The Issue Whether the Respondent did practice cosmetology in her home without a valid salon license in violation of Section 477.02(1)(3), F.S. and Rule 21F-3.10, F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Brenda J. Lopsenzski is the holder of cosmetology license No. 0081729. Mrs. Margaret L. Boswell, Inspector for the Board of Cosmetology, entered the home of Respondent at which time Respondent was shampooing a lady's hair in her home. The home was not properly equipped as a beauty salon at the time of the inspection b Mrs. Boswell and there were no patrons in the home other than the lady upon whose hair the Respondent was working. The testimony of the Respondent which I believe to be the facts and which were not denied by the Inspector for the Board were as follows: Respondent held a junior license and in order to keep her skill and in order to do favors for a few friends, would style hair for these friends. She charged them no fee and "practiced" both for her benefit and the benefit of a few friends. The actions of Respondent as shown by the testimony and evidence are not a violation of Chapter 477, F.S. or Rule 21F-3.10, F.A.C.
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of August, 1976. 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 Brenda J. Lopsenzski 406 North Boyd Street Winter Garden, Florida
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 Respondent, Enchanted Mirror, Inc., is licensed as a cosmetology salon under License No. CE0034033. Respondent owns and operates several beauty salons in central Florida and has for 30 years. Licenses for all salons except the one in question here were properly renewed and maintained. License No. CE0022297 for a cosmetology salon was issued for Augie's Enchanted Mirror salon, located at 278 East Michigan Avenue, Orlando, Florida, on September 26, 1975. In 1977, Respondent moved Augie's Enchanted Mirror to a new location at 314 East Michigan Avenue, Orlando, Florida. When this move was made, Respondent did not obtain a new license for the salon at its new location, though it continued to operate the salon. At all times from the time of original licensure in 1975, Respondent operated Augie's Enchanted Mirror as a cosmetology salon open to the public, with whom it did business as such. Sometime between 1977 and 1979, License No. CE0022297 was removed from the records of the Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Cosmetology. In 1980, neither the Board of Cosmetology nor the Department of Professional Regulation mailed to Respondent a renewal notice for a cosmetology salon license for Augie's Enchanted Mirror. However, routine inspections of the facility were made by inspectors of the Board of Cosmetology on September 13, 1978, and August 9, 1979. The report of the former inspection bears the 314 East Michigan Avenue address and that of the latter, the 298 East Michigan Avenue address. Therefore, though the records did not reflect the license and no renewal application forms were sent out, the Board was aware of the salon and inspected it, raising no question as to the license status until 1982 or 1983. The inspection of October 25, 1982, revealed a current license was not posted, but the inspection report of February 14, 1983, the "new establishment" inspection reveals the CE0034033 license number. Therefore, as late as October 25, 1982, the salon was operating without a current license as a result of the transfer from one location to another and the failure of the Board to send out renewal forms after 1980.
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
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 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 Respondent's alleged violations of Sections 477.15(8), 477.231(c) & (2), Florida Statutes, Rules 21F-3.01 & 21F-3.10, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent was furnished notice of hearing and acknowledged receipt of said notice and the administrative complaint. (Exhibit 2)
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a certificate as a master cosmetologist 0048790 issued by Petitioner on an unspecified date. He also holds a certificate of registration to operate a cosmetology salon license #22903 issued by Petitioner on February 2, 1976. The salon is called Mister Andrew Coiffure, and is located at 1259 East Los Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On January 28, 1976, Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's place of business, but Respondent was absent. The inspector had visited the shop on previous occasions at which time the Respondent had told him he was in the process of buying the salon, and the inspector had left an application for a state certificate of registration for a cosmetology salon. The inspector noticed there was no sign near the front door indicating that the premises were occupied by beauty or cosmetology salon. There was a card in the window which read "Mister Andrew Coiffure" (Testimony of Rubin). Respondent submitted a letter on his behalf dated June 9, 1976, which stated that he had not owned the salon at the time Petitioner's inspector had provided him with application forms for a state license. He claimed that he had had a card attached to the sign in his window which read "Beauty Salon" on January 28, 1976, but that since the inspector had not been satisfied with the card he has since changed the sign and put up 1 inch decal letters on the door spelling "Beauty Salon" (Exhibit 1). Respondent's application for a salon certificate was executed on January 29, 1976 and received by Petitioner on February 2, 1976.
Recommendation That the allegations against the Respondent be dismissed. 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 (904) 488-8675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P. O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Charles R. Gannon c/o Mister Andrew Coiffure 1259 East Las Olas Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent William L. Hamilton should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for violation of Section 477.27(5) and 477.17, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, to-wit: 21F-3.01 in that said Respondent was charged with operating a cosmetologist salon without a salon license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent William L. Hamilton received notice of this hearing and in his election of remedies stated that the violation notice did not constitute a violation of law and sent a letter of explanation as to the violation notice and stated that he would not attend this hearing. Inspector Madge Evans of the State Board of Cosmetology entered the salon operated by William L. Hamilton as Bill's Hair Shack in Palatka, Florida in which he was doing business without a salon license. Mrs. Evans notified the Respondent that he must apply for an obtain a salon license before operating a beauty salon and left an application form with Respondent. On several occasions the inspector for the Board entered a place of business in which William L. Hamilton was operating a beauty salon without a salon license. The salon license is not transferable from location to location and each location that is to be used as a beauty salon must be certified by the Board and a salon license issued. Respondent Hamilton is not now operating a beauty salon under a valid beauty salon license and salon license No. 22621, which Respondent holds is now invalid inasmuch as the location has burned. He holds personal license No. 62269 which entitles him to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Suspend the personal license No. 62269 of Respondent William L. Hamilton for a period of three months for violation of Section 477.15, Florida Statutes and 477.17(s). DONE and ORDERED this 23rd 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 William L. Hamilton Route 1, Box 30 East Palatka, Florida 32301 Mrs. Mary Alice Palmer Post Office Box 9087 Board of Cosmetology Winter Haven, Florida 33880 =================================================================
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.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a cosmetology salon, permitted an unlicensed person to perform cosmetology services as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, dated April 24, 2007, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are found: At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed and regulated by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, as a cosmetology salon owned by Immacula Evans. Respondent is a licensed cosmetology salon, license number CE9966208, whose address of record with Petitioner is 11329 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33612. At all times material hereto, John R. Miranda was employed by the Petitioner as an Inspector. On or about March 8, 2006, Miranda conducted an inspection of Respondent's establishment located at 11329 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Miranda observed that an unidentified male was practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was personally issued to Respondent's owner. On or about March 17, 2006, Miranda conducted a re- inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of this inspection, Miranda observed that Pierre Elionze was practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was issued to Respondent. On or about March 24, 2006, Miranda conducted another inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of this inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet, Christine Marc, and Moveta S. Swalters were each practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was issued to Respondent. On or about June 7, 2006, Miranda conducted a further inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet was again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. On or about July 29, 2006, Miranda conducted another inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet yet again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. On or about August 11, 2006, Miranda conducted an inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet was again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. Respondent has engaged in the unlawful and repeated violations of Subsection 477.0265(1), Florida Statutes, between March 8 and August 11, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order revoking Respondent's cosmetology establishment license number CE 9966208, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 11th day of September, 2007.
