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 since November 26, 1990, licensed to operate the Bailey Unisex Barbershop (Barbershop), a barbershop located at 1412 N.W. 119th Street in Miami, Florida. She acquired the Barbershop from her father, Constantine Bailey. Bailey is a barber. He works for his daughter at the Barbershop. Charles E. Frear is an inspector with the Department. On December 22, 1990, Frear conducted an inspection of the Barbershop. Upon entering the Barbershop, Frear was greeted by Bailey, who told Frear that Respondent was out of town. Bailey appeared to be in charge of the establishment in Respondent's absence. During his inspection, Frear observed Edward Purcell and George Roberts cutting the hair of customers in the Barbershop. Purcell and Roberts were not at the time, nor have they ever been, licensed to practice barbering in the State of Florida. Accordingly, when Frear approached them and asked them to show him their barbering licenses they were unable to do so. The only violations found by Frear during his visit to the Barbershop related to Respondent's employment of these two unlicensed barbers. He noticed on display on the premises a temporary license authorizing Respondent to operate the Barbershop. Furthermore, it appeared to him that all sanitary requirements were being met. Ten days prior to the final hearing in this matter, Frear paid a return visit to the Barbershop. He was again met by Bailey upon entering the establishment. No one else was present in the Barbershop. Frear's inspection of the premises revealed no apparent violations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Barbers' Board enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent committed the violations of law alleged Counts II and III of the instant Administrative Complaint; and (2) imposing upon Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $750.00 for having committed these violations. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of September, 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 17th day of September, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Joanne Fletcher answered the telephone the day Eddie Dingler called The Summit Men's Hair Barbershop (Summit I) asking for work. He said he was Roffler- and Sebring-trained and that he held barber's licenses both in Alabama and in Florida. Ms. Fletcher relayed this message to respondent Donald C. Allgood. At the time, Mr. Allgood was half-owner of The Summit IV, and respondent Don Pettis owned the other half. Mr. Allgood had no ownership interest in Summit I, which was licensed to Mr. Pettis. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Allgood acted as a sort of manager at Summit I the two or three days of the week he spent there, even though he was technically an independent contractor, working on commissions. Respondents had worked with each other for some seven years. The parties stipulated that respondent Donald C. Allgood "is a barber having been issued license number BB 0021833" and that respondent Don Pettis "is a barber having been issued license number BB 0011546." One Monday morning Eddie Dingler appeared in person at Summit I and talked to respondent Allgood about employment. Mr. Allgood called respondent Pettis, then took Dingler to respondent Pettis's house, where Ron Pettis was also present. Dingler told this group that he was licensed both in Florida and in Alabama and that he was conversant with the Roffler and Sebring tonsorial techniques. He was specifically asked whether he had a Florida license, and he answered affirmatively. He was not asked to produce the license certificate itself or the wallet-sized card that licensed barbers are issued. Barbers are under no requirement to carry this card on their persons. Respondent Pettis asked respondent Allgood to observe Dingler cutting hair and to hire him if he cut hair satisfactorily. Dingler was engaged as a barber on a commission basis. He proved to be a highly competent hair stylist, and "excellent barber," from a technical standpoint. Posted in is station at Summit I was what appeared to be a valid Florida barber's license with Dingler's name and photograph: he was wearing eye, glasses and a yellow shirt. Aside from the respondents, five witnesses saw this barber's license, which was counterfeit. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Respondent Pettis remembered noticing a number of plaques on the wall at Dingler's station in Summit I, including something that looked like Dingler's license. Mr. Allgood was unable to say that he had specifically seen Dingler's barber's license at any time before Dingler gathered up his things to leave after being discharged from employment. After Dingler had worked at Summit I for about three months respondent Allgood asked him if he would like to work Mondays (when Summit I was closed at Summit IV. Dingler was Interested and reported for work at Summit IV the following Monday. Michael NcNeill let him in the barbershop ,and noticed what appeared to be an official Florida barber's license among Dingler's effects. After Mr. McNeill had left the Summit IV premises, Dingler allegedly sexually assaulted a 17-year-old patron. When respondent Allgood learned of this, he told victim's father that he would fire Dingler and do what he could to see that Dingler's barber's license was revoked. Dingler was discharged the day after the alleged assault. In discussing the matter with a law enforcement officer, respondent Allgood suggested that the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) be notified so that proceedings to revoke Dingler's barber's license could be instituted. On November 24, 1980, Mr. Allgood voluntarily presented himself for an interview by Charles Deckert, an investigator for DPR. He assumed Mr. Deckert was developing a case so that action against Dingler could be taken. He learned in the interview for the first time that Dingler had never been licensed in Florida as a barber or a registered barber's assistant, according to DPR's records. In preparing the foregoing findings of fact, petitioner's proposed findings of fact and memorandum of law and respondents' proposed order have been considered, and the proposed statement and findings of fact have been adopted in substance.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner refrain from taking action against respondents on account of this technical violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 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 28th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia Grinsted, Esquire Post Office Drawer 915 Shalimar, Florida 32579 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Barbars Board 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 On May 5, 1953 Petitioner issued barbershop license number BS0007761 to Respondent for the operation of Mr. S. Haircuttery, a barbershop located at 17846 South Dixie Highway, Miami, Florida. Petitioner's letter to Respondent dated May 5, 1983 states, "All persons employed as barbers or barber assistants are required to have a current and valid license." Respondent has maintained his license and operated Mr. S. Haircuttery, as owner, at all times material hereto. On October 16, 1984 Bettye C. Rogers, an inspector employed by Petitioner, entered Mr. S. Haircuttery to inspect the premises. The barbershop was very clean and sanitary, and had all required equipment. Ms. Rogers observed a person, later identified as Marietta Thompson, cutting a customer's hair. Upon inquiry it was determined that Marietta Thompson was not licensed at the time by the Barbers' Board or the Board of Cosmetology. Respondent admits that Marietta Thompson was not licensed at the time of the inspection. He points out, however, that her employment of four days was immediately terminated, and that she had been referred to him by a cosmetology school as a person who had passed her cosmetology exam and was just waiting to receive her license. Respondent has been licensed as a barber in Florida for approximately twenty years and as a cosmetologist for approximately seven years. During that time he has owned and operated four licensed shops and employed approximately fifteen licensed employees at his shops. The evidence establishes that the incident involving Marietta Thompson is Petitioner's only violation of the applicable licensing laws during the time he has been licensed. Marietta Thompson was employed by Respondent from October 13 to October 16, 1984. In making the above findings of fact, proposed findings submitted by Petitioner pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, F.S., have been considered. 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, it is recommended that petitioner issue a Final Order which imposes a reprimand against Respondent's barber shop license number BS0007761. 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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should have received a passing grade on the written part of her barber examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Nina D. Odom, was a candidate on the April 1997 barber examination. The test is administered by the Bureau of Testing, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Bureau), while licensure is conferred by Respondent, Barbers' Board (Board). There are two parts to the barber examination, a written portion and a practical portion. On an examination taken more than one year earlier, Petitioner had received a passing grade on the practical part of the examination. For the April 1997 examination, Petitioner received a score of 72 on the written part of the examination. In order to pass that part, a minimum score of 75 is required. Contending that she "wasn't pleased with [her] results," Petitioner requested a formal hearing to challenge her grade. In her letter requesting a hearing, Petitioner contended that the Bureau advised that her "weak area" was "implements," but the questions she failed were not in that subject area. As clarified at hearing, she challenged questions 2, 58, and 63, all multiple choice questions, contending that she should have received credit for her answers. Also, she questioned whether she should be required to pay a $150.00 reexamination fee even if she had already passed the practical part of the examination. Finally, Petitioner complained that she was required to retake both parts of the examination even if she failed only one part. The letter prompted this proceeding. The written portion of the barber examination is not an open book examination. Prior to the examination, however, candidates are given a copy of a "Candidate Information Booklet" (Booklet), which identifies in general terms the contents of the test and the reference materials from which the questions will be drawn. The questions are multiple choice and the correct answers are always taken from one of the reference materials in the Booklet. Because the questions are confidential, and may be used on future examinations, the actual text of the challenged questions will not be repeated here. In this case, Petitioner has contended that she should have been given credit for her answers to questions 2, 58, and Prior to the hearing, the Bureau agreed that Petitioner should have been given credit for question 58. This results in Petitioner's grade being raised to slightly above 73, which is still short of a passing grade. Question 2 tests the candidate's knowledge of a procedure to be used on a client. Petitioner selected an incorrect answer but contended that it was based on information she received from her instructors in 1992 while attending the Hair Design School in Jacksonville, Florida. However, witness Stewart, who helped draft the test questions, established that the correct answer is drawn from a recognized textbook, and that the information Petitioner received during her schooling was in error. Question 63 tests the candidate's knowledge of another procedure which licensed hair stylists must perform. Again, Petitioner selected an incorrect answer. Witness Stewart established that the correct answer was drawn from a recognized textbook cited in the Candidate's Information Booklet, and that Petitioner's answer was incorrect. The Board has promulgated Chapter 61G3-16, Florida Administrative Code, which contains the requirements for examination for licensure, reexamination, and examination review. Rule 61G3-16.001(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[t]here shall be two parts to the examination, a written portion and a practical portion." The evidence shows that Petitioner has successfully completed the practical part of the examination but has failed the written part on four consecutive occasions. Rule 61G3-16.002(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[a]n applicant who fails the state examination for licensure in whole or in part shall be required to pay the reexamination fee as set forth in Rule 61G3-20.007." Therefore, under the terms of the rule, Petitioner is required to pay the reexamination fee of $150.00 even if she passes one part of the two-part examination. Rule 61G3-16.002(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[a]n applicant shall be required to retake only the portion of the examination on which he or she failed to achieve a passing grade. However, an applicant must pass both portions of the examination within a one year period in order to qualify for licensure." Because Petitioner had not passed the practical part of the examination within one year of when she sat on the written part of the examination, she was properly required to retake both parts of the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Barbers' Board enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for a passing grade on the written portion of the April 1997 barber examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Nina D. Odom 1230 East 7th Street, Apartment 9 Jacksonville, Florida 32206 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Joe Baker, Executive Director Barbers' Board 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0769 Lynda Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent violated Section 476.194(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), 1/ by hiring an unlicensed person to practice barbering and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to barbers. Petitioner is also responsible for regulating the practice of barbering on behalf of the state. Respondent is licensed as a barber. Respondent holds license number BS 0008619. On or before October 15, 1994, Respondent hired Mr. Eric A. McClenton to practice barbering in Respondent's barber shop. Mr. McClenton is not licensed as a barber. 2/ Respondent hired Mr. McClenton to perform barbering services as an independent contractor. Mr. McClenton paid Respondent $75 monthly for the use of one of the barber chairs in Respondent's shop and paid for his own equipment and supplies. Mr. McClenton performed barbering services within the meaning of Section 476.034(2). Mr. McClenton cut hair for approximately four months. He cut approximately 100 heads of hair for a fee of $6 or $7 a head. Respondent knew or should have known that Mr. McClenton was not licensed as a barber. Respondent allowed Mr. McClenton to cut hair before seeing Mr. McClenton's license. When Respondent hired Mr. McClenton, Respondent asked to see Mr. McClenton's license. Mr. McClenton verbally represented that he was licensed but used various excuses over time to delay or avoid showing his license to Respondent. Mr. McClenton never displayed a license by the chair he operated in Respondent's shop. Petitioner issued separate citations to Respondent and Mr. McClenton. Petitioner issued a citation to Respondent imposing a fine of $250. Respondent did not pay the fine.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 476.194(1)(c) and imposing an administrative fine of $250. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY, 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 14th day of August, 1996.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of barbering and the inspection of barbershops in the state of Florida pursuant to chapter 476, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Archibald was licensed as a barber in the state of Florida under license number BB8890016. At all times material hereto, Fresh Cut Barbershop ("barbershop") was licensed as a barbershop in the state of Florida under license number 1077801. At all times material hereto, Archibald was an owner and operator of the barbershop. On February 9, 2012, the barbershop was located within a shopping plaza at 6574 Northwest Selvitz Road, Port St. Lucie, Florida. On February 9, 2012, a routine inspection of the barbershop was conducted by Ms. Yvonne Grutka, a trained and experienced inspector employed by Petitioner. Ms. Grutka has been employed by Petitioner as an Environmental Health Specialist for approximately 17 years, performing approximately 1,200-1,400 annual inspections. Due to the nature of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, the physical layout of the barbershop, including the specific locations of the front entrance, work stations, and waiting area, is important to a clear understanding and resolution of the issues. However, insufficient evidence was presented at hearing in this regard. Moreover, insufficient evidence was presented as to the number of barbers who worked at the barbershop (and thus number of personal licenses); the identities of the barbers; where specifically within the barbershop they worked; and whether the barbers who worked at the barbershop were independent contractors or employees of the business. The scant evidence presented at hearing demonstrates that on February 9, 2012, the premises upon which the barbershop was physically located was leased from the owner of the shopping plaza. A separate beauty supply business, which was owned by Archibald's ex-wife, was located at the front of the leased premises. The barbershop was located in a smaller area at the back of the leased premises. Both businesses were accessible to customers through a single entry door at the front of the leased space where the beauty supply store was located. Petitioner failed to clearly and convincingly establish that the barbershop was open for business during the February 9, 2012, inspection. During Ms. Grutka's February 9, 2012, inspection, the only persons present at the barbershop were Archibald and another unidentified barber. No evidence was presented that this "other barber" was affiliated with the barbershop in any way. No physical description of this person or his/her clothing was provided. It could be that this barber was just visiting, and was unaffiliated with the barbershop. No customers were present. The time of commencement and duration of the inspection is unknown. On the date of the February 9, 2012, inspection, the property upon which the barbershop was located was in foreclosure. As a result, Archibald was planning to vacate the premises and move the barbershop to another location. During the inspection, boxes of items were on the floor, and other items were removed from walls, evidencing Archibald's intent to vacate the premises. Archibald was present on the date of the inspection. Archibald testified he is unsure whether the barbershop was open for business on February 9, 2012, because of his intent to vacate the building. On rebuttal, Ms. Grutka did not "recall" whether she "saw boxes or not." When asked specifically whether she recalled Archibald saying that he was in the process of moving, Ms. Grutka merely replied: "No. He may have. I really don't recall."1/ With respect to the allegation regarding the improper display of personal licenses, Ms. Grutka testified on direct examination that during the February 9, 2012, inspection, she did not observe personal licenses posted with both the photograph and lamination. She testified that the licenses had the photograph or the lamination on "it, but one of the items was missing." However, no evidence was presented by Petitioner on direct examination as to the specific location of the alleged lack of personal licenses, or the number or identities of the licensees for which personal licenses were purportedly not properly displayed. It was only on cross-examination that Ms. Grutka referred to Archibald's personal license, at which time she testified merely that she recalled seeing his personal license located in the "back" of the premises. Archibald testified that he believes the license was displayed in the barbershop area, which was located in the "back end" of the building. Importantly, Ms. Grutka never testified specifically that Archibald's license was improperly displayed in any way. In sum, Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's personal license, or, for that matter, the personal licenses of any other barbers who worked at the barbershop were improperly displayed. With respect to the issues of the display of the barbershop license, rules of sanitation, and most recent inspection report, Ms. Grutka testified that during the February 9, 2012, inspection, she did not observe a barbershop license displayed visibly within view of the "front door," or the rules of sanitation, health, and safety visibly within view of the "front door" or "waiting area." Nor did Ms. Grutka observe the most recent inspection form prior to the February 9, 2012, inspection displayed within view of the "front entrance" or the "waiting area." According to Ms. Grutka, she did not observe the barbershop license and rules of sanitation, health, and safety, anywhere at the barbershop on the day of the inspection. However, Ms. Grutka's testimony is unreliable and cannot be credited because of insufficient evidence of the physical layout of the premises. In fact, Ms. Grutka testified that she could not recall whether the "waiting area" was in the front of the building, the back of the building, or in both areas. Moreover, Ms. Grutka did not "recall" if the most recent inspection report was posted anywhere else in the barbershop. The unreliability of Ms. Grutka's testimony is further demonstrated through the following exchange, which occurred during Archibald's cross-examination of her: Q: Questions for - - You said you never seen any of our license or anything in the back end? A: Yes, they were up - - not in the back. Your personal licenses I remember, you know, were in the back, but I don't recall the inspection sheet and stuff being moved to the back of the shop " Further undercutting the reliability of Ms. Grutka's testimony is her statement that the rule regarding the display of a barbershop license requires that the license be visibly within view of the front door. Contrary to Ms. Grutka's testimony, rule 61G3-19.009(2) states that "[t]he shop license shall be displayed within view of the front entrance or in the waiting area." Apparently, Ms. Grutka did not even consider whether the license was displayed in the "waiting area," because she could not identify the location of the "waiting area." Moreover, Ms. Grutka testified that she wrote in the report that the shop license was not "anywhere to be found in the shop." However, a review of the inspection report does not support her testimony. In fact, a section within the inspection report titled: "Remarks," was left blank. Nothing was written in the inspection report indicating that the shop license was nowhere in the barbershop. In sum, there is insufficient clear and convincing evidence to conclude that the barbershop license, rules of sanitation, or most recent inspection report were not properly displayed. Finally, during the February 9, 2012, inspection, Ms. Grutka testified she did not observe a recent sticker on the portable fire extinguisher indicating that it had been inspected. According to Ms. Grutka, portable fire extinguishers must be inspected on an annual basis, "as per the Fire Marshall, and they would have a sticker on them indicating that they had been inspected." At hearing, Archibald did not admit to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rather, Archibald persuasively explained that if personal and business licenses and the rules of sanitation and most recent inspection report were not displayed during the February 9, 2012, inspection, it was because the property was in foreclosure, items had been removed from the walls, items were placed in boxes, and he was planning on moving the barbershop to another location. In fact, the barbershop vacated the premises sometime in 2013, and relocated to another shopping plaza. At the conclusion of the February 9, 2012, inspection, Ms. Grutka prepared and signed an inspection report indicating the violations noted in the report, and she informed Archibald of the alleged violations. Archibald acknowledged his receipt of the report. No evidence was presented indicating that a follow-up inspection of the barbershop was ever scheduled or occurred. No citation has ever been issued for the February 9, 2012, inspection. No evidence was presented establishing a prior history of persistent or flagrant violations of the same nature as those alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The evidence at hearing established that even if personal and business licenses, the rules of sanitation, and the most recent inspection report were not properly displayed on the date of the February 9, 2012, inspection, it was an isolated incident.2/ Importantly, the facts adduced at hearing do not clearly and convincingly establish that Archibald personally engaged in any misconduct resulting in the five charges which are the subject of the Administrative Complaint. The evidence failed to establish, clearly and convincingly, that Archibald personally committed, or is personally culpable for, a disciplinary offense which is the subject of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty on all counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 2014.
The Issue Whether the Barbers' Board should discipline the Respondent (a licensed barber and barbershop) for permitting a person in his employ to practice barbering without a license in violation of Sections 476.204(1)(a) and (h) and 476.194(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1987).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Bruce Heineman, holds a valid Florida barber license, license number BB-0018489 which was originally issued on May 8, 1968, and has been continuously licensed as a barber since that time. No record of prior disciplinary action appears in Respondent's file. Respondent, Bruce Heineman operates a barbershop under the business name of "Cuttin Corners," located at 3107 South Orlando Drive, #7B, Sanford, Florida 32771. Said barbershop operates under a current valid barbershop license which was originally issued to Respondent on September 9, 1986. Sara Kemmeck, an inspector with the Department, testified that she personally observed an employee of Respondent, Tina Prescott, giving a customer a haircut on August 31, 1988, at his barbership. Upon demand, the employee was unable to produce a valid barbers license. The unrebutted evidence demonstrated that Tina Prescott was engaged in the practice of barbering without a valid license for a minimum of two weeks, while an employee of Respondent. Tina Prescott was issued a cosmetology license on November 7, 1988, license number CL-0174999, which permits her to practice barbering in a licensed barbershop.
The Issue Whether Respondent, David Blake (Respondent), violated Subsection 476.194(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), by engaging in the practice of barbering without a license, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was not licensed as a barber by the Department's Board of Barbers for the State of Florida. Respondent's last known address of record was 4144 Geranium Lane, Apartment 102, Sanford, Florida 32771. The Division of Administrative Hearings mailed the Notice of Hearing in this case to Respondent on May 10, 2006, at his address of record. That notice was not returned to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At all times material hereto, the barbershop named Just Blaze Barbershop, located at 2451 East Semoran Boulevard, Apopka, Florida, was licensed by the Florida Board of Barbers. Michelle Peterson is and, at all times relevant to this proceeding, has been employed by the Department as an investigator specialist. Ms. Peterson's job responsibilities include conducting inspections of barbershops. On October 8, 2005, the Department, through its employee, Ms. Peterson, inspected the premises of Just Blaze Barbershop. During the inspection, Ms. Peterson observed Respondent performing barbering services on a customer. Specifically, Respondent was cutting a customer's hair. At Ms. Peterson's direction, another Department inspector who was at the inspection took a photograph of Respondent while he was cutting the person's hair. During the inspection, Ms. Peterson issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation to Respondent for the unlicensed activity. The citation was signed by both Ms. Peterson and Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent, David Blake, engaged the unlicensed practice of barbering, an act proscribed by Subsections 476.194(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), and (2) imposing an administrative fine of $500.00 for the violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 1st day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Nicole M. Webb, Certified Law Clerk Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 David Blake 4144 Geranium Lane, No. 102 Sanford, Florida 32771 John Washington, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel 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
