08(1), Florida Statutes; thereby violating Section 477.15(7) and (9), Florida Statutes. Whether or not between September, 1976 and February, 1977, Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon as President, Manager and Licensed Instructor, failed to issue and post student permits and identification badges in spite of repeated warnings from the Board's inspector, and for that reason were in violation of Rule 21F-2.07(4), Rule 21F-2.25, and Rule 21F-2.28, Florida Administrative Code; thereby violating Sections 477.08, 477.15(7)(8) and (9), and 477.27(8) and (12), Florida Statutes. Whether or not between the period September, 1976 and February, 1977, the Respondents allowed students without required hours to work unfettered on the public; misrepresented the amount of hours certain students had to members of the public, and posted on a bulletin board for the public to discern the names of certain students whom the Respondents favored; in violation of Rules 21F-2.23, 21F-2.24, 21F-2.25, 21F-2.28 and 21F-2.17(b), Florida Administrative Code, thereby violating Sections 477.08, 477.15(7), (8) and (9), 477.27(8) and , Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the administrative complaint, up to and including the date of the hearing in this cause, the Florida Beauty College, Inc. was the holder of license no. 043, held with the Florida State Board of Cosmetology, and Henry Dixon was licensed as an instructor by the Florida State Board of Cosmetology under license no. 22909. The licenses were held for the purpose of doing business in Jacksonville, Florida. From April, 1975 through February, 1977, the relevant periods in the administrative complaint, the Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon, as the President, Manager and a Licensed Instructor, operated a cosmetology school in Jacksonville, Florida. In an effort to prove the allegations set forth in the administrative complaint the Petitioner offered the testimony of Linda Geiger and Brenda Gene Schwerm, former students of the Florida Beauty College, Inc. Part of their testimony pertained to counts 1 - 4 and count 8. These five counts alleged that Dennis R. Nevels, Cora Bracy, Renee Boren Hayes, Annette Calloway and A. J. Quentaro had been allowed by the Respondents to teach in the cosmetology school at a time when the aforementioned persons were unlicensed as instructors. Ms. Geiger and Ms. Schwerm, collectively, gave testimony to the effect that on one or more occasions Novels, Bracy, Hayes, Calloway and Quentaro taught other students at the Florida Beauty College, with the permission of Henry Dixon, and at times his insistence, that the students attend sessions being taught by the five named individuals. This testimony of Ms. Geiger and Ms. Schwerm was opposed through the testimony of James Burdett and Cynthia Kinser, former students of the Florida Beauty College; and through the testimony of Michell Johnson, the daughter of Henry Dixon and a licensed instructor in the Florida Beauty College and Henry Dixon, one of the Respondents. The testimony of Mr. Burdett, Ms. Kinser, Ms. Johnson and Mr. Dixon was to the effect that the students Nevels, Bracy, Hayes, Calloway and Quentaro never taught other students in the beauty college under the permission of Dixon or other members of the staff. Their recollection was that some of the named students; specifically Novels, Calloway and Quentaro demonstrated certain techniques used in the cutting of hair or the treatment of hair and other cosmetology needs. In analyzing the competing points of view of the witnesses offered in the hearing, it should be noted that there is a clear and apparent interest on the part of Mr. Dixon the Respondent, and his daughter, Ms. Johnson, one of the instructors within the school. It should also be noted that Ms. Geiger had been suspended from the school on November 19, 1976 and had been dismayed by the dismissal of one Ken Branson, a licensed instructor at the school, whom she felt was a more qualified instructor than either Mr. Dixon or his daughter Ms. Johnson. Ms. Geiger had also been ostracized for filing a complaint against the school which lead to the present administrative complaint and was upset because she felt the necessity to apologize to the other students in the school at the time the complaint was made known. Ms. Schwerm was concerned about the dismissal of Mr. Branson and expressed this concern in terms of feeling that the quality of instruction had been lowered once Branson left the college. The background of the witnesses Burdett and Kinser lead to the conclusion that they had no apparent interest in the hearing. In view of all the facts on the question of whether or not the named individuals were teaching in the school, it is concluded that those individuals did not teach and at most only demonstrated certain techniques for the benefit of other students. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that these named individuals, to wit: Nevels, Bracy, Hayes, Calloway and Quentaro, were not licensed instructors, there has been no violation of Rule 21F-2.17(b), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 477.08(1), Florida Statutes, to cause a violation of Sections 477.15(7) and (9), Florida Statutes, because neither the Florida Beauty College, Inc. or Henry Dixon, allowed any unlicensed person to teach at the school as alleged in counts 1 - 4 and 8. In count 5, the administrative complaint accuses Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon of allowing the operation of the school in terms of the service to the public without any licensed instructor being present in violation of Rules 21F-2.24 and 21F-2.25, Florida Administrative Code, which allegedly constitutes a violation of Section 477.15(9), Florida Statutes and Section 477.27(12), Florida Statutes. The testimony in the hearing revealed that on a routine basis between 9:30 and 10:30 a.m., students with the requisite number of hours were allowed to service customers without any licensed instructor being directly in the room. Mr. Dixon was in the adjacent office which has an observation window, that would allow him to see the work being done by the students and to give necessary instructions. The language of Rules 21F-2.24 and 21F-2.25, Florida Administrative Code reads as follows: 21F-2.24 Health Certificates. A permanent health certificate showing results of a blood test and chest x-ray or equivalent respiratory communicable disease test must be submitted with each application for examination by any applicant. 21F-2.25 Permit Cards (Student Identification) Identification cards will be issued for each student in school showing student's name, date of enrollment, permit number and classification. These cards are to be inserted in badges furnished by the school and worn on the student uniform at all times while attending school. If evening classes are held, permits for those attending each session should be posted separately and designated as "Day Class", "Evening Class" or "Part-time Class". An examination of the above cited provisions demonstrates that they do not pertain to the question of allowing unauthorized persons to operate on members of the public without a licensed instructor being in attendance. Therefore, those provisions do not apply to the facts. Count 5 also charges a violation of Section 477.15(9), Florida Statutes, which imposes suspension or revocation for violations of any of the provisions of Section 477.23, Florida Statutes. A review of the provisions of Section 477.23, Florida Statutes, demonstrates that none of those provisions have application to an allegation of allowing unauthorized persons to operate on members of the public without licensed instructors being in attendance. Finally, count 5 alleges a violation of Section 477.27(12), Florida Statutes. This provision pertains to the penalties to be assessed for violations of any of the rules or regulations of the Petitioner. There have been no violations alleged or shown, consequently the penalties are not relevant. Count 6 of the administrative complaint charges Henry Dixon with drinking and becoming publicly intoxicated during the daytime hours at his cosmetology school in violation of Section 477.15(6) and (7), Florida Statutes, those provisions state the following: 477.15 Suspension or revocation of certificate; grounds.-- The board may either refuse to issue, or renew, or may suspend or revoke any certificate of registration for any of the following causes: * * * Habitual drunkenness or habitual addiction to the use of morphine, cocaine or other habit- forming drugs; Immoral or unprofessional conduct; The facts indicate that on September 4, 1976, while the business was still in operation and patrons were being attended, Henry Dixon came into the service part of the salon with a beer in his hand and was acting in a festive mood. The occasion of his actions was a party that was being held for the benefit of one of the students. Although there is some testimony that Dixon was getting intoxicated there is no showing that Mr. Dixon was in fact intoxicated. An analysis of this testimony leaves the impression that the Petitioner has failed to show any habitual drunkenness or addiction to morphine, cocaine or other habit-forming drugs, as alleged. Likewise, the conduct was not immoral. However, such conduct is unprofessional. Count 7 of the administrative complaint has numerous provisions. The first of those provisions is a contention that the students in the college from September, 1976 to January, 1977 were not afforded an opportunity to receive experience as a receptionist in violation of Rule 21F-2.16, Florida Administrative Code. A complete review of the facts indicate that the students were given that opportunity and took advantage of such opportunity. Count 7 additionally accuses the school of not having an adequate library in violation of Rule 21F-2.220, Florida Administrative Code. A review of the facts indicates that there was sufficient literature available to the students to constitute a library within the meaning of provisions of the Florida Administrative Code. One of the allegations set forth in count 7 pertains to the failure of the school to have the required number of thermal, heat caps or steamers, in violation of Rule 21F-2.07, Florida Administrative Code. There was no testimony offered to demonstrate a lack of those items of equipment; therefore there has been no violation shown of Rule 21F-2.07, Florida Administrative Code. Count 7 contained a provision which claimed that there was no separate junior and senior departments in violation of Rules 21F-2.23, 21F-2.24 and 21F- 2.25, Florida Administrative Code. None of these provisions of the Florida Administrative Code pertain to the question of the requirement of separating junior and senior departments; nonetheless, the testimony reveals that the classes were divided into freshmen, junior and senior, with the freshmen being those students who had not obtained their necessary 200 hours which is a prerequisite to practicing on customers who are not members of the class or members of their immediate family. Count 7 contains an additional allegation that there were insufficient numbers of shampoo bowls and manicure bowls in violation of Rule 21F-2.08, Florida Administrative Code. The testimony showed that there were eight shampoo bowls and six manicure tables and thereby were in compliance with the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code. Finally, there was insufficient proof to establish the failure to post inspection rating sheets as allegedly required by Rule 21F-2.07, Florida Administrative Code. It should also be noted that Rule 21F-2.07, does not pertain to the requirement for posting of inspection rating sheets. In summary, there have been no violations of Sections 477.08; 477.15(7), (8) and (9), and 477.27(8) and (12), Florida Statutes, as alleged in count 7. Count 9 of the administrative complaint charged Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon with the failure to issue and post student permits and identification badges in spite of repeated warnings from the Board's inspector in violation of Rule 21F-2.07(4), Rule 21F-2.25 and Rule 21F-2.28, Florida Administrative Code. This was felt to constitute a violation of Sections 477.08, 477.15(7), (8) and (9) and 477.27(8) and (12), Florida Statutes. The facts in this cause demonstrate that in spite of an initial warning to the Respondents, a second inspection revealed that student permits were not posted on the second visit as required by Rule 21F-2.25, Florida Administrative Code. No other violation as alleged in count 9 is shown. Count 10 of the administrative complaint charged that between September, 1976 and February, 1977 students were allowed unfettered on the public, and that the Respondents misrepresented the amount of hours certain students had to members of the public and in addition posted on the bulletin board for the public to discern, the names of certain students whom were favored by the Respondent; in violation of Rules 21F-2.23, 21F-2.24, 21F-2.25, 21F-2.28 and 21F-2.17(b), Florida Administrative Code, thereby violating Sections 477.08, 477.15(7), (8) and (9), 477.27(8) and (12), Florida Statutes. Certain testimony was offered by Ms. Geiger to the effect that students were allowed to work on the public who had less than 200 hours. In view of the opinion of the undersigned of the creditability of the witness Geiger, that testimony is rejected and no other showing was made to establish that students were allowed to administer to the needs of the public when those students were not duly qualified. There was no testimony to show that the names of students were posted on bulletin boards for the public to discern, thereby creating a favorable impression to the public about those certain students. Therefore there has been no showing of any violation of the Florida Administrative Code or Florida Statutes as set forth in count 10.
Recommendation For the violations as established against Florida Beauty College, Inc. license no. 043 and Henry Dixon, licensed instructor, license no. 22909, it is recommended that these Respondents be suspended for a period of two weeks. (This suspension recommendation would only pertain to the Florida Beauty College, Inc., license No. 043, if the Florida Beauty College, Inc. is still in operation at the time of the entry of the final order of the Petitioner). DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel J. Wiser, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Seelie, Esquire Suite 1103, Blackstone Building East Bay and Market Streets Jacksonville, Florida 32202
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 the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for allowing an unlicensed person to practice cosmetology in his salon.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on May 31, 1977 against Joel Garber charging: "That you, said JOEL GARBER on February 4, 1976 did allow an unlicensed person to practice Cosmetology in your salon at House of Glamour, Jacksonville, Florida." At the hearing the Respondent pled "no contest" but made the following statement: "There was a young man that worked in the area for some time, I think. It's been over a year and a half ago, so the exact times may not be familiar to me. But he worked there for about seven months un- licensed. He came to me and said, 'I would like to work for you.' I said, 'You get a license first.' He told me he made application for license and came to work for me, and in fact he did work and I could be mistaken, it may be on the violation notice, how long he did work, but he did in fact work for me two or three days without a license, and then at which time he went and took his exam, came back, waited until he received license, and continued to work for me. He is at this time licensed. All I can ask is I guess the Court's mercy that I did in fact violate the law, but it has since been remedied and corrected." The Respondent allowed an unlicensed person to practice in his salon for a short time.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to Respondent for violating Section 477.02(7), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 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 Joel Garber 5660 University Boulevard, West Jacksonville, Florida 32216
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Rules 21F-3.02, 3.03 and 3.07, Florida Administrative Code. During the course of the hearing, counsel for Petitioner withdrew the alleged violations of Rule 3.03 and 3.07, F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Corporation operates a cosmetology salon at 1626 South Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida under Certificate of Registration Number 11579 issued by Petitioner on May 14, 1971. Petitioner's Inspector visited Respondent's salon on February 27, 1976 for a routine inspection. She discovered hair and soiled towels in cabinets at the various stations and observed that the carpeting was littered with hair. In addition, soft drink bottles and coffee cups were found in the area. Respondent's salon has been issued warnings in the past due to unclean conditions. The shop is now in a clean state. (Testimony of Padgett) Respondent's manager testified that some of the employees are natives of Puerto Rico and Cuba and are unaccustomed to the sanitary requirements of the United States thus making it difficult to control conditions. He conceded that the shop was not in proper condition on the date in question merely because that day was a Friday and the shop was quite busy. (Testimony of Wellmann)
Recommendation That Respondent be issued a formal written reprimand for violation of Rule 21f-3.02, Florida Administrative Code. 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida R. Basil Rutter, President Steppe's of Florida, Inc. Box 788 Athens, Ohio
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Section 477.02(4) & 477.15, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates Kemp's Beauty Salon, 404 N.E. 10th Street, Boynton Beach, Florida, under Certificate of Registration Number 16286 to operate a cosmetology salon issued by Petitioner on November 18, 1971. (Stipulation). On May 22, 1975, Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's salon and observed a man styling the hair of a patron. On May 23, the Inspector returned and observed the same man doing the same thing. He informed her that he did not have a state license. Respondent was not present on either occasion. (Testimony of Jennings) Respondent testified at the hearing that he had had no idea that the individual in question, who was a patron of the shop, was going to work on customers. On May 23rd Respondent had left the shop to have lunch. (Testimony of Kemp).
Recommendation That Respondent's salon license 16286 be suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 Thomas Kemp Kemp's Beauty Salon 404 N.E. 10 Street Boynton Beach, Florida
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent has violated Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by employing an unlicensed person to practice cosmetology.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case the Respondent, Marie Kettly Prezeau, d/b/a Kettly's Beauty Salon, has been licensed to practice cosmetology and operate a cosmetology salon in the State of Florida, having previously been issued licenses numbered CL 0150329 and CE 0039773. At all times material to this case, the Respondent has owned and operated a cosmetology salon named Kettly's Beauty Salon which is located at 8303 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33137. On November 19, 1991, a routine inspection of Kettly's Beauty Salon was conducted by an inspector for the Department of Professional Regulation. Upon arrival at Kettley's Beauty Salon, the inspector found the door was locked and he had to knock in order to gain entrance to the licensed premises. The door to the beauty salon was opened by a person who was later identified as Ms. Marc Kettlyne. When the inspector entered the licensed premises, he observed six people inside the beauty salon; five people who appeared to be customers and Marc Kettlyne, who appeared to be in charge of the beauty salon. Two of the people who appeared to be customers were sitting in beauty chairs and the other three were sitting under driers. The owner of the beauty salon was not present when the inspector arrived. The inspector had difficulty communicating with Ms. Marc Kettlyne because the latter did not appear to speak English. Through one of the customers who volunteered to serve as translator, the inspector explained who he was, stated the purpose of his visit, and made various inquiries of Ms. Marc Kettlyne. Shortly after the arrival of the inspector, Ms. Marc Kettlyne made a telephone call in a foreign language. The customer who served as the volunteer translator explained to the inspector that Ms. Kettlyne had made a phone call to the owner of the beauty salon. The inspector waited in the beauty salon for approximately forty minutes before the owner of the beauty salon appeared. While he was waiting, the inspector saw Ms. Marc Kettlyne spraying a clear liquid on the hair of a customer and also saw her arranging the customer's hair in rollers. The inspector asked Ms. Marc Kettlyne to show him her cosmetology license. Ms. Kettlyne explained that she did not have a cosmetology license. The inspector then asked Ms. Kettlyne for identification. Ms. Kettlyne showed the inspector what appeared to be a valid Florida drivers license which showed her name to be Marc Kettlyne. Ms. Marc Kettlyne has never been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. When the Respondent finally arrived at the beauty salon, she became very confrontational and belligerent with the inspector. The Respondent denied that Ms. Marc Kettlyne ever performed any cosmetology services in the beauty salon. The Respondent also said that she herself had performed all of the cosmetology services on the five customers who were present when the inspector arrived, and that she had merely stepped out for a few minutes to pay a bill. 1/
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology issue a Final Order in this case concluding that the Respondent, Marie Kettly Prezeau, has violated Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty consisting of a period of probation for one year and an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00. 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.
