Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the Petitioner's witness and his demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: During times material herein, Respondent was a licensed barber and the holder of license number BB 0006222. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2) During November of 1982, Petitioner's inspector, Steven Granowitz, made a routine inspection of barbershops with delinquent licenses. During the course of these routine inspections, Inspector Granowitz inspected the Broadway Barbershop which was being operated by the Respondent, Mary E. Smith. During the course of his inspection, Inspector Granowitz identified himself and asked to inspect the Respondent's current-active barber's license. Initially, Respondent related to Inspector Granowitz that her license had either been stolen or misplaced and that she could not keep track of the license. During the course of Inspector Granowitz's inspection, there were approximately four customers present and Inspector Granowitz's observation led him to believe that the Respondent had been continuously operating the barbershop without a license. It is so found. An examination of the documentary evidence introduced reveals that during 1979 Florida barbershop license number BS 0005766 was issued to the Respondent to operate the Broadway Barbershop located at 1133 NW 3rd Avenue, Miami, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) The Respondent did not timely renew Florida barbershop license number BS 0005766. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Following the inspection during November 30, 1982, by Inspector Granowitz, Respondent applied for a new barbershop license for the Broadway Barbershop and on December 13, 1982, Florida barbershop license number BA 0005766 was issued to the Respondent for the Broadway Barbershop. (Testimony of Granowitz and Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 6 and 7).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Barbers' Board impose an administrative fine of $500.00 on Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February 1984 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 February 1984.
The Issue The issues in these cases concern several administrative complaints brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation against Respondent. In DOAH Case No. 89-4454/DPR Case No. 0093417, Respondent is alleged to have employed a number of individuals to practice as barber instructors who have not been licensed by the State of Florida. In addition, allegations were placed that Respondent had not met sanitation standards required by law; that barbering students and instructor trainees were not under the constant supervision of a licensed instructor; that insufficient numbers of instructors were provided based upon the preceding months' average daily attendance; that a current inspection rating sheet, as well as a copy of the sanitation rules were not displayed; that a full-time instructor statement of employment was not available; that students/school contracts were not available and that a drinking fountain of bottled water needed to be refilled, as revealed in an inspection of January 7, 1988. In DOAH Case No. 89-4453/DPR Case No. 0097551 pertaining to an inspection of April 8, 1988, Respondent is said to have employed a Calvin Gates to practice as a barber instructor without Gates having been issued a license from the State of Florida. Finally, DOAH Case No. 89- 4452/DPR Case No. 0108179 alleges that by inspection of November 17, 1988, it was revealed that Joseph Kaufmann had been employed to teach barbering by Respondent and was operating on an expired barber instructor's license, which had expired approximately August 1, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed barber school in the State of Florida which operated at 5863 University Boulevard W. and 4416 Brentwood Avenue in Jacksonville, Florida, at times significant to these administrative complaints. On January 7, 1988, Gail Hand, an inspector for Petitioner, inspected the Brentwood Avenue facility. This inspection was a routine quarterly inspection. The Jacksonville, Florida, operations of the Roffler Hair Design College are 50% owned by Stewart Arnett Smith, Sr. and 50% owned by Stewart Arnett Smith, Jr., his son. On January 7, 1988, Hand was accompanied in her inspection by Cheryl Baker, whom she understood to be the manager based upon Baker's remarks. In fact, Baker was a secretary; and the actual manager of the facility was an individual named Mattz, who was out ill on this date. Mattz, at that time, was a licensed barber instructor. Neither of the owners were in attendance at the commencement of the inspection. Arnett Smith, Jr. had left to go to his other facility on University Boulevard. He was summoned back to the Brentwood Avenue barber school to participate in the inspection. He arrived approximately 20 to 40 minutes later. During the inspection, Velma Chambers was observed by Hand to be seated in a classroom while a student spoke to the class. At this time, Chambers was an instructor trainee. She had entered into a contract with Respondent on May 14, 1987 to be completed by November 14, 1987 pertaining to 600 hours of course instruction directed toward her becoming a barber instructor. Nonetheless, beyond the date of November 14, 1987, she was still at the school in a capacity, which was other than a licensed instructor in Florida, and under these facts is found to have been a barber instructor trainee on this date. In addition, a work schedule for instructors at the facility, be they licensed barber instructors or instructor trainees, showed Chambers to be filling the role of instructor at the school. Although this schedule had not been prepared by the owners, it was provided to Hand by the younger Smith upon his arrival at Brentwood Avenue on the inspection date. Baker had also pointed Chambers out as being one of the instructors in the facility. Calvin Gates, who was on the floor in the Brentwood Avenue facility, was pointed out by Baker as the instructor on the floor. The floor is where services are given to the public, as distinguished from the classroom, where theory is taught. Gates was not a licensed barber instructor in Florida on the date in question. He, too, had entered into a contract to receive course work toward his instructor's license. His contract with Respondent commenced on September 15, 1987 to be consummated on March 15, 1988. A Dave Dison was found in a room where mannequins are kept and the students are allowed to practice. Dison was pointed out by Baker as being certified for the new students, and Baker commented that Dison's license was at the University Boulevard facility. This is taken to mean that Dison was a licensed barber instructor, whose license was not available at the Brentwood Avenue facility. Having considered the remarks of Baker made to Hand and the testimony of the younger Smith at hearing, it is unclear whether his employment was that of licensed instructor or as instructor trainee waiting a license examination to become a barber instructor. In either case, he had not been licensed by the State of Florida as a barber instructor on the date of the inspection. His name does not appear in the schedule of instructors; but on the date of inspection, he was observed instructing new students using mannequins. According to the investigative report, which comments are credited, the younger Smith admitted to Hand that Dison did not have a Florida license and that Dison had commented to Smith that he, Dison, was having problems with his license in Mississippi. Subsequent to the time of inspection, Dison was dismissed as an employee of Respondent. Terry B. Collier and Patricia Frances Wilson were shown on the schedule to have instructor duties related to the floor duty for Collier and classroom duty for Wilson. Shirley Johnson was shown as having unspecified duties from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Thursday. None of these persons were in attendance on the date of inspection, nor did they have barber instructor licenses at that time. It can be fairly inferred that they were considered by Respondent to be instructor trainees. It cannot be fairly inferred that any knowledge which they might impart on some date other than the inspection date would be in a setting in which the ratio of students to licensed instructors was not in keeping with legal requirement or that they were allowed to pursue their duties as trainee instructors without appropriate supervision from licensed instructors. The process of teaching people to become instructors contemplates the opportunity for those persons to also instruct while undergoing their training. To be successful in an allegation of impropriety by Respondent, proof has to be offered that these persons were, on some date, allowed to instruct without appropriate supervision and in a situation in which the ratio of licensed instructors to students was inadequate. That was not shown as it pertains to the three trainee instructors not in attendance at the time of inspection. The fact that the younger Smith told Hand that he thought the instructor trainees could teach students and be counted as part of the required number of instructors does not change this impression. In addition to Mattz, who was out ill, an individual whose name is Parks was scheduled to work at the Brentwood Avenue facility on the inspection date. Parks was a licensed instructor at the time. He had left the building for some undisclosed reason before the time of the inspection. A Mr. Lewis was also a licensed instructor, who was scheduled to work at the Brentwood Avenue facility on that date; but he was not due in the facility until 1:00 p.m. and had not arrived at the time of the inspection. Although the younger Smith has an instructor's license, he was not performing the function of instructor on the inspection date and was not listed on the schedule of instructors. Effectively, this meant that although students were undergoing instruction, that instruction was being provided by persons who were not licensed instructors and under the supervision of licensed instructors. On the date of the inspection, Baker calculated the average daily attendance to be 105 students. She had some difficulty in arriving at this figure. The younger Smith spoke to Hand on January 11, 1988 by telephone in which he suggested that that figure of 105 should be corrected to 56, based upon some mistake made by the secretary. On January 15, 1988, a letter bearing the signature of Cheryl Baker was written concerning the average daily attendance in which it was reported that she had stated the attendance as 90 and that the correct daily attendance should be 59. Whatever the true figure, students were in attendance and they were not receiving instruction from licensed barber instructors. The inspection also revealed that the current inspection rating sheet and sanitation rules had not been posted or displayed. The explanation by Smith was that the facility had been recently painted and that they had not been put back in their usual place. Hand asked for a copy of the missing inspection rating sheet and sanitation rules but does not recall whether she was shown a copy of these items. The reason why the items pertaining to the current inspection rating sheet and sanitation rules were not produced, based upon Hand's recollection, was that they could not be found. On April 8, 1988, Hand returned to the Brentwood Avenue facility for further inspection and observed Gates teaching. On that occasion, he was introduced by Mattz as the other instructor on duty, with Mattz being one of the two instructors. Seventeen students were present at that time. Two instructors would have been needed to offer instruction to that many students. The average daily attendance on that date was 72 students. On that date, Gates was not licensed by the State of Florida as a barber instructor. On a later date, Hand spoke to the younger Smith about the inspection. On this occasion, Smith changed his point of view from the situation in which he had commented at the first inspection of January 17, 1988. In that earlier inspection, he had stated that he thought that trainees could teach students and be counted as the required number of instructors. In the discussion regarding the April 8, 1988 inspection, he indicated that he did not count instructor trainees as instructors and that Hand must have misunderstood his comments during the previous inspection. On the occasion of the inspection of April 8, 1988, Hand was provided confirmation of Gates' employment, which stated that he was employed as an instructor at the school. The younger Smith tried to explain the circumstance with Gates on the basis that Gates had already taken his barber instructor test and that he had been notified that he had failed and that he had to retake the test and had appealed it with success. All of this information is hearsay and not subject to use for fact finding. Regardless of the true situation of Gates' attempt to gain his barber instructor license, he did not have a license on April 8, 1988 and should not have been allowed to instruct and be counted in the census of licensed instructors. On November 17, 1988, Hand conducted a routine inspection of the University Boulevard West facility. She found Joseph Kaufmann practicing with an expired instructor's license which was displayed. Kaufmann told Hand that he had renewed his license in August of 1988 but that it was returned with a request for an additional $50.00 late fee. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence is a form dated August 2, 1988 pertaining to this license and states that the renewal and fee had been postmarked after the expiration date of July 31, 1988. As a consequence, the basic fee of $50.00 was being returned with the expectation that the request for relicensure should be resubmitted with a total amount of $100.00 being paid, $50.00 for the basic license and $50.00 for a penalty and for reinstatement. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3A admitted into evidence is another form dated December 1, 1988 from Petitioner which states that the renewal and check in the amount of $100.00 was being returned because the request was being processed and the enclosed check was, not required. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence is a copy of postmarks of August 1, 1988 purportedly from Kaufmann, and November 29, 1988, again, purportedly from Kaufmann. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence is a letter from Mr. Tunnicliff, as chief attorney for the Department of Professional Regulation, addressed to Kaufmann, in which it is indicated that any action against Kaufmann was being dismissed associated with the complaint that Kaufmann was practicing with an expired instructor's license. It indicates that although probable cause was believed to exist, that Kaufmann had violated practice standards, in light of the circumstances, it was determined to dismiss the action. This is said to have been based upon the perception that while Kaufmann was practicing with an expired license because of miscommunication between Kaufmann and the Barbers Board, there had been a delay in the renewal of the license. Respondent was notified by telephone on November 22, 1988 concerning the Kaufmann situation. The younger Smith told Hand in that telephone conversation that Kaufmann had renewed his license and had shown Respondent's representative, the younger Smith, a copy of a money order received. Kaufmann had told Hand that on August 1, 1988, he had resubmitted his basic fee with an additional $50.00. Kaufmann showed Hand a copy of a money order receipt with no date. He did not have any correspondence available that he had received from Petitioner concerning his renewal. Hand checked with the office of the Barbers Board on November 21, 1988 and was told that the license had not been renewed and no money had been received. Kaufmann told Hand on the inspection date that because of some problems with mail, they received his money and sent it back because it was late and said that he owed another $50.00 which coincides with the remarks of Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. By contrast, in the conversation of November 21, 1988 between Hand and the Barbers Board, Hand was being told that the Barbers Board had received no money. The younger Smith, with the indication of a money order being sent by Kaufmann to renew his barber instructor license and a remark that he had sent his money in and that he had not received the license renewal back, assumed that things were acceptable. The younger Smith also took solace in the fact that there are problems at times with license renewals, which have to be rectified. Nonetheless, it is evident that Kaufmann was operating as a licensed instructor on November 17, 1988 without having received his license renewal and under the auspice of a license that was being displayed and clearly showed that it was no longer in effect.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts and the Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which fines Respondent in the amount of $1,250.00 and entering a letter of reprimand in the disciplinary file associated with DOAH Case No. 89-4452/DPR Case No. 0108179. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 31st day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 89-4452, 89-4453, 89-4454 The following disposition is made of the proposed facts of the parties: Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1 through 3 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 4 is subordinate to facts found, except for its reference to the inspection date as being April 13, 1988. The inspection date was April 8, 1988. Paragraph 5 is subordinate to facts found as far as it is stated in the unnumbered page 4. It appears that some of the Proposed Recommended Order is missing to include the balance of the fact finding at an unnumbered page 5. Respondent's Facts The facts pertaining to DOAH Case No. 89-4452 are subordinate to facts found. The facts pertaining to DOAH Case No. 89-4453 are rejected. The documented information related to the Calvin Gates contract, which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence, shows the conclusion of his training on March 15, 1988, before the inspection of April 8, 1988. The relevant fact is that Gates was not a licensed instructor on April 8, 1988. The comments pertaining to DOAH Case No. 89-4454, which refer to a letter of September 1, 1988 from Robert C. Kent, Esquire, have been taken into account in the fact finding in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Stewart Arnett Smith, Jr. 5110 University Boulevard West Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Samuel L. Ferguson, Executive Director Department of Education State Board of Independent Postsecondary Vocational, Technical Trade and Business Schools 209 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Barbers Board 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert C. Kent, Esquire 1532 Atlantic Boulevard Post Office Box 10174 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Paula Joan Thigpen, known also as Paula Thigpen, is licensed by the State of Florida, Barbers' Board, to practice as a barber in the State of Florida. Her license number is BB 0025059. Respondent had been married to one William Mann on two occasions, ending in divorce. In addition, Respondent had worked as a barber in a barbershop owned by her former husband. That shop is located at 465 Kingsley Boulevard, Orange Park, Florida. This arrangement allowed her to act as a manager in fact related to the financial aspects of that barbershop, during Mann's absence. In the summer of 1983, a discussion was entered into between the Respondent and her former husband on the topic of opening a barbershop in Middleburg, Florida. It was contemplated that Mann would own the shop and that the shop would be managed by the Respondent. Should the Respondent leave the community due to the duties of her present husband who was serving in the United States Navy, Respondent and Mann understood that the Respondent would be reimbursed for the money she invested in the shop in Middleburg. It was discussed that the Respondent would be guaranteed a salary at the beginning of the shop operation in Middleburg. Finally, it was discussed that should Mann wish to dispose of his ownership of the Middleburg barbershop, Respondent would pay him for his interest in the shop and become the owner. Both Mann and the Respondent spent money in trying to establish the barbershop in Middleburg, to include equipment, supplies, advertising and other related costs. Respondent also devoted labor to establishing the shop in Middleburg. To this end, space was leased in a building in early September, 1983, with Respondent representing herself to the lessor as a partner with Mann. On September 16, 1993, Mann traveled to Tallahassee and obtained a barbershop license for the Middleburg operation, No. BS 0007886. He listed himself as the owner of the shop and paid a $25 licensing fee. The barbershop license came into the hands of the Respondent following its issuance. This occurred sometime between September 16, 1983, and September 21, 1983. The barbershop in Middleburg opened on September 19, 1983, a week earlier than had been anticipated by Mann. On that same date he contacted the Respondent and indicated that he did not wish to pursue the business venture of opening the barbershop. He stated on that occasion that he felt that it would cost too much money and the he was not in a position to guarantee the salary for the Respondent and another person who would be working in the shop. Mann offered to have the Respondent return to his business in Orange Park, Florida. Respondent declined this opportunity. Discussion was then entered into on the possibility of the Respondent buying out Mann's ownership interest. Mann did not accept that disposition. He simply stated that he wanted the shop closed. There was a further conversation on September 20, 1983, in which Mann indicated his willingness to sell the shop based upon the amount of money he had invested in the equipment and supplies and a fee which he thought he was entitled to based upon the aggravation caused by the venture. On September 21, 1983, Mann appeared at the barbershop in Middleburg and told the Respondent that he no longer wished to sell his ownership of the shop. He told her that he wished to have the shop closed and wanted the license which had been issued for the barbershop. Respondent told him that she did not know where the license was. In fact, she had it at her home. Following this exchange Mann sought the assistance of law enforcement and after discussion between a law enforcement officer and the Respondent and her former husband, Mann left the licensed premises in Middleburg, Florida. He departed in view of the fact that the lease was signed by the Respondent, accepting the officer's suggestion that he leave given the indicia of control which the lease seemed to place in the hands of the Respondent, in the eyes of the officer. Before the September 21, 1983, exchange, Respondent had prepared a document which would settle the transfer of ownership from Mann to her. That document was never executed. Nonetheless, Respondent was of the opinion that she was entitled to the ownership interest in the barbershop and she traveled to Tallahassee, Florida, on that date and sought and obtained a barbershop license for the Middleburg, Florida shop for which an initial license had been issued to Mann. The license issued to Respondent for that barbershop was BS 00078887. In the application for that license she indicated that she was the sole owner of the shop and the equipment in the shop. This request for transfer was not authorized by Mann, the shop license holder. Following the issuance of the barbershop license for the same barbershop in Middleburg, Florida, as had been licensed for the benefit of Mann, her former husband offered to sell her his interest in the shop. This offer was made in January, 1984. The offer was only open for a couple of days and the parties were unable to come to an agreement on the purchase. That sale has yet to occur. Under the circumstances of this case, as shown in the course of the hearing, Mann has remained the owner of the barbershop licensed for the Middleburg, Florida operation. This is a fact understood by the Respondent. Although there have been occasions in which Mann seemed willing to sell his ownership and associated license, that purchase was never consummated.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which revokes the barbershop registration No. BS 00078887 issued in the name of Paula Thigpen, imposes a civil penalty in the amount of $500 pursuant to Section 476.204, Florida Statutes, and declines the imposition of further penalties as might be allowed by Section 476.214(1), Florida Statutes, and Section 455.227(1), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 10th day of October 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 L. J. Arnold, III, Esquire Post Office Drawer "D" Green Cove Springs, Florida 32043 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Barber's Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner holds a license to practice barbering which expired on July 31, 1978. At the time of the expiration of Petitioner's license Section 476.154, Florida Statutes was in effect which permitted licensees who retired from the practice of barbering to have their licenses restored upon the payment of a required restoration fee. Pursuant to Rule 21C-7.01, Florida Administrative Code, "retirement was defined to require written notification to the Barber Board and acknowledgement by the Board of said retirement. Rule 21C-7.01, Florida Administrative Code was promulated in conjunction with Rule 21C-7.02, Florida Administrative Code. rule 21c-7.02, Florida Administrative Code, encountered difficulties when questions were raised by the staff of the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee concerning the statutory authority of the Board to enact the rule. Both rules were filed with the Secretary of State on October 23, 1978, but never published in response to a request by the Board. Subsequent to the filing of the rules, the Board attempted to resolve the conflict between the Committee and the board over the rule. As a result of the Board's inability to resolve the conflict, the rules were repealed in June, 1980 without having been published in the Florida Administrative Code. At the time of the expiration of his license, Petitioner was of the belief that if he retired he could have his license reinstated upon payment of a restoration fee. The Petitioner did not notify the Board of his retirement nor did he receive notification from the Board that subsequent changes in Chapter 476, Florida Statutes would be interpreted by the Board to require reexamination of barbers holding expired licenses. The Petitioner has been a practicing barber for approximately 20 years and desires to again actively pursue his profession.
Findings Of Fact Except to the extent they are consistent with these Findings of Fact, the Department's proposed findings of fact are rejected as either not supported by competent, substantial evidence, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Linares, a resident of Miami, Florida, has been a licensed barber, having been issued License Number BB 0018163 at least between the dates of July 8, 1983, and March 2, 1984. (The license expires July 31, 1984.) During this time, Linares owned and operated Mr. Larry Hair Studio, located in Miami, under barbershop License Number BS 001515 (which also was in effect on these dates and expires July 31, 1984.) Linares has been licensed in Florida and has practiced barbering in Florida for 18 years. He has no record of ever before having been disciplined. When the Department's investigator appeared at the Barbershop for a routine inspection on July 8, 1983, the hair of approximately three or four customers was on the floor of the Barbershop around the two barber chairs in the shop. Linares was sitting in one of the chairs in the customer waiting area. No customers were being barbered at the time. The Barbers' Board has announced a policy that cut hair should be removed or at least be swept aside after every second customer. But there was no competent substantial and persuasive evidence that Linares' failure to do so constituted either a failure to eliminate all fire hazards or a failure to provide for safe and unobstructed human passage in the premises. The Board's policy was communicated to Linares on July 8, 1983. On July 8, 1983, Linares also had no wet sterilizing agent or any other means of sterilization of equipment available for use and was not sterilizing the equipment he was using. Finally, a combination of dirt and old soap from use over an extended period of time had accumulated on the bathroom fixtures of the bathroom in the Barbershop. The Department inspector advised Linares that the conditions just described were violations of the rules governing licensed barbers and that he would return to reinspect the Barbershop between 30 and 90 days later. The Department inspector returned on August 12, 1983. On his return, there again was hair from approximately four customers on the floor of the shop around the two barber chairs. However, on this occasion, both chairs were in use and there were customers waiting for haircuts. On August 12, 1983, Linares still was not sterilizing his equipment and had no wet sterilizing agent or other means of sterilization available for use. Finally, the bathroom fixtures still had an accumulation of dirt and old soap on August 12, 1983.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Barbers' Board reprimand Respondent, Lazaro V. Linares, d/b/a Mr. Larry Hair Studio, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00). DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 28th day of March 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Lazaro V. Linares 7015 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33138 Myrtle S. Aase, Executive Director Barbers' Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Denver Owens was licensed as a barber in this state and has been so licensed for 26 years. Although Owens has worked in barbershops for most of the last 26 years, he never owned a shop until he opened this barbershop in Apopka some two years ago. At the time he opened the shop he obtained an occupational license which, with his current barber's license, he thought was all he needed to operate a one-man shop. On April 26, 1984, an inspector with the Department of Professional Regulation saw the barber's sign on the site not on her records and entered the shop to inspect. The only discrepancy which is material to the issues here is that no registration had been issued for the barbershop. When questioned by the inspector, Owens readily acknowledged that he had not applied for registration for a shop because he was unaware such registration was required. The following day Owens submitted an application to register his shop and obtained registration dated May 4, 1984. When told the Department proposed to assess a fine of $250 against him for operating without a shop license, Owens requested a hearing, the file was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and this hearing ensued.
Findings Of Fact Victor Bosciglio and Marioe Guerra are not and never have been parties Respondent before the Division of Administrative Hearings, since no election of a Section 120.57(1) hearing has ever been filed by either of them. Respondent Robert L. Perez, Jr. is and at all times material has been the holder of a Florida barber license. At all times material hereto Perez was one of the owners of a barbershop called, "Tiffany's Hair Designers," hereafter, "Tiffany's." Tiffany's was originally owned by Perez, Bosciglio, and Guerra. The three initially applied for and obtained a barbershop license for establishment of Tiffany's in a house located at 1205 Hillsborough Avenue in Tampa, Florida, in December, 1980. Although there is some suggestion in Ms. Denchfield's testimony that barbershop license applications are normally accompanied by a proposed floor plan, neither application nor the license itself for Tiffany's was offered in evidence and so no condition of non-expansion or evidence of any other condition for granting the initial barbershop license has been established. The original Tiffany's Hair Designers was located in the house at that address and had ten ""stations" for shampoos, cuts, etc. Sometime in October 1984, the trio converted a loft area above what previously had been a freestanding building housing a downstairs garage and located at the same street address as the house. After the conversion, the loft accommodated 4 additional barber "stations." The house and garage are technically separate buildings which share a common street address, driveway, and parking area. They are on the same electric, water, and telephone bills and occupy a single parcel of land. The going through the original house building which continues to shelter the original 10 barber stations. The two buildings are operated as a single business entity, Tiffany's Hair Designers. At all times material, Tiffany's original barbershop license remained in full force and effect. It is unclear whether a series of DPR inspectors regularly inspected the two portions of Tiffany's between October 1984 and October 1985. Petitioner wishes the inference to be made that there may have been a legitimate gap in inspection schedule so that no inspector was aware of the loft conversion until October 1985. Respondent desires the inference to be drawn that a series of inspections of both portions of Tiffany's during this time period turned out favorably and no inspector found any violation by way of the three owners' failure to notify the Barber's Board of the loft conversion and failure to apply for a new barbershop license during that year. There is no conclusive proof to establish either theory. Ms. Denchfield was not the local inspector during this period, and Mr. Perez was not regularly on the premises since he was working at another shop during most of this period but it seems entirely clear that inspectors for the state were allowed complete and total access to both buildings, the loft was certainly not hidden from view, and no sanitation violations were discovered in either building. A routine inspection in October, 1985 resulted in the administrative complaint herein. Neither this inspection nor a subsequent one in March 1986 revealed any sanitary violations in either building. The parties concur that the purpose of initial and subsequent inspections of licensed barbershops is to protect consumers by ensuring adequate sanitary conditions. Inspector Denchfield found in March 1986 that the loft has all the equipment necessary under statutes and rules she administers to qualify as a separate shop without reliance on the main building. Perez knew that he was required to apply for a barbershop license to open a new shop or to relocate a shop "down the street," i.e. from one address to another, but he was initially under the belief that because the converted loft was located on the same parcel of land with the main building that a second barbershop license was not mandated. The Administrative Complaint was served in January, 1986. Respondent Perez purchased the entire premises and business venture by buying out Bosciglio and Guerra in January 1986, and immediately applied for a new barbershop license which would cover both portions of Tiffany's. It is admitted that prior to this new application no one affirmatively notified the Barber's Board of a new building or obtained a separate license for the loft building.
Recommendation That the Barber's Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint as against Robert L. Perez Jr., and if it has not already done so, dispose of the charges against Marioe Guerra, Jr. and Victor Bosciglio in accord with Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee Florida 32301. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 18th day of July, 1986.
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 the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint file din this case and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Jean Mene, was not a licensed barber in the State of Florida nor was the barbershop which he owned and operated licensed. On or around November 18, 1989, Respondent was observed in the practice of barbering. At that time, he admitted that he did not hold a valid license to barber and that the barbershop in which he worked was not validly licensed. An application for licensure was offered to him by an inspector for Petitioner, but Respondent refused the offer. An employee in Respondent's shop, who was engaged in barbering, also did not have a license to barber. Over the ensuing eight months, Respondent continued his unlicensed practice, operated his unlicensed shop and employed an unlicensed practitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing on Respondent an administrative fine of $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of July 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 27th day of July, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Jean D. Mene 223 Northeast 82 Street Miami, Florida 33138 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Barbers' Board Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 =================================================================
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
