The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's license as a cosmetology specialist should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for the alleged violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida, Board of Cosmetology, as a nail specialist having been issued license no. FV 513107. Respondent obtained her license by examination. Respondent resides at 286 31st Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida. Respondent has obtained an occupational license from Indian River County to operate as a manicurist, pedicurist or nail extension specialist out of her home. Respondent used her state license to obtain her occupational license from Indian River County. Respondent has not obtained a salon license from the Board of Cosmetology. There is no dispute that Respondent operates her business out of her home. However, there is a dispute as to exactly what services are performed there. Respondent testified that she does not and has never performed pedicures at her home. Instead, the only services she offers are foot massages and/or reflexology. Petitioner's investigation of Respondent was initiated when an allegation was made that Respondent was practicing massage in her home without a license. Petitioner's investigator interviewed Respondent and contends that she admitted she was performing pedicures in her home. However, Respondent contends that she only advised the investigator that she "worked on people's feet" and that she has never performed a pedicure. The evidence established that Respondent does not perform pedicures or other traditional cosmetology services out of her house. Respondent does perform foot massages and/or reflexology out of her house. Respondent had previously practiced reflexology in another state. Upon moving to Florida, she tried to determine the legal steps necessary to continue her practice in this state. Since pedicure is defined in Chapter 477 to include massaging the feet, she sought a license for this specialty service. She has never sought to operate a traditional salon out of her house. Respondent did not think that she needed a salon license to work on people's feet. In a Notice of Cease and Desist dated April 25, 1990, the Department of Professional Regulation has notified Respondent that engaging in the services of reflexology while not duly licensed by the Board of Massage constitutes the unlicensed practice of massage in violation of Section 480, Florida Statutes. The purported violation of Chapter 480 is not part of this proceeding.
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 a violation of Section 477.0265(1)(b)(1), and therefore, Section 477.029(h), issuing a reprimand and imposing a fine of $50.00. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of December 1990, in 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 20th day of December 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1 Adopted in pertinent part in Findings of Fact 6, 7 and 8 Adopted in pertinent part in Findings of Fact 3 Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4 Rejected as irrelevant Copies Furnished To: Laura P. Gaffney, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ms. Kathleen Demarzo 286 31st Avenue, S.W. Vero Beach, Florida Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0729 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Florida Department of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Rules 21F-3.02, 3.03 and 3.07, Florida Administrative Code. During the course of the hearing, counsel for Petitioner withdrew the alleged violations of Rule 3.03 and 3.07, F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Corporation operates a cosmetology salon at 1626 South Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida under Certificate of Registration Number 11579 issued by Petitioner on May 14, 1971. Petitioner's Inspector visited Respondent's salon on February 27, 1976 for a routine inspection. She discovered hair and soiled towels in cabinets at the various stations and observed that the carpeting was littered with hair. In addition, soft drink bottles and coffee cups were found in the area. Respondent's salon has been issued warnings in the past due to unclean conditions. The shop is now in a clean state. (Testimony of Padgett) Respondent's manager testified that some of the employees are natives of Puerto Rico and Cuba and are unaccustomed to the sanitary requirements of the United States thus making it difficult to control conditions. He conceded that the shop was not in proper condition on the date in question merely because that day was a Friday and the shop was quite busy. (Testimony of Wellmann)
Recommendation That Respondent be issued a formal written reprimand for violation of Rule 21f-3.02, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida R. Basil Rutter, President Steppe's of Florida, Inc. Box 788 Athens, Ohio
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Lawrence R. Crawford was licensed as a cosmetologist by DPR, having been issued License No. CL 0081100. By Final Order dated December 31, 1985, Respondent was found guilty of practicing cosmetology without being properly licensed and fined $450 with suspension of license until the fine was paid. (Exhibit 1) Respondent paid $225 of this fine in February 1986, but has made no subsequent payment nor has he renewed the cosmetology license which expired June 30, 1984. An inspection of Respondent's salon at 1383 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida, was conducted March 11, 1987, and Respondent was observed working on a client of the salon. At this time he had no active license. By Final Order dated August 12, 1983, the Board of Cosmetology found Respondent guilty of operating as a cosmetologist without an active salon license, assessed a fine of $50, and suspended his license until the fine was paid. (Exhibit 1). The record (Exhibit 1) fails to disclose whether this fine was paid; however, no current license was issued to Respondent. On October 2, 1987, Petitioner's inspector passed the address of Respondent's salon on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and noticed all equipment had been removed as well as the sign containing the name of the salon.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent's license should be disciplined because of allegations that he permitted an unlicensed employee to practice cosmetology in his shop.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent is licensed to operate a cosmetology salon in Florida having been issued license number CE0038205. At times material hereto, Respondent has been the owner and/or operator of a cosmetology salon named Palm Beauty Salon which is located at 5084 N. W. 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida. On October 16, 1987, George Michael Hedley, an investigator for Petitioner, conducted a routine inspection of Respondent's Beauty Salon. While there, investigator Hedley got his hair cut and mustache trimmed and paid $10 for the service to a Mr. Joseph Oscal who was employed there. Upon completion of the services by Mr. Oscal, investigator Hedley introduced himself, determined that Joseph Oscal had been employed by Bernard Fanfan and had been so employed since approximately July, 1987. Joseph Oscal is not a licensed cosmetologist in Florida. He is been employed by Bernard Fanfan to work at the Palm Beauty Salon since July, 1987. (Testimony of Joseph Oscal).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent's license to practice cosmetology be suspended for a period of one (1) year. 2/ RECOMMENDED this 8th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1988.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, Women's Exchange, Inc., possessed a valid Florida license to operate a cosmetology salon at 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue, Miami, Florida, under License No. CE 0032221, which license was issued on September 16, 1982, and expires on October 31, 1984. On January 20, 1983, Steven M. Granowitz, an investigator for Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, entered Respondent's salon for a routine inspection. When he entered the salon, which was located in what appeared to be a home, he noticed it was quite busy. Customers were being waited on at all operator positions, and others were waiting their turn. Upon entering the salon, Mr. Granowitz tried to find the manager to identify himself and present his credentials, but no manager was present, so he talked to the receptionist, showing her his credentials and advising her he was going to do an inspection. At first, he looked at the salon license and went to examine the four operators and their licenses. These licenses are required to be displayed prominently in the shop. None of the four operator stations were displaying licenses. Two operators indicated they had licenses, but did not have them present. Mr. Granowitz made a phone call to his board and verified that these two individuals, Yvonne Eberhart and Clara Ann Edden, were in fact licensed. The two other individuals who he observed to be at operator stations with customers in the chairs, to whom they were applying curly perms, Jacqueline Dulippe and Jeanette Toussaint, were not licensed either by the Board of Cosmetology or Barbers' Board. He, admittedly, did not watch these two unlicensed operators during the entire period he was there. Consequently, it may well be that other licensed operators also worked on the same customers. There is no doubt in his mind, however, that what he observed these two do were cosmetology operations. Licenses are required to perform the work being performed by these two individuals, though not all functions in a cosmetology salon require a license. When Mr. Granowitz discussed this situation shortly thereafter that day with Antonia Gary, one of the officers of Respondent corporation, in the salon, she indicated she was not the manager of the salon, that none of the corporate officers were involved in the day-to-day operation of the salon, and that she did not know these two individuals were not licensed. However, there was no claim that either had misrepresented their license status. Joyce Ann Hanks-Knox, President of Women's Exchange, Inc., the corporation which owns the corporation which now owns Fingertips, the salon in question, admits that the license is in the name of Women's Exchange, Inc. There is no question, however, that Women's Exchange, Inc., holds the license in question for Fingertips and that the current Fingertips salon is that which is described in the license. She is not a licensed cosmetologist, and while she spends as much as 20 hours per week in the business of Women's Exchange, Inc., these duties do not include active management of the salon. She further relates, however, that it has never been the policy of either the parent corporation or the management of Fingertips to permit unlicensed operators to work, unsupervised, on customers. She admits that both women in question worked at Fingertips and, in fact, one was hired by her. Their duties were to be trained as operators and to perform other small tasks within the salon, such as moving patrons from one area to another, cleaning the salon, and insuring that supplies were at the work stations as needed. They were also allowed to wash hair, but, in this apprentice program, nonlicensed personnel were not to give permanents or do anything else that could be considered cosmetology. All of the licensed operators knew what the apprentice program consisted of, its limitations, and that these two individuals were not licensed. As such, they should have stopped them from performing unauthorized tasks. Neither individual was hired as a cosmetologist, nor was she paid as a cosmetologist. Since neither Ms. Knox nor Ms. Gary actively supervise the operation of the salon, since Mr. Granowitz could find no one there during his visit who admitted to being in charge, and since there was no evidence presented that there was any manager assigned to the salon, it is obvious that the salon was left, for the most part, to run itself without effective management supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent corporation be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $250 for each count proven -- a total of $500. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 15th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Mr. Fred Roche Department of Professional Secretary Regulation Department of Professional 130 North Monroe Street Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32301 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joyce Hanks-Knox, Esquire President Women's Exchange, Inc. 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue Miami, Florida 33142 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, a post-hearing memorandum and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. During times material, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida to practice cosmetology and has been issued license number CL 0075643. During approximately March or May of 1977, Esther's Beauty Salon, located at 3326 NW 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida, was open for business and operated as such with the public as a cosmetology salon under Respondent's ownership. On February 23, 1977, Florida cosmetology salon license number CE 0024609 was issued to the Respondent for Esther's Beauty Salon. While that license, as issued, was a permanent license, it subsequently became subject to a biennial renewal. As such, the first renewal deadline thereunder was June 30, 1980. [Section 477.025(8), Florida Statutes (supp. 1978)] Respondent did not renew her cosmetologist salon license number CE 0024609. Although the Respondent first contends that she did not receive a renewal notice for her license, she later admitted that she was the subject of numerous personal problems stemming from a divorce and pregnancy with her first child and that she may have overlooked the renewal notice. It is here found that the Respondent's failure to renew her cosmetology salon license was the result of an oversight on her part. On February 2, 1983, Petitioner, through its inspector, Steven Granowitz, inspected Esther's Beauty Salon. At that time, Respondent was operating Esther's Beauty Salon. She was advised that her cosmetologist salon license number CE 0024609 was not valid. Respondent subsequently applied for a new Florida cosmetology salon license and on May 12, 1983, salon license number CE 0034670 was issued to Respondent for Esther's Beauty Salon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings and fact and conclusions of law, the fact that the Respondent upon notification by inspector Granowitz that her license was, in fact, delinquent, immediately applied for and obtained a currently active cosmetology salon license, and other mitigating factors, I hereby recommend that Respondent shall pay an administrative fine of $250. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 9th day of December, 1983.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be fined for alleged violations of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, occurring prior to her licensure.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Catherine Shepherd, is the owner of a cosmetics studio named Merle Norman Cosmetics. The studio is located at 13275 South 14th Street, Leesburg, Florida 32748. Her primary business is the sale of cosmetics to the public. A very small portion of her business is nail sculpting. Except for the nail sculpting, Respondent is not otherwise subject to the strictures of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. Respondent, dba Merle Norman, is a licensed cosmetology salon in the State of Florida having been issued license number CE 0048712. Respondent obtained her license January 24, 1989, after Petitioner's investigator informed her that the law required her to have a cosmetology salon license in order to do nails at her establishment. Prior to January 24, 1989, Respondent was not licensed as a cosmetology salon. When the cosmetology statutes were last adopted, Respondent was informed by the Board's investigator that she would have to employ a licensed cosmetologist in order to do nails at her studio. Respondent thence forward employed a licensed nail sculptor to perform this service. However, the Board's investigator did not inform Respondent that she was also required to have a cosmetology salon license to employ a licensed nail sculptor. She was, therefore, unaware that the law required such a license. Respondent operated as a cosmetology salon without a license for approximately two years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order fining the Respondent one hundred dollars ($100.00). DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 July, 1989. APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-2445 The proposed facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact are adopted, in substance, in so far as material. The proposed facts contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia Gelmine, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation North wood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0760 (904) 488-0062 Catherine Shepherd dba Merle Norman 1327 South 14th Street Leesburg, Florida 32748 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729 Kenneth Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729
The Issue The issue in this case is whether any disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's cosmetology salon license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner and operator of a cosmetology salon known as "Reflections of You" located in Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent had purchased the salon from the previous owners. Randall Smith was an inspector for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, whose duties included the inspections of cosmetology salons. On December 24, 1994, Inspector Randall Smith conducted a routine inspection of Reflections of You. The salon was open to the public, and employees were present. Respondent was present during the inspection. During the inspection Respondent admitted to having problems with the previous owners on the purchase of the salon and thought that her lawyer had taken care of all the necessary requirements to own the business. Respondent believed that the transfer included the proper transfer of the salon license. However, Respondent had not been issued a new salon license listing her as the new owner after her purchase. After concluding his discussion with a representative from the Cosmetology Board office, Inspector Randall Smith wrote a Uniform Citation and served it on the Respondent by hand delivery. The Uniform Citation served on the Respondent indicated a fine in the amount of five hundred (500.00) dollars for failure to have a proper salon license. Respondent neither paid the citation nor challenged the fine contained in the citation. The citation therefore became a Final Order of the Board of Cosmetology on February 1, 1995 by operation of law. In mitigation of her failure to transfer her license, Respondent applied and paid fifty-five (55) dollars for a new salon license on December 24, 1994, the day after the inspection by Randall Smith, and was issued a new salon license. Presumably, Respondent's cosmetologist license was current.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(i), Florida Statutes and guilty of violating Section 477.025(7), Florida Statutes and imposing a fifty (50.00) dollar fine for the two violations. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1996.
