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 Respondent's alleged violation of Sections 477.02(4), 477.27(1) & 477.15(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates a cosmetology salon, Mourine's of Palm Beach, located at 261 Sunrise Avenue, Palm Beach, Florida, under Certificate of Registration to operate a cosmetology salon No. 18118 OB. Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's salon at 1:30 P.M. on April 23, 1976 at which time she found Respondent working on two patrons. Respondent is not a master cosmetologist and informed the Inspector that her master cosmetologist was out to lunch. After the Inspector has remained on the premises for approximately 45 minutes Respondent stated that the master cosmetologist was not working that day. (Testimony of Padgett) Respondent submitted an affidavit that on the date in question while working in her salon Inspector Padgett found patrons under dryers without the presence of her master cosmetologist who had taken her lunch hour in order to go to the doctor. Respondent stated that she was not working on patrons at this time and had not after the master had left the shop. Respondent further stated that the master operator returned approximately 20 minutes after the inspector had left the premises. (Affidavit of Witmer)
Recommendation That Respondent be issued a written reprimand for violation of Section 477.02(4), Florida Statutes. 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 P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Mourine Witmer 6361 South Atterly K Lantana, Florida 33462 Donald Kohl, Esquire 3003 South Congress Avenue Palm Springs, Florida 33461
The Issue Whether the license of the Respondent, Carmelina Denur, should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a cosmetology salon without a salon registration certificate.
Findings Of Fact The inspector for the Petitioner, State Board of Cosmetology, entered a large utility room at the home of Respondent and found therein a cosmetology station with the usual mirrors, chairs , desks and cosmetology supplies, including an appointment book near the telephone. At the time of the visit of the inspector on May 27. 1977, the Respondent, Carmelina Debur, was doing a comb-out. Another woman was sitting in a chair in the area. The inspector determined that the Respondent was operating a beauty salon in her home without a registration and wrote a violation notice. The Respondent contended: that she had been retired six months from her job as a cosmetologist and that the furnishings for a salon in her home were for the benefit of her relatives and close friends and that she was not operating a beauty salon in her home. She stated that the area was a residential area and that her uncle gave her the salon equipment when he remodeled his store, and that she bought the cosmetology supplies inasmuch as she had a license and could buy it for personal use. She testified that she received no money from anyone and was not conducting a business in the beauty salon area of her home. There was no testimony or other evidence to show that the Respondent was in fact operating a beauty salon in her home.
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 17th 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 Carmelina Denur 5295 S.W. 8th Court Margate, Florida 33063
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Respondent is a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida, holding license number CE 0043033. Respondent has been continuously licensed since October, 1976. Since May of 1990, Respondent has also held a license as a cosmetology salon owner, license number 0052274, for a salon called B.J. Beauty Images located at 1556 NE 4th Ave. in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The salon license is scheduled to expire on October 31, 1992. Respondent began operating a salon at 1556 NE 4th Ave. in approximately March of 1990. She was previously operating a duly licensed salon at another location. At the time she moved to the 1556 NE 4th Ave. location, Respondent did not apply for a new salon license. During an inspection in March of 1990, an investigator for Petitioner informed Respondent that she needed to obtain a license for the new location. Petitioner's investigator advised Respondent that she needed to obtain a new license any time she moved her salon. No administrative action was taken against Respondent as a result of operating an unlicensed salon in March of 1990. During a follow up visit in May of 1990, Petitioner's investigator confirmed that Respondent had obtained the necessary salon license. In January of 1992, Petitioner's investigator observed that Respondent's salon had apparently moved to 1546 NE 4th Ave. Respondent's salon is generally open from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday through Friday and 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturday. Petitioner's investigator was in the neighborhood of Respondent's salon on Friday, January 3 at approximately 2:30 p.m. While the salon was generally not open for business during these hours, Respondent was present at the salon located at 1546 and there was a woman under the hair dryer. In addition, Petitioner's investigator observed that the sign for Respondent's salon had moved from 1556 NE 4th Ave. to 1546 NE 4th Ave. Upon investigation, Petitioner's investigator determined that Respondent had not obtained a license for the 1546 NE 4th Ave. location. The evidence was sufficient to establish that Respondent was operating a salon at 1546 NE 4th Ave. from November of 1991 until May of 1992 without a proper license. Respondent contends that she sent in an application for a license for the 1546 NE 4th Ave. location in December of 1991, but had not received her new license at the time of the inspection in January of 1992. Respondent did not present copies of any correspondence or checks written with respect to the alleged December 1991 application. At the time of the January 1992 inspection, Respondent did not advise Petitioner's inspector that she had submitted an application. Petitioner has no record of an application for a license for the 1556 NE 4th Ave. location until May of 1992. A salon license for this location was issued by Petitioner on May 27, 1992. The evidence was insufficient to establish that Respondent submitted an application in December of 1991 which was lost by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 477.029(1)(b), Florida Statutes imposing an administrative fine of two hundred dollars ($200) and allowing the Respondent to pay this amount in two (2) payments. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1992. Copies furnished: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Bureau Chief Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ms. Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Brenda Cunningham 1546 NE 4th Ave. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33305
Recommendation Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated hearing officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing on the above matter on June 16, 1975, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. APPEARANCES: Ronald C. LaFace, Post Office Box 1752, Tallahassee, Florida, for the Board of Cosmetology. By this complaint, the Florida State Board of Cosmetology seeks to revoke, annul, withdraw or suspend the license of Anthony Luis, d/b/a Miss Chick Beauty Salon on the grounds that on November 4, 1974, he allowed Dorothy Trimacco to perform cosmetology services on patrons of the salon while she was not a licensed Florida Cosmetologist, in violation of Section 477.02(6), Florida Statutes. Exhibit 1, receipt for notice of hearing sent by certified mail, was admitted into evidence. Mr. Anthony Luis appeared and testified that on October 1, 1974, he sold the salon to another party. He did not notify the Board that he had sold his salon, as he was under the impression that the new owners would apply for a new license as he had done when he bought the salon. He held a promissory note dated October 1, 1974, the date of the closing, for part of the purchase price. The inspector from the cosmetology department visited the Miss Chick Beauty Salon on November 4, 1974, on a routine inspection and found Dorothy Trimacco doing a patron's hair. Upon questioning, she admitted that she did not have a Florida license. One Josephoine Mormile stated that she was the manager of the shop and intended to buy the salon. The license still posted on the wall was in the name of Luis. From the foregoing, it would appear that at the time of the offense, Mr. Luis was no longer the owner of the salon as he had sold the salon to another party. It is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed. ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. K.N. Ayers Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Recommendation That the allegations against 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) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Neil P. Linden, Esquire 17071 West Dixie Highway North Miami Beach, Florida 33160
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, suspended or withdrawn for violating the statutes and rules pertaining to cosmetologists by operating a salon at her home without a Florida salon license.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent filed an election of remedies and plead "the facts as alleged are true but do not constitute a violation of law." The Respondent had established a beauty salon in her home prior to March 8, 1974 but was unable to receive a zoning variance to allow her to operate the salon. She was cited by Petitioner for operating a salon without a license which citation is the subject of this hearing. The Respondent is no longer operating a salon in her home and is now a duly licensed cosmetologist practicing in a licensed cosmetology salon. She has been so employed since 1974 and has complied with the laws, rules and regulations since that date.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to Respondent for failure to abide by the statute and rules governing cosmetologists. DONE and ORDERED this 17th 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 Ursula Weber 9256 Martinique Drive Miami, Florida 33157
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Rule 21f-3.10, Florida Administrative Code. Receipt of the Administrative Complaint and the Notice of Hearing was acknowledged by the Respondent. (Exhibit 1) Counsel for the Petitioner announced at the commencement of the hearing that Respondent's cosmetology salon was out of business and that said Respondent possessed no personal Certificate of Registration as a cosmetologist. Petitioner therefore interposed no objection to dismissal of the allegation.
Recommendation That the allegation against 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Larry C. Wojtowicz c/o Nancy's Beauty Salon 2931 West Gate Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operation of a beauty salon in her home without a license in violation of Section 477.15(9), F.S., and Rule 21F-3.O1, F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Catherine Birdsall, was cited on September 10, 1976, for operating a beauty salon in her home without a salon license by Inspector Geraldine Padgett. The Respondent, Birdsall, had a beauty salon set up in her home which could have been eligible for licensing by the Petitioner had her home been in a properly zoned area. Mrs. Birdsall was in fact operating a beauty salon although she was not charging her customers in money. It was a situation in which Mrs. Birdsall was practicing cosmetology so that she could be employed in another beauty salon as a cosmetologist. The patrons of Mrs. Birdsall repaid her for her cosmetology efforts by paying her for supplies and by doing other work for her on a barter- type arrangement. The Respondent is not now operating a beauty salon in her home and is now employed elsewhere.
Recommendation Send a Respondent a written reprimand for violation of the statutes and rules. DONE and ORDERED this 5th 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 and Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Catherine Birdsall 5702 Cadillac Lake Worth, Florida 33460
The Issue Whether Seligman and Latz, Inc., d/b/a May Cohen Beauty Salon did operate a cosmetology salon without the presence and supervision of a master cosmetologist in violation of Sections 477.27(1), 477.15(8), and 477.02(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Notice of this hearing was duly served on Respondent and Counsel for both parties were present. The Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration has jurisdiction over the proceedings. Respondent holds a current cosmetologist salon license Number 7150. Two inspectors from the Board of Cosmetology entered the premises of the Respondent Seligman and Latz, Inc. late in the evening on September 19, 1974 and observed the Respondents' employee Joyce McClain practicing the art of cosmetology, to wit: combing out the hair of a customer. The employee, Joyce McClain, was not a master cosmetologist at the time. The inspectors for the Board observed the employee, discussed the violation with her and wrote a violation, presented it to her and left the premises, having inspected the area which was used as the public space in which the customers were invited and which the employees performed services for and on the customers. No master cosmetologist was in the room in which the employee, Joyce McClain, was arranging the hair of a customer and no master cosmetologist was in direct supervision of the salon at the time the inspectors were inspecting the salon as a part of their employment by the Board of Cosmetology. The Hearing Officer further finds upon consideration of all the facts and the evidence that the violation by the employee, Joyce McClain, to wit: combing and arranging the hair of a customer while a master cosmetologist was not present and was not directly supervising the operation is contrary to the requirements of Section 477.04, F.S. The Hearing Officer further finds that the time of the inspection was late in the day; that the Work being done by the cosmetologist, Joyce McClain, was not an inherently dangerous procedure; that the salon had master cosmetologists in its employment although said master cosmetologists were not in direct supervision of the cosmetologist at the time of the inspection; that the comb-out or combing and arranging of the hair of a customer is the practice of cosmetology as defined in Section 477.03(e), F.S.: "(e) Hairdressing or the arranging, waving, dressing, curling, cleansing, thinning, cutting, singeing, bobbing, bleaching, tinting, coloring, steaming, straightening, dyeing, brushing, beautifying or otherwise treating by any means the hair of any person."
Recommendation Suspend the license of Respondent or not less than one day and not more than thirty (30) days. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of January, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. LaFace, Esquire Counsel for Petitioner John R. Forbes, Esquire Counsel for Respondent ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 75-594 LICENSE NO. 7150 SELIGMAN & LATZ, INC., d/b/a May Cohen Beauty Salon, Respondent. /
