The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 477.15(8)(9), Florida Statutes, and Regulation 21F-301, Florida Administrative Code, by operating a cosmetology salon without a salon license.
Findings Of Fact Notice of this hearing was attempted by mail and notice was left at the proper address. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the proceeding. Respondent holds a current cosmetologist license No. 18927. Respondent is or has been practicing the art of cosmetology in her home without first having secured a certificate of registration for a cosmetology salon.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's licenses as a cosmetologist and cosmetology salon owner in the State of Florida, should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for the alleged violations of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, 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. The Respondent is a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida, holding license number CL 141038. From April 13, 1987 until October 31, 1990, Respondent also held a license as a cosmetology salon owner, license number CE 0044081. The salon license expired on October 31, 1990 and was not renewed for the 1990-1992 period because the check submitted for payment of the renewal fee was dishonored by the bank for insufficient funds. This case is related to a separate administrative proceeding brought against Veronica Bonani, DPR Case Number 90-4671. In that case, Ms. Bonani was found by the Florida Board of Cosmetology to have been employed by the Respondent as a cosmetologist without a Florida license from January 3, 1990 to March, 1990. After conceding the allegations in that case, Ms. Bonani was fined one hundred dollars ($100). Petitioner has suggested that the complaint against Veronica Bonani was initiated by Respondent, apparently in retribution for Ms. Bonani's terminating her employment with Respondent to take another job. At the hearing in this cause, the Respondent denied that she reported Ms. Bonani to the Department. While this dispute has little bearing on the main issues in this proceeding, the more persuasive evidence was that Respondent reported Ms. Bonani to Petitioner after Ms. Bonani left her employment. The evidence established that the Respondent employed Veronica Bonani as a cosmetologist without a Florida license from January 3, 1990 to March, 1990. Veronica Bonani began seeking licensure by endorsement in Florida sometime in the Fall of 1989. Because of some problems in obtaining the necessary documentation, she experienced delays in obtaining a license. Her formal application for licensure in Florida is dated February 6, 1990 and was filed with Petitioner on February 15, 1990. Veronica Bonani did not receive authorization to practice as a cosmetologist in Florida until April 13, 1990. However, as indicated above, Ms. Bonani began working for Respondent in early January, 1990. Prior to beginning work for Respondent, Ms. Bonani advised Respondent that she was in the process of obtaining a Florida license, but was not yet licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Respondent encouraged her to begin work anyway. When an inspector employed by Petitioner entered the Respondent's salon on February 22, 1990, the Respondent instructed Ms. Bonani to hide. However, Ms. Bonani openly revealed her status to the inspector. The inspector indicated during his February 22, 1990 visit that there was no problem with Ms. Bonani's employment since her application was pending and approval seemed imminent. This conclusion was erroneous. Respondent contends that she believed Ms. Bonani was entitled to begin work in Florida since she was in the process of obtaining licensure. However, there was no justifiable basis for Respondent to believe it was legal to employ Ms. Bonani in January, 1990. Indeed, the evidence and circumstances in this case indicate that Respondent was well aware that Ms. Bonani should not have been practicing prior to issuance of her Florida license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 477.0265(1)(b)(2), 477.0265(1)(d), 477.029(1)(c) and 477.029(1)(h), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine of three hundred dollars ($300) and allowing the Respondent to pay this amount in three (3) payments. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1992, 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 18th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Only Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact. The following constitutes my rulings on those proposals. 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. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 1. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 2. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4, 5, 6 and 7. Copies furnished: Renee Alsobrook, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Steven Lulich P.O. Box 1390 Sebastian, Florida 32978 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Cosmetology Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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. /
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 Respondent's alleged violation of section 477.02(1), (3), (6), Florida Statutes. A copy of the Administrative Complaint and Notice of Hearing was received by Respondent, but he did not appear at the hearing. (Exhibit 1) At the commencement of the hearing, Petitioner's representative stated that Respondent's place of business, Jane's Beauty Salon, Fort Myers, Florida, is out of business and that Certificate of Registration to operate a beauty salon in that name No. 19330 issued by Petitioner in December, 1973, is no longer valid. Accordingly, counsel for Petitioner interposed no objection to dismissal of the matter.
Recommendation The the allegations against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Leon Rizzuto 2351 East Mall, Apartment 103 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
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.
Findings Of Fact A copy of the Administrative Complaint with an attachment of Ms. Rolling's Salon License No. 10810 and receipt of certified mail was entered into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1 without objection. Ms. Rolling's Election of Remedies form was entered into evidence and marked Exhibit 2 without objection. The Respondent holds License No. 10810. Respondent admitted that she did allow two (2) cosmetologists to work in her salon while she was absent. Respondent is a master cosmetologist who ordinarily works in the salon which she supervises and manages. The Respondent, Frances Rolling, has been in ill health and did leave the salon to visit a doctor's office and during the time she allowed cosmetologists to work without the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.
The Issue Whether Respondent allowed cosmetologists to work in Otto's Beauty Salon without a master cosmetologist being present. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn, or suspended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent appeared in person and admitted the violation as charged by the Complainant. Respondent is the occasional manager of Otto's Beauty Salon. Respondent is the master cosmetologist and the only master cosmetologist working in Otto's Beauty Salon. Respondent was absent from the shop as charged by the Board during working hours and during the time cosmetologists were working in said salon.
