Findings Of Fact The Respondent was duly sworn. Notice of Service was entered without objection and marked Exhibit 1. The Complaint with Election of Remedies attached thereto was entered into evidence as Exhibit 2 without objection. Respondent was practicing cosmetology as charged by the Board. Respondent is not a registered licensed cosmetologist.
Recommendation Dismiss the Complaint. August 27, 1975 Date 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 Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Gloria Gann 178 Highland Street Cocoa, Florida Mary Alice Palmer Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Post Office Box 9087 Winter Haven, Florida 33880
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), by being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime directly related to the practice or the ability to practice contracting. If so, it must also be determined what penalty should be imposed for the violation.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of contractors pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent holds an active license as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CGC 1515398 on April 30, 2008. He is also the qualifier for Pro Group Construction, Inc. Respondent's license expires August 31, 2014. On or about October 15, 2009, Respondent was charged by the United States Government in a one-count Information with conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. On April 5, 2011, Respondent pled guilty to Count I of the Information, and was adjudicated guilty. On March 20, 2012, Respondent was sentenced to incarceration for one year and one day, supervised release for a period of three years upon completion of his prison sentence, and payment of restitution in the amount of $182,294.83 to Wells Fargo Bank. Included in the terms of supervision, are the following: The Defendant shall provide the probation officer access to any requested financial information. The defendant shall be prohibited from incurring new credit charges, opening additional lines of credit, acquisitions or obligating himself for any major purchases without approval of the probation officer. The defendant shall be prohibited from engaging in any employment related to the buying and selling of real estate. The scheme to which Respondent pled guilty involved fraudulent statements to a lending institution, i.e., Wells Fargo Bank, to induce the lender to believe that buyers had the funds to make down payments on foreclosed properties in order to qualify for loans when in fact the buyers did not have those funds. The conduct from which the criminal charges arose occurred prior to Respondent's licensure as a certified general contractor. The guilty plea and the judgment and sentencing all occurred while Respondent held his contractor's license. Respondent admitted at hearing that his actions, which resulted in the criminal proceedings, were wrong, and he takes responsibility for his wrongdoing. He asserts, however, that because he was not licensed at the time of the conduct, it has nothing to do with his license as a certified general contractor. He was, instead, licensed as a mortgage broker. However, contractors routinely interact with customers, deal with contracts for the building of or improvement of buildings, handle money and checks, and have direct involvement with lending institutions. Respondent admitted that, if he had an employee with a conviction for a crime such as the crime for which he pleaded guilty, that employee would not be permitted to handle money on behalf of his company.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein the Petitioner, Board of Cosmetology, (Board) , was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of cosmetologists and cosmetology salons in Florida. The Respondent, Anthony Autilio, held a license as a cosmetologist and a license to operate a cosmetology salon in Florida. On August 22, 1990, Sara Kimmig, an inspector with the Department's Orlando office, entered the Respondent's cosmetology salon, Capello Hair Designers, located at 5275 Red Bug Lake Road, #117, in Winter Springs, Florida for a routine inspection. As was her custom, she examined the physical plant for compliance with the Board's sanitation rules and also checked the credentials of each operator. When she approached the station at which Ms. Nemeth was applying a permanent to a customer, she noted that Ms. Nemeth's license, displayed on the mirror, was issued by the state of Connecticut, not Florida. No Florida license was in evidence. When Ms. Kimmig asked Ms. Nemeth if she had a Florida license, Ms. Nemeth admitted she did not, but indicated she had applied for one. Ms. Nemeth also admitted she had been performing cosmetology services at that station for about three weeks. Ms. Nemeth has been licensed in Connecticut for over 10 years and that license has been kept current. When she first approached Respondent for a job, she asked to be a cleaner, but because of her long experience and the fact that she held a license in another state, he told her she could be his assistant and do shampoos, preparations, and cleanup, none of which requires a Florida license. She told him, then, that she had applied for a Florida license and, about three weeks before Ms. Kimmig's inspection, told him that she had received notice from the Board that she was qualified for licensure and authorizing her to practice pending the issuance and receipt of her Florida license. Respondent took Ms. Nemeth's word for that and did not ask to see the letter. On the basis of her representations, he assigned her a station and allowed her to cut hair, a procedure which does require a license. On the day the salon was visited by Ms. Kimmig, Ms. Nemeth was cutting the hair of and giving a permanent to a friend of the Respondent, Bruno, a shoe salesman, who had given Ms. Nemeth a free pair of shoes sometime previously. Ms. Nemeth was doing the cosmetology work for him in repayment for his prior gift to her. Mr. Autilio was not in the shop on the day Ms. Kimmig made her inspection. They spoke on the phone the next day at which time he admitted he had allowed Ms. Nemeth to start to do cosmetology work about three or four weeks previously when she advised him she had received the authorization from the Board. Ms. Nemeth, in fact, had not submitted her application to the Board prior to Ms. Kimmig's inspection. Simply put, due to some family financial reverses, she did not have the required fee to submit with the application, and in addition, had not secured all the credentials verification that she needed from Connecticut. When Mr.. Autilio found out what the situation really was, after the inspection, he immediately loaned her the necessary money for the application fee and his car, and instructed her to drive to Tallahassee, submit her application, pay the fee, and get her license. By that time she had received the information she needed to verify her credentials and did what he suggested. She was issued the required authorization letter the day she submitted her application and paid the fee. She took it back to Orlando with her. At the time of the inspection, however, and for the three or four weeks previous thereto, she practiced cosmetology, in Respondent's salon and with his concurrence, without the appropriate license. When Ms. Kimmig conducted her inspection on August 22, 1990, she discovered several other discrepancies, most of which were minor. Only one, some hair left in some equipment, was considered not to be minor but it is not the subject of this complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued herein reprimanding the Respondent, Anthony Autilio. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Offices 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 3rd day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-0871 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contra to the evidence of record. 7 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark E. Harris Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert E. Miller, Esquire Piazza, Miller & Grace, P.A. Raintree Office Park 990 Douglas Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Margaret Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent's cosmetology license should be disciplined for the alleged violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all pertinent times, Respondent, Maureen Mitchell, was a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida having been issued License No. CL0079246 in accordance with Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. At all pertinent times, Respondent was employed at Barry's Place for Hair, a cosmetology salon located in Tamarac, Florida (the "Salon"). On January 22, 1990, Karen Olszewski went to the Salon for a permanent. Ms. Olszewski had previously had permanents without any problems or complications. Respondent was the cosmetologist who gave Ms. Olszewski the permanent on January 22, 1990. After Respondent rolled Ms. Olszewski's hair, she applied the permanent solution in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Within a minute after applying the solution, Ms. Olszewski complained that it was burning her scalp. Respondent told her that the solution was heat activated and there was nothing wrong. Ms. Olszewski complained at least two other times while the solution remained in her hair. Respondent did not take any actions to relieve the discomfort. Barry Barton, the owner of the Salon, looked under the bag that had been placed on Ms. Olszewski's head and stated that he did not see any problems. The chemicals remained on Ms. Olszewski's head and scalp for approximately 5 to 10 minutes in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. When the recommended time had expired, Respondent shampooed Ms. Olszewski's hair. During the rinse, Ms. Olszewski again complained of pain. Barry Barton applied cold cream to the customer's scalp. The application of cold cream to an irritated scalp is not an accepted precaution or remedy for a chemical burn. Respondent did not properly respond to the client's continued complaints of discomfort. Respondent should have immediately stopped the procedure being performed and checked for redness or irritation of the scalp. If the search revealed any indications of a chemical irritation or a burn or if the complaints of discomfort continued, the chemical should have been immediately rinsed with cool water and a neutralizer applied. After leaving the Salon, Ms. Olszewski continued to experience discomfort. She called the Salon and the owner advised her that there was nothing that he could do. Ms. Olszewski went to a dermatologist who treated her for chemical burns on her scalp which were the result of the permanent. Ms. Olszewski experienced some temporary hair loss and had headaches for a couple of weeks following the permanent. There is no scarring or long term damage to her scalp. Respondent's conduct falls below the minimally accepted standards of a licensed cosmetologist. While there is no evidence that Respondent misapplied the chemicals or otherwise failed to follow the manufacturer's instructions, Respondent should have reacted more promptly to the customer's complaints of discomfort and terminated the procedure at an earlier point. Respondent did not make voluntary restitution to Ms. Olszewski for the cost of the permanent or the cost of the medical bills incurred. Ms. Olszewski initiated an action in small claims court for the sums. No evidence was presented as to the results of that legal action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 477.028, Florida Statutes, imposing a $200 fine and requiring Respondent to complete an advanced training course on the use of chemicals in the practice of cosmetology. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of September, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 9th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2659 The Petitioner has submitted a Proposed Recommended Order. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 - 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. Addressed in the Conclusions of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Harris Qualified Representative Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Maureen Mitchell, pro se 8100 Northwest 73rd Terrace Tamarac, Florida 33321 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Jerrold D. Bass was owner and president of J. D. Bass & Company, Inc., which held cosmetology license number CE 0040858. On or around November 2, 1988, Respondent employed Mr. Thomas J. Tilelli to practice cosmetology. Mr. Tilelli's license to practice cosmetology had expired on approximately July 1, 1988. On or around November 2, 1988, and , again, on or around January 6, 1989, combs and brushes were out on work stations at the salon. However, the proof fails to support the Petitioner's contention that combs and brushes were dirty and were used on more that one patron without sanitizing them between patrons. Rather, the combs and brushes were in use on each occasion and were not used on more than one patron of the salon without being sanitized between each patron. On balance, the proof fails to demonstrate that Respondent committed any sanitary violations. But, by employing Mr. Tilelli with his expired license and by allowing him to practice without a valid license, Respondent did violate the provisions of the Florida Cosmetology Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED the a final order be entered imposing on Respondent an administrative fine of $200. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June 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 30th day of June 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobi Pam, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Jerrold D. Bass 5579 North University Drive Lauderhill, Florida 33321 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
The Issue Whether the certificate of registration No. 866914 should be revoked, annulled, suspended or withdrawn for violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, for practicing without a license.
Findings Of Fact Receipt for certified mail notifying Respondent of this hearing was offered into evidence as Exhibit 1 and marked without objection. The Election of Remedies, a composite exhibit marked Exhibit 2, was entered as requested without objection. Respondent was charged for practicing cosmetology without a license. Respondent admitted the violation and submitted such plea to the Board which was included in the Board's Exhibit 1. After the violation for which Ms. Gould was noticed and for which this hearing is held, Respondent took the examination for master cosmetologists, passed the examination, and was issued a Florida license.
Recommendation Suspend the certificate of registration Respondent now holds for a period of one (1) week. 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. Gertie Campbell 7409 Huntley Avenue Tampa, Florida Ms. Rose Gould 1904 Bruce Street Kissimmee, Florida 32741 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. 75-1016 LICENSE NO. 86691 Rose Gould, Respondent. /
