Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed against Licensee Nannette Harnage charging.: "That you, said NANNETTE HARNAGE on Janu- ary 13, 1977 did work on a patron without license number and without the supervision of a master cosmetologist at Nannette's Hay Balers, Middleburg, Florida." The Respondent, Nannette Harnage, said that she was guilty of working in her salon without the presence or supervision of a master cosmetologist. She stated that she now has a master cosmetologist in the salon at all times. The issue as to working on a patient without a license number was dropped.
Recommendation Issue a letter or reprimand to the Respondent, Nannette Harnage. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Nannette Harnage Nannette's Hay Balers 2504 Blanding Boulevard Middleburg, Florida 32068
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, suspended or withdrawn for violating the statutes and rules pertaining to cosmetologists by operating a salon at her home without a Florida salon license.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
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed May 31, 1977, against Jack Diftler, owner of the Haircuttery, charging: "That you, said Jack Diftler on March 25, 1977 did allow a cosmetologist to practice in your salon without the supervision of a master cosmetologist at The Haircuttery, St. Augustine, Florida." The Respondent, Jack Diftler, is a master cosmetologist who had left the beauty shop he owned to make an emergency trip to Miami. The cosmetologist who works in his shop and who is not a master cosmetologist failed to obey his instructions which were to cease his cosmetology work and work repairing the shop while he, the master cosmetologist, was absent. The cosmetologist, Michael Diamond, failed to obey instructions and did perform cosmetology work in the absence of the master cosmetologist.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to the Respondent. The disobedience of an employee is an extenuating circumstance. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jack Diftler, Owner The Haircuttery 52 Spanish Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Section 477.02(6), 477.15(8) and 477.27, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns Kathy's Colonial Curl and Comb, Ocean Ridge, Florida and was issued Certificate of Registration No. 21533 to operate a cosmetology salon by petitioner on April 15, 1975. On November 12, 1975, Petitioner's Inspector visited Respondent's place of business and discovered LaVerne Beres giving a shampoo and set to a customer. Beres informed the Inspector that she had just graduated from school and believed that the school would give her a permit to act as a cosmetologist, but that she did not have a license at that time. (Testimony of Padgett). Respondent testified Beres had told her that she had applied for a permit and that it would come in the mail shortly. Respondent's reason for hiring Beres without a license was because it was the busy season and she needed an operator. Respondent normally insists on her employees having licenses prior to hiring them. Beres is now licensed. (Testimony of Kight).
Recommendation That a letter of reprimand be issued to the Respondent for violation of Section 477.02(6), Florida Statutes. 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 Ms. Luddy Gene Kight 5011 N. Ocean Boulevard Ocean Ridge, Florida 33444
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Section 477.14(1) & 477.17, Florida Statutes. Receipt of Administrative Complaint and Notice of Hearing was acknowledged by Respondent. (Exhibit 1)
Findings Of Fact On May 20, 1975, Respondent was employed at the Elizabeth Arden cosmetology salon, 340 Miracle Mile, Coral Gables, Florida. This salon operates under Certificate of Registration No. 21626 issued by Petitioner on May 8, 1975. Petitioner's inspector had seen an ad in the Miami Herald to the effect that Respondent was employed at that establishment and she was aware of the fact that he did not hold a current cosmetologist license. She visited him on May 20, 1975 and he stated at that time that he had applied for a license. The inspector checked with Petitioner's records personnel and discovered that his license had not been renewed at that time. (Testimony of Padrick) Respondent submitted letters dated June 25, 1976 in which he stated that he had planned to attend his hearing but was unable to do so because of illness in the family. He further stated that he had been a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida for over 20 years, and previously one in Illinois for over six (6) years. He stated that he had severe medical problems and went out of the beauty field for approximately two years and when the job opportunity at Elizabeth Arden came along he forwarded a check for $35.00 to Petitioner to reinstate his cosmetology Certificate and that when Petitioner's inspector entered the shop on May 20, 1975, his new license had not yet been received. However, he did show her the check stub. They then jointly called Petitioner's Winter Haven office and he was advised that the check had not been received but that he should send a money order and his old license stub. He did so and his license was received on June 14, 1975. (Statement of Respondent)
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 P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Robert Wintermute c/o Elizabeth Arden 340 Miracle Mile Coral Gables, Florida
The Issue Whether the license of the Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for allowing students to work in his salon prior to the issuance of a work permit.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on May 31, 1977 charging: "That you, said Anthony LaRoche on March 15, 1977 did allow students to work in your salon prior to the issuance of work per- mits Anthony's, Jacksonville, Florida." Anthony LaRoche, Respondent, was the owner of several businesses and has managers to operate his beauty salons. A young man was hired to work in the Respondent's beauty salon to report to work at a subsequent time when the school attended by the cosmetologist would have sufficient time to send his credentials to the office of the State Board and for him to receive his work permit from the State Board. The cosmetologist reported for work and began working and was working at the time of the inspection on March 15, 1977 and had not yet received his work permit although he had previously applied for it. Upon learning of the inspection and the violation, the Respondent immediately sent for the credentials but the work permit was not received for 22 days thereafter. After the Respondent learned that the cosmetologist did not hear from it he ceased doing the work of a cosmetologist until his work permit was received.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to Respondent for failing to ascertain whether an employee was duly certified to work in the salon owned by the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 1971, 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 & Haggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Anthony LaRoche, President Anthony LaRoche, Inc. 5566 Ft. Caroline Road Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Whether Respondent, Patsy Arline and Roberta Stein, doing business in a partnership allowed a non-licensed person to practice cosmetology in their beauty salon, to-wit: one Gloria Gann. Whether Respondent's License No. 19208 should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Notice of Service was entered without objection and marked Exhibit 1. The Complaint with the license attached thereto was entered into evidence as Exhibit 2 without objection. The Respondents were duly sworn. Respondents admit that they allowed a person who was non- registered to practice cosmetology in the salon known as the Yellow Tulip which they own and operate as a partnership under License No. 19208. Respondents did not know of the serious consequences of their act.
Findings Of Fact On December 22, 1977, Jacob Rubin, an inspector in petitioner's employ, entered the Hallmark Beauty Salon. He asked a woman who was doing manicures to produce her license. Even though she did not have a current, valid license from the Florida State Board of Cosmetology she said she had left her license at home. When asked to go home to get her license, she left the shop. She did not return to the shop that day. On behalf of respondent, Betty Lerner had hired this manicurist, whose name is Norma Bertha Ruiz de Hidalgo, in November of 1977. At the time she was hired, Ms. Hidalgo told Ms. Lerner that she had previously worked two or three blocks away and showed Ms. Lerner what seemed to be a current, valid license. In Ms. Lerner's hearing, customers greeted Ms. Hidalgo, recognizing her at respondent's shop as somebody they had known at a nearby shop earlier. The license which Ms. Hidalgo had shown Ms. Lerner was not displayed in the shop.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner reprimand respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 The Hallmark Beauty Salon, Inc. 3800 South Ocean Drive Hollywood, Florida
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Schutte satisfied the requirements which enabled her to sit for a cosmetology examination. She took the examination given in July of 1979 and passed the practical portion with a grade of 80, but she failed the written theoretical portion with a grade of 69. In October of 1979, Petitioner again took the theoretical portion of the cosmetology examination and failed with a grade of 72. She returned to cosmetology school and took forty (40) hours of remedial training. Thereafter, in December of 1979, Petitioner took the theoretical portion of the examination for the third time, on this occasion failing with a grade of 71. A passing grade of 75 is required for licensure. Petitioner Schutte has been employed in the cosmetology business owned by Leni Nelson since December of 1979. She has satisfied her employer with her work in the limited area of cosmetology she is allowed to perform without licensure. Ms. Nelson has found Petitioner to be interested in her work and concerned with the welfare of the customers, and she hopes that the problem Petitioner has encountered with the written examination can be resolved. Petitioner Schutte did not notify the Respondent Board that she had difficulty in reading written examinations, although she took three (3) consecutive written examinations. After consideration of the evidence and hearing testimony presented at the formal hearing, the Hearing Officer finds that Petitioner has a reading problem and therefore is at disadvantage in taking written examinations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends the following: Deny licensure to the Petitioner, Tracy D. Schutte; Notify the Petitioner that she may take the written portion of the examination again using a reader of her choice pursuant to Rule 21F-6.04(6), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Tracy D. Schutte 1960 Byram Drive Clearwater, Florida 33515 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
