The Issue The issue presented herein is whether or not the Respondent operated a cosmetology salon without a current active salon license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, a post- hearing memorandum, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. Respondent, James F. Tobin, was at all times material herein licensed by the State of Florida to practice cosmetology and has been issued cosmetologist license number CL 0096393. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) During December, 1980, Respondent purchased a cosmetologist salon then named Sisters Two which is located at 17036 W. Dixie Highway, North Miami Beach, Florida. Respondent thereafter renamed the salon "All About Hair" and at all times subsequent to December, 1980, owned and operated All About Hair as a cosmetologist salon. During July or August, 1981, Respondent submitted to the Petitioner an application for a cosmetology salon license for All About Hair enclosing therewith a check made payable to the Petitioner in the amount of $40. On August 13, 1981, Petitioner received the application and on the following day, August 14, 1981, Petitioner cashed the Respondent's $40 check. The Department did not approve the application and on August 19, 1981 returned the application to Respondent together with a cover letter stating the following three reasons: The application was not accompanied by a diagram of the salon, The lease was not in the Respondent's name, and The application failed to specify the type of dry sanitizer that Respondent was using in the salon. Upon receipt of the returned application from the Petitioner, the (Respondent) gave it to his mother for completion and for resubmittal to the Petitioner. A completed cosmetology salon license application form for All About Hair was not received by the Petitioner from Respondent until August 8, 1983. Upon receipt of the completed application, the Department issued its cosmetology salon license number CE 0035291 for All About Hair on September 10, 1983. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Respondent, by and through its business manager, acknowledged that it never received from the Petitioner a cosmetology salon license in the name of All About Hair prior to September 8, 1983. Although the Respondent assumed that his mother immediately re-submitted the returned application to the Petitioner, other than the finding herein that the returned application was re-submitted to Petitioner on August 8, 1983, there was no direct testimony offered in support of that assumption. On September 30, 1982, Petitioner's investigator and inspector, Dorsey Hayes, made a routine inspection of All About Hair. During the course of that inspection, inspector Hayes discovered a discrepancy between the salon named All About Hair and the license which it was operating under, Sisters Two. At no time prior to September 10, 1983, did the Respondent hold a valid current license for the cosmetology salon All About Hair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent shall pay an administrative fine to the Petitioner in the amount of $250 within thirty days of the date of the Final Order herein. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 9th day of December, 1983.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Lawrence R. Crawford was licensed as a cosmetologist by DPR, having been issued License No. CL 0081100. By Final Order dated December 31, 1985, Respondent was found guilty of practicing cosmetology without being properly licensed and fined $450 with suspension of license until the fine was paid. (Exhibit 1) Respondent paid $225 of this fine in February 1986, but has made no subsequent payment nor has he renewed the cosmetology license which expired June 30, 1984. An inspection of Respondent's salon at 1383 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida, was conducted March 11, 1987, and Respondent was observed working on a client of the salon. At this time he had no active license. By Final Order dated August 12, 1983, the Board of Cosmetology found Respondent guilty of operating as a cosmetologist without an active salon license, assessed a fine of $50, and suspended his license until the fine was paid. (Exhibit 1). The record (Exhibit 1) fails to disclose whether this fine was paid; however, no current license was issued to Respondent. On October 2, 1987, Petitioner's inspector passed the address of Respondent's salon on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and noticed all equipment had been removed as well as the sign containing the name of the salon.
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Sections 477.15(8), 477.231(c) & (2), Florida Statutes, Rules 21F-3.01 & 21F-3.10, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent was furnished notice of hearing and acknowledged receipt of said notice and the administrative complaint. (Exhibit 2)
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a certificate as a master cosmetologist 0048790 issued by Petitioner on an unspecified date. He also holds a certificate of registration to operate a cosmetology salon license #22903 issued by Petitioner on February 2, 1976. The salon is called Mister Andrew Coiffure, and is located at 1259 East Los Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On January 28, 1976, Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's place of business, but Respondent was absent. The inspector had visited the shop on previous occasions at which time the Respondent had told him he was in the process of buying the salon, and the inspector had left an application for a state certificate of registration for a cosmetology salon. The inspector noticed there was no sign near the front door indicating that the premises were occupied by beauty or cosmetology salon. There was a card in the window which read "Mister Andrew Coiffure" (Testimony of Rubin). Respondent submitted a letter on his behalf dated June 9, 1976, which stated that he had not owned the salon at the time Petitioner's inspector had provided him with application forms for a state license. He claimed that he had had a card attached to the sign in his window which read "Beauty Salon" on January 28, 1976, but that since the inspector had not been satisfied with the card he has since changed the sign and put up 1 inch decal letters on the door spelling "Beauty Salon" (Exhibit 1). Respondent's application for a salon certificate was executed on January 29, 1976 and received by Petitioner on February 2, 1976.
Recommendation That the allegations against the Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-8675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P. O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Charles R. Gannon c/o Mister Andrew Coiffure 1259 East Las Olas Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent William L. Hamilton should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for violation of Section 477.27(5) and 477.17, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, to-wit: 21F-3.01 in that said Respondent was charged with operating a cosmetologist salon without a salon license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent William L. Hamilton received notice of this hearing and in his election of remedies stated that the violation notice did not constitute a violation of law and sent a letter of explanation as to the violation notice and stated that he would not attend this hearing. Inspector Madge Evans of the State Board of Cosmetology entered the salon operated by William L. Hamilton as Bill's Hair Shack in Palatka, Florida in which he was doing business without a salon license. Mrs. Evans notified the Respondent that he must apply for an obtain a salon license before operating a beauty salon and left an application form with Respondent. On several occasions the inspector for the Board entered a place of business in which William L. Hamilton was operating a beauty salon without a salon license. The salon license is not transferable from location to location and each location that is to be used as a beauty salon must be certified by the Board and a salon license issued. Respondent Hamilton is not now operating a beauty salon under a valid beauty salon license and salon license No. 22621, which Respondent holds is now invalid inasmuch as the location has burned. He holds personal license No. 62269 which entitles him to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Suspend the personal license No. 62269 of Respondent William L. Hamilton for a period of three months for violation of Section 477.15, Florida Statutes and 477.17(s). DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 1976 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 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida William L. Hamilton Route 1, Box 30 East Palatka, Florida 32301 Mrs. Mary Alice Palmer Post Office Box 9087 Board of Cosmetology Winter Haven, Florida 33880 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether any disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's cosmetology salon license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner and operator of a cosmetology salon known as "Reflections of You" located in Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent had purchased the salon from the previous owners. Randall Smith was an inspector for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, whose duties included the inspections of cosmetology salons. On December 24, 1994, Inspector Randall Smith conducted a routine inspection of Reflections of You. The salon was open to the public, and employees were present. Respondent was present during the inspection. During the inspection Respondent admitted to having problems with the previous owners on the purchase of the salon and thought that her lawyer had taken care of all the necessary requirements to own the business. Respondent believed that the transfer included the proper transfer of the salon license. However, Respondent had not been issued a new salon license listing her as the new owner after her purchase. After concluding his discussion with a representative from the Cosmetology Board office, Inspector Randall Smith wrote a Uniform Citation and served it on the Respondent by hand delivery. The Uniform Citation served on the Respondent indicated a fine in the amount of five hundred (500.00) dollars for failure to have a proper salon license. Respondent neither paid the citation nor challenged the fine contained in the citation. The citation therefore became a Final Order of the Board of Cosmetology on February 1, 1995 by operation of law. In mitigation of her failure to transfer her license, Respondent applied and paid fifty-five (55) dollars for a new salon license on December 24, 1994, the day after the inspection by Randall Smith, and was issued a new salon license. Presumably, Respondent's cosmetologist license was current.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(i), Florida Statutes and guilty of violating Section 477.025(7), Florida Statutes and imposing a fifty (50.00) dollar fine for the two violations. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1996.
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 At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, Women's Exchange, Inc., possessed a valid Florida license to operate a cosmetology salon at 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue, Miami, Florida, under License No. CE 0032221, which license was issued on September 16, 1982, and expires on October 31, 1984. On January 20, 1983, Steven M. Granowitz, an investigator for Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, entered Respondent's salon for a routine inspection. When he entered the salon, which was located in what appeared to be a home, he noticed it was quite busy. Customers were being waited on at all operator positions, and others were waiting their turn. Upon entering the salon, Mr. Granowitz tried to find the manager to identify himself and present his credentials, but no manager was present, so he talked to the receptionist, showing her his credentials and advising her he was going to do an inspection. At first, he looked at the salon license and went to examine the four operators and their licenses. These licenses are required to be displayed prominently in the shop. None of the four operator stations were displaying licenses. Two operators indicated they had licenses, but did not have them present. Mr. Granowitz made a phone call to his board and verified that these two individuals, Yvonne Eberhart and Clara Ann Edden, were in fact licensed. The two other individuals who he observed to be at operator stations with customers in the chairs, to whom they were applying curly perms, Jacqueline Dulippe and Jeanette Toussaint, were not licensed either by the Board of Cosmetology or Barbers' Board. He, admittedly, did not watch these two unlicensed operators during the entire period he was there. Consequently, it may well be that other licensed operators also worked on the same customers. There is no doubt in his mind, however, that what he observed these two do were cosmetology operations. Licenses are required to perform the work being performed by these two individuals, though not all functions in a cosmetology salon require a license. When Mr. Granowitz discussed this situation shortly thereafter that day with Antonia Gary, one of the officers of Respondent corporation, in the salon, she indicated she was not the manager of the salon, that none of the corporate officers were involved in the day-to-day operation of the salon, and that she did not know these two individuals were not licensed. However, there was no claim that either had misrepresented their license status. Joyce Ann Hanks-Knox, President of Women's Exchange, Inc., the corporation which owns the corporation which now owns Fingertips, the salon in question, admits that the license is in the name of Women's Exchange, Inc. There is no question, however, that Women's Exchange, Inc., holds the license in question for Fingertips and that the current Fingertips salon is that which is described in the license. She is not a licensed cosmetologist, and while she spends as much as 20 hours per week in the business of Women's Exchange, Inc., these duties do not include active management of the salon. She further relates, however, that it has never been the policy of either the parent corporation or the management of Fingertips to permit unlicensed operators to work, unsupervised, on customers. She admits that both women in question worked at Fingertips and, in fact, one was hired by her. Their duties were to be trained as operators and to perform other small tasks within the salon, such as moving patrons from one area to another, cleaning the salon, and insuring that supplies were at the work stations as needed. They were also allowed to wash hair, but, in this apprentice program, nonlicensed personnel were not to give permanents or do anything else that could be considered cosmetology. All of the licensed operators knew what the apprentice program consisted of, its limitations, and that these two individuals were not licensed. As such, they should have stopped them from performing unauthorized tasks. Neither individual was hired as a cosmetologist, nor was she paid as a cosmetologist. Since neither Ms. Knox nor Ms. Gary actively supervise the operation of the salon, since Mr. Granowitz could find no one there during his visit who admitted to being in charge, and since there was no evidence presented that there was any manager assigned to the salon, it is obvious that the salon was left, for the most part, to run itself without effective management supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent corporation be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $250 for each count proven -- a total of $500. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of November, 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 15th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Mr. Fred Roche Department of Professional Secretary Regulation Department of Professional 130 North Monroe Street Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32301 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joyce Hanks-Knox, Esquire President Women's Exchange, Inc. 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue Miami, Florida 33142 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, a post-hearing memorandum and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. During times material, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida to practice cosmetology and has been issued license number CL 0075643. During approximately March or May of 1977, Esther's Beauty Salon, located at 3326 NW 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida, was open for business and operated as such with the public as a cosmetology salon under Respondent's ownership. On February 23, 1977, Florida cosmetology salon license number CE 0024609 was issued to the Respondent for Esther's Beauty Salon. While that license, as issued, was a permanent license, it subsequently became subject to a biennial renewal. As such, the first renewal deadline thereunder was June 30, 1980. [Section 477.025(8), Florida Statutes (supp. 1978)] Respondent did not renew her cosmetologist salon license number CE 0024609. Although the Respondent first contends that she did not receive a renewal notice for her license, she later admitted that she was the subject of numerous personal problems stemming from a divorce and pregnancy with her first child and that she may have overlooked the renewal notice. It is here found that the Respondent's failure to renew her cosmetology salon license was the result of an oversight on her part. On February 2, 1983, Petitioner, through its inspector, Steven Granowitz, inspected Esther's Beauty Salon. At that time, Respondent was operating Esther's Beauty Salon. She was advised that her cosmetologist salon license number CE 0024609 was not valid. Respondent subsequently applied for a new Florida cosmetology salon license and on May 12, 1983, salon license number CE 0034670 was issued to Respondent for Esther's Beauty Salon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings and fact and conclusions of law, the fact that the Respondent upon notification by inspector Granowitz that her license was, in fact, delinquent, immediately applied for and obtained a currently active cosmetology salon license, and other mitigating factors, I hereby recommend that Respondent shall pay an administrative fine of $250. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 9th day of December, 1983.
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a cosmetology salon without a certificate of registration.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed against licensee, Virginia Jarnecke, who holds License No. Salon 24158, on the 31st of May, 1977, alleging that she did operate a cosmetology salon without a valid certificate of registration after having been warned and supplied with the proper form in July of 1976 at the La Petite Coiffures in Daytona Beach, Florida. The Respondent filed an Answer on the 24th day of June, 1977, entering a plea of not guilty to the Administrative Complaint. The inspector for the board inspected the Respondent shop in July of 1976 and found that there had been a change in ownership of the salon. She informed the Respondent new owner that the salon registration was nontransferable and that a new registration would have to be applied for and obtained. At that time she left a form designated BC-7 for use of the Respondent. On September 24, 1976 no license had been obtained and a violation of notice was written by the inspector. A license was obtained thereafter in November of 1976. The owner of the shop, Respondent Virginia Jarnecke, had waited to send in her application for registration of said shop until one of the employees obtained a license as master cosmetologist. She did not obtain a registration for the salon until November of 1976 although an application form had been' left by the Petitioner, State Board of Cosmetology, to change the registration from the former owner in July of 1976.
Recommendation Write a letter of reprimand to Respondent for the reason that there was unnecessary delay between the time the Respondent bought subject beauty salon and the time in which application for registration of the salon. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. David McFadden, Esquire 100 Seabreeze Boulevard, Suite 210 Daytona Beach, Florida 32018
