Findings Of Fact By stipulation, the parties agreed that at all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, AJL Enterprises, was licensed by the State of Florida to operate a cosmetology salon under license Number CE0020026, and under that license, operated the Rendezvous Beauty Salon at 5804 28th Avenue South, Gulfport, Florida 33707. Petitioner was and is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology in Florida. On February 26, 1986, Marjorie May, an inspector for the Department of Professional Regulation, entered the Rendezvous Beauty Salon for the purpose of conducting a routine inspection of the premises. She found the shop to be generally in "pretty good condition". However, in the back room where supplies were kept, she saw two or three live roaches. She also noted that one of the operators on duty, Albert Brewer, was not using a wet sanitizer for the brushes and combs he used. At that time, other employees in the shop were. She also noted that there was no soap in the bathroom. All ot these deficiencies, identified under the pertinent rules of the Board, were, at that time, brought to the attention of Loretta Chaffin, the shop manager, but Ms. Chaffin does not recall the conversation. On February 24, 1987, Ms. May again inspected the salon and again, the condition of the shop was "generally good." However, clean towels, stored on a shelf, were not covered so as to protect them from dust as is required. She also noted that at least one of the operators, Edith Diamond, failed to have a current picture affixed to her license. On this visit, Ms. May noted no roach infestation. She brought the discrepancies identified to the attention of Barbara Shaw, a stylist, in the absence of the manager. Ms. May went back to the salon on August 18, 1987 for a follow-up inspection. On this occasion, she again saw one or two roaches in the back room and in general, the condition of the shop was not as good as it had been previously. She noted, for example, that the upholstery on the back of nearly half the nine styling chairs had split three or four inches and the foam stuffing was visible. Towels on an open rack were uncovered again, and wet sanitizers were not being used by any operator at any station. The only person present in the salon at the time was Michael Gaudette, a new employee, (stylist), and Ms. May briefed him as to the discrepancies. Mr. Gaudette could give no reason for not using a sanitizer indicating instead that the combs and brushes were sanitized in the rear of the shop by being immersed in a cleansing solution contained in a plastic tub. The use of a coverable plastic tub is acceptable, however, the cleansing solution must be a bactericide and fungicide such as Barbacide. Mr. Gaudette, according to Ms. May, indicated that he was using Seabreeze, an astringent. At the hearing, Mr. Gaudette denied this as did Ms. Chaffin, who indicated that the procedure followed was to thoroughly comb out all brushes to remove any loose hair, wash them thoroughly in soap and water, and then immerse them in a solution of Barbacide for 10 minutes. It is found that though a tub was being used, it had no cover and Mr. Gaudette's spontaneous statement about using Seabreeze is more credible than that of the manager, made in a disciplinary hearing, almost a year later. Ms. May also noted that Ms. Diamond's picture was still not current. However, each time she saw them, all licenses were current and appropriate. The only difficulty regarding the licenses was the failure by Ms. Diamond, and perhaps others, to have the required current picture. Ms. May went back to the Rendezvous Beauty Salon the day of the hearing and found that all discrepancies, with the exception of Ms. Diamond's picture, had been corrected. Evidence indicates as well, that an order had been entered on June 18, 1987, several months before the August inspection, to have the stylist chairs repaired and the delay was caused by the upholsterer. The salon is located in between a grocery store on one side and a delicatessen on the other. It is because of this that control of roaches on the premises is difficult. Efforts to control them, however, in place and operative, include monthly spraying by both Ms. Chaffin and monthly pest service by a professional exterminator. Though roach infestation may occur from time to time, it is not heavy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, AJL Enterprises, d/b/a Rendezvous Beauty Salon, be assessed an administrative fine of $250.00. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of August, 1988, 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 30th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 88-3075 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. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein FOR THE RESPONDENT None submitted COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald L. Jones, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-075O Ruth E. Lucido Secretary, AJL Enterprises 666 East Welch Causeway Madeira Beach, Florida 33708 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of Beauty Salon Mayelin Unisex (Salon), a cosmetology salon located at 1442 Northeast 163rd Street in North Miami Beach, Florida. The Salon was first licensed by the Department on December 19, 1990. Respondent has never been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Her application for licensure is currently pending. Charles E. Frear is an inspector with the Department. On May 16, 1990, Frear went to 1442 Northeast 163rd Street with the intention of inspecting a licensed cosmetology salon operating under the name "Hair to Hair." When he arrived at the address, Frear noticed that the sign outside the establishment reflected that Beauty Salon Mayelin Unisex now occupied the premises. The Salon was open for business. Upon entering the Salon, Frear observed Respondent removing curlers from the hair of a customer who was seated in one of the chairs. 1/ Frear asked Respondent to show him her license to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Respondent responded that she did not have such a license yet, but that she was scheduled to take the cosmetology licensure examination later that month. After learning from Respondent that she was the owner of the Salon, Frear asked to see the Salon's license. Respondent thereupon advised Frear that the Salon had not been licensed by the Department. Although she told Frear otherwise, Respondent was aware at the time that a Department-issued cosmetology salon license was required to operate the Salon. Frear gave Respondent an application form to fill out to obtain such a salon license. Respondent subsequently filled out the application form and submitted the completed form to the Department. Thereafter, she received License No. CE 0053509 from the Department to operate the Salon.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent committed the violations of law alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint; and (2) imposing upon Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 for having committed these violations. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of April, 1991. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1991.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact 1 At all times material hereto, Respondent Sharon Burrows has been the owner of Celebrity Beauty Salon, License No. CE 0044646. On March 18, 1990, Petitioner conducted an inspection of Celebrity Beauty Salon. At the time, a customer was seated in each of the salon's two chairs. Flavie Atis was placing rollers in the hair of one of the customers. Since no licensure was posted as to employee Atis, inquiry by the inspector revealed that Atis did not have a current license and was not performing services pursuant to an exemption while awaiting examination or having recently graduated from a school of cosmetology. Placing rollers in a customer's hair is within the scope of the practice of cosmetology for which a license is required and is not within the scope of merely shampooing for which a license is not required. At the time of the inspection, sanitary towels and neck strips were not being used for each patron and not all equipment was free of hair.
Recommendation Base upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating the statutory and rule provisions set forth herein, imposing a $250.00 administrative fine against her, and placing her license on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of October, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 25th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-3566 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-7, 8(1), and 8(2), have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 8(3) has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 2 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 3 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Mone, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Sharon Burrows 3161 West Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue at the hearing was whether Respondent's cosmetology salon license was subject to discipline for alleged violations of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated thereunder.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Hattie Nesbit, is licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. The Respondent also holds a Florida cosmetology salon license for her beauty salon, Nesbit's Beauty Salon. 1/ Ms. Nesbit works part-time at her salon. She employs two to three other very experienced licensed cosmetologists. The salon has four beauty stations. Ms. Nesbit's beauty station is the first station after entering the salon premises. The other employees occupy the other stations. They are aware of the Board's rules for the operation and sanitation of a beauty salon. Additionally, Respondent has the Board's sanitation rules posted on the wall of the salon. The salon in general is clean and well-kept. Eileen Thomas, the Petitioner's inspector, conducted a random inspection of the Respondent's salon on February 21, 1989. Ms. Nesbit was not present during the inspection. While there the inspector observed that the container for the deposit of hair was a garbage can located in the back room. The room was closed off from the beauty salon. At the time of the inspection the container had hair in it. The garbage can cover was not on the container and the lid was not located at the time of the inspection. The Board's rules provide that a lid must be kept on the container for the deposit of hair. Respondent's receptacle for the deposit of hair was not maintained in such a manner. Therefore, Respondent is subject to discipline under the Board's rules governing the maintenance of container for the deposit of hair. The inspector, also, observed Ms. Blount, one of the beauticians employed by Respondent, apply chemicals to a patron's hair without using a spatula. Since Ms. Nesbit was not present at the salon she was unaware of the employee's disregard of the Board's rule that all chemicals be applied with a spatula. However, the salon owner is the person responsible for the operation of the salon and is responsible for violations committed by the employees of the salon. Respondent's lack of knowledge only goes to mitigate the penalty which should be imposed for the employee's failure to observe the Board's rules. The evidence showed that Respondent had reasonably instructed her employees on sanitary procedure and required them to follow that procedure. Respondent posted the sanitation rules on the wall of the salon as a reminder of those rules. Respondent's violation is nominal. In light of these facts Respondent should receive a nominal penalty. A letter of reprimand would be an appropriate penalty for this type of violation. Additionally, the inspector observed that the wet sanitizers located in four of the stations at the salon were only one third to one half full of a sanitizing solution. A wet sanitizer is any type of container that is large enough to hold a sanitizing solution in which a comb or brush can be completely immersed for proper sanitation. In this case, the containers provided by Respondent were large enough to allow for the complete immersion of a comb or brush in a sanitizing solution. There were combs and brushes in the wet sanitizers at the four stations. Those combs and brushes were not completely immersed in the sanitizing solution because the solution was low. The Rule on the provision of wet sanitizers does not require that the containers be filled all the time. The rule only requires that the containers be large enough to allow for immersion. The Rule requires only that a comb or brush be immersed prior to its use. The Rule does not require that a comb or brush be immersed all of the time. In this case Respondent provided containers of the correct size. However, no evidence was presented that the Respondent's operators were using the combs or brushes in the wet sanitizers without first properly sanitizing them. The fact that the jars were low in solution at the limited point in time of the inspection does not clearly and convincingly support a conclusion that Respondent's operators were not utilizing proper sanitation procedures before the combs and brushes were used on a customer. Without evidence of such use Respondent cannot be guilty of a violation of the Board's rule on the provision of wet sanitizers and the sanitation of combs or brushes before their use.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order reprimanding Respondent for violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes and imposing a $25 fine. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1989.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on May 31, 1977 by the Petitioner charging: "That you, said BERNICE B. ROBERSON d/b/a Modern House of Beauty on April 27, 1977 did operate a salon without a current certificate of registration, and with unsanitary sterilizers and personal equipment; failed to post inspection reports at Modern House of Beauty, Day- tona, Florida." At the time of the inspection the salon license of the Modern House of Beauty had expired. At the time of the hearing the Respondent said that she still had not renewed the salon license although she has sent the licenses in to the State Board. The license posted was not a current license at the time of the violation notice. The Respondent had sterilizers but they were not activated at the time of the inspection. The inspection reports are required to be posted so that the inspectors may check the previous reports as they make their inspection tours. The reports were not posted by the Respondent. The Respondent contended that they were constantly blown off the walls where she would post them and that she could not drive a nail in the concrete wall.
Recommendation Suspend the license of Respondent for a period of not less than thirty (30) days for failing to have sterilizers activated and for failure to maintain a current salon license and for failure to post inspection reports. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of October, 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 Bernice B. Roberson Modern House of Beauty 856 Mason Avenue Daytona, Florida 32018 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-1022 LICENSE NO. MC 25344 BERNICE B. ROBERSON d/b/a SALON LICENSE NO. (Expired) MODERN HOUSE OF BEAUTY, 20215 Respondent. /
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for employing a student without a permit to work who had not yet taken the state board examination for cosmetologists.
Findings Of Fact Elaine York is the owner and operator of the Act II Salon of Beauty. Mary Mainello, also called Kathy Mainello, is employed to work in he subject beauty salon. At the time of the inspection Miss Mainello had not yet obtained her work permit and had not taken the state board examination or been licensed to practice cosmetology. She told the inspector that she had been working doing shampoos and sets but that no damage was done. Therefore a violation notice was written against the owner of the salon. At the time of the inspection Miss Mainello was in the beauty shop of Respondent for the purpose of observing and was not on the payroll of the subject beauty salon. Although the inspector did not actually see her work, there was a station for her to work which . had been used at the time of the inspection. She said that she had been observing for a period of two (2) weeks. At the time of the inspection the owner, Mrs. York, was not in the shop, having gone to the bank. The Hearing Officer finds that the student, Mary Mainello, was in fact performing the duties of a cosmetologist, that is, shampooing and setting hair but without the knowledge or permission of the Respondent owner.
Recommendation Write a letter of reprimand for lack of close supervision of the student who should have learned the laws and rules pertaining to cosmetology. DONE and ORDERED this 19th 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. Kermit Coble, Esquire Coble, McKinnon, Reynolds, A Rothert, Bohner & Godbee, P.A. Post Office Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32020
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
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
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondents for alleged violations of Sections 455.277 and 477.028, Florida Statutes (1979).
Findings Of Fact Respondent Luella and Porter's School of Beauty currently holds License No. CT 0000056 and is located at 316 NE First Street, Pompano Beach, Florida. Respondent Luella A. Bailey is an owner of the Respondent beauty school and currently holds License No. IC 0031324 as a cosmetology instructor. In March of 1980 Respondent Bailey discussed a two week course of study in Esthetology given by the Respondent beauty school with Bonnie Cohen and her mother, Sharon Cohen. Bonnie Cohen and her mother were led to believe that the course, which involved the study of the face, the use of massage and water vapor and the use of various creams and oils would enable Bonnie Cohen to obtain a paid position in cosmetology salons performing facials. Respondent Bailey suggested at least two places where Bonnie Cohen might obtain employment as a person trained to perform facials: Christine Valmy Salon and Palm Aire Spa Salon. Respondent Bailey knew or should have known that in order to perform facials in a cosmetology salon an employee must be certified as a cosmetologist. Respondent Luella and Porter's School of Beauty has been in business for a long period of time and is recognized as a reputable school. Bonnie Cohen paid a fee of $500.00 and took the two week course given at Respondent school which began on March 18, 1980 and ended on March 28, 1980. She learned to massage areas of the face and neck, apply creams and chemicals used to clean and soften the skin, and learned how to apply treatments for various minor skin problems. Miss Cohen was awarded a certificate worded: "Esthetics - Scientific Facial Treatments and Skin Care Seminar. This certifies that Bonnie Cohen has parti- cipated in the Christine Valmy Seminar for Esthetics - Scientific Facial Treat- ments and Skin Care. Date, March, 1980." The certificate was signed "Christine Valmy by Luella Bailey." In October of 1980, Bonnie Cohen sought employment at two cosmetology salons, Christine Valmy Salon and Palm Aire Spa Salon, both of which were recommended to her by Respondent Luella Bailey. The owner of the Palm Aire Spa Salon discussed employment with Bonnie Cohen and would have employed her, but when Miss Cohen produced the herein described certificate instead of a cosmetology license the owner of the salon would not employ her to perform facials. A cosmetology license is required for employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that a final order be entered censuring Respondent Luella Bailey and imposing on her as a licensee an administrative fine not to exceed $1,000.00 In addition the Hearing Officer recommends that the license of Respondent Luella and Porter's School of Beauty be suspended for a period of six (6) months. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 21st day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Luella & Porter's School of Beauty 316 NE First Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Ms. Luella A. Bailey 3200 NW 90th Avenue Coral Springs, Florida 33065 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Petitioner, CASE NO.: 81-1600 vs. LICENSE NOS. CT0000056 IC0031324 LUELLA & PORTER'S SCHOOL OF BEAUTY AND LUELLA A. BAILEY Respondents. /
