The Issue Whether Respondent Margrea Hudson allowed a nonlicensed person to practice cosmetology in her salon d/b/a Margrea's Beauty Salon in Lakeland, Florida.
Findings Of Fact A copy of the Administrative Complaint with Election of Remedies, Salon License No.l 6766, and the receipt for certified mail were received into evidence without objection and marked Composite Exhibit 1. Respondent admitted that she was guilty of the violation charged.
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the respective Administrative Complaints filed in this case and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Tracey Renee Monroe, was licensed by the Florida Cosmetology Board, and Respondent, Martha Hylton, was licensed by the Florida Cosmetology Board. On or around December 10, 1988, customer, Mary Jean Hampton went to Cora's Beauty Salon in Miami, Florida, to have her hair done by her usual cosmetologist, Martha Hylton. Ms. Hampton had been a regular customer of Ms. Hylton for approximately two years. When Ms. Hampton arrived, Ms. Hylton examined Ms. Hampton's hair, and they both decided that it was time to apply a chemical relaxer to Ms. Hampton's hair. Without performing a test of the chemical's reaction to a strand of Ms. Hampton's hair (strand test), Ms. Hylton proceeded with the application using a chemical she had used previously on Ms. Hampton's hair. When the chemical was removed, a substantial portion of hair in the crown area of Ms. Hampton head broke, leaving her with the appearance of spot balding. Ms. Hampton also suffered from a pre-existing skin condition which Ms. Hylton protected with base. When the breakage was noted, Ms. Hylton conferred with other cosmetologists in the salon and with Ms. Hampton. Ms. Hampton then mentioned that she had recently used a shampoo and conditioner, Flex, which she had not previously used. A decision was made that Respondent, Tracey Renee Monroe, would apply a procedure, bonding, to Ms. Hylton's head. Bonding involves gluing hair to the scalp and weaving the glued hair in with the remaining hair. The damage to Ms. Hampton hair was caused by the chemical relaxer. The proof failed to demonstrate that the bonding procedure contributed to the hair loss. Although performing a strand test prior to any chemical application on the hair is the acceptable procedure, the proof demonstrated that the practice is not consistently followed when a practitioner is familiar with a client's hair as Ms. Hylton knew Ms. Hampton's hair. On balance, the proof fails to demonstrate that either Respondent, Tracey Renee Monroe or that, Respondent, Martha Hylton, committed fraud, deceit, gross negligence, incompetency or misconduct within the intent of the Florida Cosmetology Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, as to Respondent, Martha Hylton, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be dismissed.; and Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, as to Respondent, Tracey Renee Monroe, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th of August 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 August 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobi Pam, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 James W. Evans, Esquire Post Office Box 420187 Miami, Florida 33142 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Florida Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Marge Edwards, Inspector with the Florida State Board of Cosmetology, issued a notice of violation citing Respondent for "owner leaving one cosmetologist, one student permit working alone". The time of the violation notice was dated 2:10 p.m. on June 1, 1974. Respondent George D'Zanko was out of the George D's beauty salon, a business which he owns and operates as the master cosmetologist on June 1, 1974 during the hours which includes 2:10 p.m. Mr. D'Zanko admits that he was out of the shop at that time. Respondent entered a motion to dismiss contending that Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, did not require his presence in the shop while the cosmetologists were working therein. Section 477.04, Florida Statutes, states "no registered cosmetologists may independently practice cosmetology, but he may as a cosmetologist do any or all of the acts constituting the practice of cosmetology under the immediate personal supervision of a registered master cosmetologist". The attorney for Respondent D'Zanko equates Chapter 476, Florida Statutes, which regulates barbers with Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, which regulates cosmetologists, and cites Lett vs. Florida Barbers Salary Commission, Fla. App. 247 So.2d 335, for his position that inasmuch as Respondent was in the neighborhood of the salon the actual presence of Respondent was not necessary. The Board contends that the Respondent allowed a cosmetologist to practice cosmetology without the presence and supervision of a master cosmetologist in violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. The Board contends that the presence of a master cosmetologist in a salon where the art of cosmetology is being practiced is a protection for the public and that Respondent allowed his shop to be operated without the supervision of a master cosmetologist. That the license of the Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended. The Hearing Officer finds: That Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, requires that a master cosmetologist be present in a cosmetology salon at all times when the art of cosmetology is being practiced; That Respondent George D'Zanko, the owner of the salon, Styles by George D', Inc., allowed cosmetology to be practiced in his salon at a time when there was no master cosmetologist therein; That the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist is a protection for the customers in the application of materials used in practicing the art of cosmetology.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Elaine Jordan, doing business as Park Avenue Coiffures, did practice cosmetology without a valid Florida cosmetology license. Whether the Board should revoke, annul, withdraw or suspend the license of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Elaine Jordan, was practicing cosmetology as charged by the Board by shampooing the hair of a customer in the salon owned by Elaine Jordan doing business as Park Avenue Coiffures. Respondent holds Registration No. 18844 for the salon doing business as Park Avenue Coiffures. Respondent Elaine Jordan is not a registered, licensed cosmetologist. 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 witness was duly sworn.
Findings Of Fact Respondent held a salon registration certificate at the time of this violation. The salon certificate of registration was not displayed inasmuch as the certificate was for a salon from which Respondent had moved and Respondent had not secured a certificate for the salon in which she was operating. Respondent has secured a certificate of registration to operate the beauty salon in which she is not operating. The Notice to appear, Complaint, and receipt for certified mail was entered into evidence as Composite Exhibit 1 without objection.
Recommendation Suspend the certificate of registration of the Respondent for a period of thirty (30) days or less. August 29, 1975 (date) Delphine C. Strickland Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ms. Artie Leigh Mitchell 427 Roosevelt Avenue Merritt Island, Florida Ms. Bertha Stockton 1717-16th Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Ms. Mary Alice Palmer Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Post Office Box 9087 Winter Haven, Florida 33880 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Complaintant, vs. CASE NO. 75-1013 BERTHA STOCKTON, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether the license of the Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a beauty salon not under the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed against Mary Wilson, d/b/a Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon on May 31, 1976 alleging: "That you, said MARY WILSON d/b/a/ Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon on August 1, 1976 and January 19, 1977 did on at least two occa- sions operate a beauty salon without the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist, at Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon, Orlando, Florida." The Respondent is the owner of tie Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon, holds no Florida registration as a cosmetologist and the subject salon is now closed. At the time of the violation notice the Respondent was practicing cosmetology in the Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon without a Florida cosmetology license and without being under the supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Recommendation Revoke the license of the Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon. DONE and ORDERED this 25th 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 Mary Wilson Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon Post Office Box 5485 Orlando, Florida 32801
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 the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for allowing two unlicensed persons to practice cosmetology in the beauty salon licensed as May Cohen's Soul Sissors.
Findings Of Fact A joint motion to consolidate the above styled cases was made for the reason that the charges grew out of the same incident. The motion was granted. A motion was made requesting permission for the Respondent to file affidavits late and the permissions was granted without objection by the Petitioner but with a reservation to file objections when the affidavits were filed. The affidavits were filed July 26, 1977 and are a part of the record. No objection has been filed by Petitioner and the thirty days from date of hearing allotted by the Hearing Officer has expired. The statements in the affidavit are consistent with the evidence and testimony at the hearing and with the findings of facts herein. The Administrative Complaints were issued on May 31, 1977 against John S. Kubie, President of Seligman & Latz, Inc., and against the salon May Cohen's Soul Sinners charging: "That you, said SELIGMAN & LATZ, INC. d/b/a May Cohen's Soul Sissors on January 7, 1977 did allow two unlicensed persons to practice in your salon, at May Cohen's Soul Sissors, Jacksonville, Florida." On January 7, 1977, the inspector for the Board entered the May Cohen's Soul Sinners Beauty Shop and found therein two unlicensed persons. One person, Willie Dock, who is an employee of Nay Cohen's Soul Sinners, had not secured a Florida license and was working without a license in the subject salon and without a license or permit posted as required. He had not informed the manager that his permit had expired on December 30, 1976. The other person, Margaret Florence, was working although her license had been altered to appear as if it were current. It was of a different color than the current licenses of other cosmetologists in the shop and in fact it had expired. The manager should have ascertained whether these people were duly licensed and knew or should have known they were not properly licensed.
Recommendation Suspend the license of May Cohen's Soul Sissors for a period of seven (7) days. DONE and ORDERED this 26th 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: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee,, Florida 32302 Charles A. Sorenson, Esquire Forbes and Meide 400 Guaranty Life Building 137 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
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 has been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida since August 13, 1979. He currently holds license number CL 0110182, which has an expiration date of June 30, 1992. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of Best Cuts, Inc. (Best Cuts), a licensed cosmetology salon located at 5331 West Atlantic Boulevard in Margate, Florida. In late October, 1990 or early November, 1990, Luis Villate applied and interviewed for a hair stylist position at Best Cuts. During the interview, Respondent asked if Villate was licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. In response to this inquiry, Villate showed Respondent a completed State of Florida application for licensure by examination. The application contained a certification, dated January 6, 1990, and signed by the Educational Supervisor of the cosmetology school Villate had attended, that Villate met the educational and training requirements for eligibility to sit for the cosmetology licensure examination. Following the interview, Respondent telephoned the Department's offices in Tallahassee to find out if there was any legal impediment to his hiring Villate to work as a hair stylist at Best Cuts. Respondent explained to the Department representative with whom he spoke that Villate had "all his hours" of schooling and training and that he had applied for a cosmetology license. The representative told Respondent that, if such were the circumstances, it would be permissible for Respondent to employ Villate at his salon. 1/ Respondent shortly thereafter hired Villate to work at Best Cuts. The representations made to him by the Department representative did not play a role in his decision to hire Villate. Because he desperately needed a competent hair stylist to work at the salon, he would have hired Villate even if he had been told that Villate's unlicensed status rendered him ineligible for lawful employment. Villate remained an employee of Best Cuts for approximately two months, until December 4, 1991. During the period of his employment, Villate cut, washed and blow dried customers' hair. At no time during this period was he licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. The termination of Villate's employment with Best Cuts was precipitated by an inspection of the salon made by Louis Morganstern, an inspector with the Department, on December 3 and 4, 1990. During the first day of his inspection, Morganstern observed Villate cutting the hair of a customer. Upon his return to the office, Morganstern ran a computer check on Villate, which revealed that Villate had taken and failed the licensure examination and therefore was still unlicensed. The following day, at Morganstern's request, Villate signed a document agreeing to "cease and desist" from the practice of cosmetology in the State of Florida.
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 violation of law alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and (2) imposing upon Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $100 for having committed this violation. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of August, 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 19th day of August, 1991.
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
