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 The issue in this case is whether Respondent should be sanctioned for providing services as a cosmetologist without holding an appropriate license as required by Subsection 477.0265(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact Vega is a native of Puerto Rico and has been a hair stylist since 1984. She was employed at the Beauty Gallery and Spa Salon (the "Salon") as a shampoo girl and receptionist at all times relevant to this proceeding. English is a second language to Vega, and she does not speak, read, or write the language well. At the final hearing in this matter, Vega testified through an interpreter or translator, Carmen Rodriquez. DBPR is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, the licensure of cosmetologists and cosmetology establishments in Florida. Daniel Hogan, JD, LLM, is a regional program administrator for DBPR, a position he has held for three years. He received training from his employer in order to perform inspections of cosmetology businesses and barbershops as part of his duties. He is responsible for the Orlando office and supervises the inspections of cosmetology and barber establishments conducted by that office. The Orlando office conducts about 3,500 such inspections each year, of which Hogan has involvement in approximately 500. On or about March 29, 2005, Hogan conducted a routine annual inspection of the Salon. During the inspection, Hogan noted two individuals working at the Salon: Vega and a Mr. Torres. Torres was sitting at the front part of the Salon. Hogan identified himself to Vega and Torres as an inspector for DBPR. Neither Vega nor Torres could produce a cosmetology license for review by Hogan when asked. Hogan saw Vega at a workstation, actively engaged in cutting a customer's hair. His efforts to question Vega concerning this matter were thwarted by Vega's inability to converse in English. Vega did produce for Hogan a cosmetology license, which had been issued in Puerto Rico. She also produced a copy of a letter from DBPR wherein Vega's application for licensure had been denied. The purpose of showing those documents to Hogan was to show him that she was a legal resident. She had initially perceived him as an immigration officer. During the course of Hogan's inspection, Ms. Matos, owner of the Salon, appeared. She confirmed to Hogan that Vega had been employed at the Salon for about twelve months. Matos did not appear at the final hearing. There was no testimony by the owner as to Vega's employment position at the Salon. Upon completion of his inspection, Hogan issued an inspection report and a Citation against Vega for practicing without a license. He gave Vega a copy of the citation, which Vega signed in his presence. The citation states that Vega was practicing cosmetology without a license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation upholding the fine assessed in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 22nd day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Raquel Santiago Vega 523 Delido Way Kissimmee, Florida 34758 Drew F. Winters, Esquire Matt Yeager Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of Florida statutes relating to the operation of a cosmetology salon, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Board of Cosmetology. Petitioner contends that the Respondent was properly notified of her responsibility to renew her cosmetology salon license and that she failed to do so. Respondent contends that she was never properly notified of this new statutory responsibility.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been licensed as a cosmetologist in the State of Florida. She holds License No. CL- 0071047 issued by the Board of Cosmetology. For many years, and at all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has owned and operated a cosmetology salon named "Ramona's Beauty Salon." The salon is located at 130 Dixie Highway, Auburndale, Florida. The salon has, at all material times, been open for business and doing business with the general public as a cosmetology salon. Prior to July 1, 1980, cosmetology salons were required to be registered with the Board of Cosmetology; however, there was no requirement that the registration, once obtained, be renewed. Registration of a salon was permanent. In 1978, the Legislature amended provisions of law relating to registration of cosmetology salons. Effective July 1, 1980, cosmetology salons were required to have renewed their salon license and to renew it again every two years. Because of the change in the law which imposed a new obligation to renew the registration for a salon, the Board of Cosmetology endeavored to advise its licensees of the obligation to renew the salon registration. In March, 1980, the Board mailed a newsletter to its salon licensees advising them about the change in the law. In May, 1980, the Board mailed renewal cards to its licensees. The cards were to be filled out and returned to the Board with the appropriate fee. The Board endeavored to send these notices to its salon licensees at their currently registered addresses. The address that the Board had for the Respondent's salon was the proper one. The Respondent did not receive the notices. The evidence does not reveal whether this was the result of the Board's not forwarding them to her, an error on the part of the postal service, or an error by the Respondent. The precise system that the Board used to assure that the notices were properly forwarded to its licensees was not made a part of the record. The evidence is insufficient to establish why the Respondent did not receive the notices. Prior to 1979, the Board of Cosmetology inspected the premises of its licensees on at least an annual basis. Typically, inspections were conducted more frequently than that. When the Legislature reorganized the Department of Professional Regulation, these periodic inspections ceased during the transition period. The Respondent's salon was inspected in September, 1979. It was not inspected again, however, until December, 1982. The Board endeavored to help apprise its licensees of the need to renew salon licenses by having its inspectors inform the licensees during inspections. Since the Respondent's salon was not inspected during that period, she did not receive the benefit of that advice. The Respondent's salon had been registered with the Board since 1971. She never had any reason to believe that she needed to renew her salon's registration until sometime in 1981. The Respondent's daughter was attending a cosmetology school and heard that salon licenses needed to be renewed, and passed this information on to her mother. Her mother called a representative of the Board at the Winter Haven office. Prior to the reorganization, the Board maintained its principal offices in Winter Haven. Thereafter the offices were moved to Tallahassee, but the testing function continued to be administered from the Winter Haven office. The person who the Respondent talked to at the Winter Haven office advised her that she would be receiving registration forms from Tallahassee and that she did not need to take any action until she received those forms. The Respondent attended continuing education programs during the period following the change in the registration requirement. At none of these programs was she advised of the new obligation to renew the salon license. On December 3, 1982, an inspector with the Department of Professional Regulation inspected the Respondent's salon. The inspector observed that the salon license had not been renewed. The Respondent was advised of her responsibility to obtain a current registration for the salon, and she took immediate steps to accomplish that. Her salon is now properly registered.
Findings Of Fact On December 22, 1977, respondent manicured a patron at the Hallmark Beauty Salon, without having been licensed by or registered with petitioner. Jacob Rubin, an investigator employed by petitioner, observed respondent at the time and asked her to produce her license. She said she had left it at home and ostensibly went to get it, but did not return before Mr. Rubin left. Mr. Rubin became suspicious and caused a search of petitioner's records to be made. On February 22, 1978, Petitioner licensed respondent as a manicuring, pedicuring, and shampooing specialist.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of June, 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 Wiser, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Norma Bertha Ruiz de Hidalgo c/o Hallmark Beauty Salon 3800 South Ocean Drive Hollywood, Florida
Findings Of Fact Marie J. Jeune, Respondent, owns an establishment known as Joset's Beauty Salon located at 341 N.W. 3rd Street, Pompano Beach, Florida. From January, 1984 until July, 1984 Respondent operated Joset's Beauty Salon as a cosmetology salon but at no time did she have a license from the Board of Cosmetology for the salon. During this time, she employed a licensed cosmetologist on the premises, and she testified that she did not know that the salon had to be licensed. She thought she was complying with the law by employing a licensed cosmetologist and obtaining an occupational license. In July, 1984 the licensed cosmetologist left her employment at Joset's Beauty Salon due to pregnancy. On October 9, 1984, Alexa Arachy, an inspector employed by the Department of Professional Regulation conducted an inspection of Joset's Beauty Salon. Inspector Arachy observed an unlicensed person, later identified as Respondent's sister-in- law, Ms. McPhaton Jeune, giving a shampoo to a woman in the salon. She also observed two shampoo sinks, a salon station, numerous open bottles of dyes and waving lotions, combs, brushes, towels, hair on the floor, and a trash container full of items which would normally result from the operation of a salon. At no time has either Respondent or Ms. McPhaton Jeune been licensed by the Board of Cosmetology or the Barber Board, nor has Joset's Beauty Salon ever been licensed by the Board of Cosmetology, or the Barber Board. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, F.S. have been considered in making the above findings of fact. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of three hundred dollars ($300). DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 2nd day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marie J. Jeune 341 N.W. 3rd Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case was whether Respondent, Nikki Gamber, should be disciplined by the Board of Cosmetology for the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact On December 14, 1990, Frank Paolella, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation, went to Booth 85 in a Flea Market in Fort Myers, Florida, to investigate a complaint of unlicensed activity purportedly going on there. When he arrived, he asked for the owner, Ms. Gamber, who was present with an employee. He told her why he was there and since she was then working on someone's nails, waited for her to finish. While he was waiting, he observed Respondent's employee, Nikkae Jurgens, applying false nails to another customer. This involved sanding and buffing the client's natural nails before applying the false ones. When he brought all this to the attention of the Respondent, she freely admitted she was engaged in unlawful activity but claimed she was not aware that Ms. Jurgens, who was only two feet away from her, was also doing it. When he brought it to her attention, Respondent said she would tell Ms. Jurgens to stop. Ms. Jurgens indicated that she did not have any identification on her but that Respondent had it all. When Mr. Paolella asked Respondent for it, she said she would provide it later. When she did do so later, by phone, she also said that Ms. Jurgens had been working for her for about 7 to 10 days. Mr. Paolella checked on the licensure status of both Respondent and Ms. Jurgens and determined that neither had a license to do this type or work, nor did either hold a salonlicense. The operation was a booth in a flea market - a counter with two chairs for clients. There was no sanitary equipment there, no disinfectant for implements, and no closed compartments for storing clean supplies and equipment. Mr. Paolella's investigation revealed that Respondent's booth is open for business only on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, but whenever he went there before December 14, 1990, she was never there. As of August 22, 1991, the owner of the Flea Market where Respondent had operated indicated she was no longer in business there. Records of the Department show that Ms. Gamber held neither a cosmetologist's license or a cosmetology salon license during the time in question, nor did Ms. Jurgens, her employee. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be issued by the Board of Cosmetology imposing a fine of $500.00 for each of the two violations established as outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of September, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 27th day of September, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark E. Harris Paralegal Specialist Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nikki Gamber P.O. Box 8155 Sarasota, Florida 34278 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kaye Howerton Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee. Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Sections 477.02(6), 477.15(8), 477.27(1) & (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Clodoaldo and Olimpia Linares operate the Alinas Beauty Salon, a partnership, at 754 East 1st Avenue, Hialeah, Florida under Certificate of Registration to operate a cosmetology salon number 20143 issued by Petitioner on August 21, 1974. Petitioner's Inspector Miller, accompanied by Inspector Padrick, visited Respondent's salon on October 31 1975, to investigate a report that Respondent had an operator at their shop who was practicing cosmetology without a license. At that time the inspectors discovered Carmen Salvador giving a manicure to a patron. Salvador stated to the inspectors that although she did not have a Florida license to practice cosmetology, she was not employed in the salon. (Testimony of Miller and Padrick) Respondent Olimpia Linares testified that Salvador was her cousin and that while she was waiting for Linares to leave the salon for the evening she filed a patron's nails while Linares was working on the patron's hair. The patron was a friend of Salvador. (Testimony of Linares)
Recommendation That Respondent, Olimpia Linares, be issued a written reprimand for violation of Section 477.27(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Clodoaldo and Olimpia Linares c/o Alinas Beauty Salon THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 754 East 1 Avenue Hialeah, Florida
Findings Of Fact Patricia Strange began as a cosmetologist in North Carolina in 1966. Since October of 1977 she has practiced cosmetology in Panama City, Florida. The administrative complaint filed in the present case is the first complaint ever made by any public authority against her as a cosmetologist. Ms. Strange holds cosmetology license No. CL0059441. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. On November 13, 1970, the State Board of Cosmetology issued a "Certificate of Registration To Operate A Cosmetology Salon," No. 14877, for Pat's Petite Beauty Salon, 1848 Beck Avenue, Panama City, Florida. Under this license, respondent Strange operated a beauty salon for ten or eleven years. In early 1981, the building in which respondent operated her salon was sold, and she was asked to move the salon. She was given one month's notice that the salon lease, which expired April 30, 1981, would not be renewed. During the busy month that ensued, she effected a move to a new building at 2347 St. Andrews Boulevard in Panama City, where she opened for business under the name St. Lynn Gallery of Hair Design on the first Wednesday in May of 1981. She inquired about her city occupational license and was told that she need not worry about getting another until her current occupational license expired. Respondent was unaware of any requirement to obtain a new salon license from petitioner, until August 20, 1981. Charles I. Deckard, an investigator in petitioner's employ, called on respondent on August 20, 1981. When she showed him the salon license, he told her she needed to secure another license for the new location and issued a citation. The very next day respondent closed her shop, telephoned petitioner's Tallahassee office to inquire what documents she would need to secure a new salon license, gathered up all such documents, and made the trip to Tallahassee. She took with her a $40 cashier's check in petitioner's favor, as payment for a new salon license, dated August 21, 1981. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. Petitioner then issued a new cosmetology salon license to respondent for St. Lynn Gallery of Hair Design.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Cosmetology reprimand respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 20th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Russell R. Stewart, Esquire Post Office Box 2542 Panama City, Florida 32401 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent pleaded nolo contendere on the election of remedies furnished by the Petitioner; however, Respondent Dannie Richardson appeared in proper person at this hearing. As the result of a normal inspection trip by the State Board of Cosmetology's beauty salon inspector Ardie Smiley Collins found the Respondent Mrs. Richardson draping a patron for service in a non licensed beauty salon. The beauty salon did not have a proper sign as required by the rules and regulations of the State Board of Cosmetology. Subsequent to the inspection noted in Findings of Fact Number 2, Respondent Richardson secured and now holds a personal license number 0051868 and also holds a salon license number 21957. The administrative complaint filed by the Board notified the Respondent that the Board seeks to revoke, annul, suspend or withdraw the personal and salon license of Dannie Richardson. However, at the hearing a representative of the Board suggested that inasmuch as the offense of Respondent was a first offense, that in the opinion of the inspector a letter of reprimand would be sufficient to satisfy the objectives of the statutes, rules and regulations of the Board.
Recommendation Dismiss the present complaint and warn Respondent that a violation of the state laws and regulations governing cosmetologists could jeopardize her personal and salon license. DONE and ORDERED this 19th 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 Dannie Richardson 319 S. Childs Street Leesburg, Florida
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.
