Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida, having been issued Florida cosmetology license, number CL 0057719. At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent had been the owner of a cosmetology salon named Bikini Unisex Beauty Salon, located at 2500 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida, although at the time of the hearing Respondent had sold his interest in Bikini Unisex Beauty Salon. At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent was licensed to operate the Bikini Unisex Beauty Salon as a cosmetology salon, having been issued Florida cosmetology salon license number, CE 0025617. On September 7, 1984, Alexa Aracha (Aracha), an inspector employed by Petitioner, conducted a routine inspection at Bikini Unisex Beauty Salon to check for compliance with sanitation and licensure requirements. At the time of the inspection, Mamie L. Thompson (Thompson) was shampooing the hair of a salon customer. Respondent has admitted that Thompson was employed by him, d/b/a Unisex Bikini Beauty Salon, as a cosmetologist the past fourteen (14) years. Thompson's cosmetology license, number CL 0031825, expired on June 30, 1984, and was not renewed until November 17, 1984. Although it appears that Thompson had completed the necessary hours of continuing education to have her license renewed, the record is clear that between July 1, 1984 and November 17, 1984 Thompson's cosmetology license, number CL 0031825, was in an inactive status. Respondent, due to Thompson's length of employment with him, did not check Thompson's license to see if it was current and was unaware that her license had expired. At the time of the inspection, Linda S. Marlowe (Marlowe) was present in the salon but was not working. Respondent's appointment book indicated that Marlowe had scheduled appointments for the afternoon of the day of the inspection. Respondent admitted that Marlowe was employed by him, d/b/a Bikini Unisex Beauty Salon, as a cosmetologist, and had worked a couple of days just prior to the inspection. The record is clear that Marlowe's cosmetology license, number CL 0057700, expired June 30, 1984, and was not renewed until January 16, 1985. Although it appears that Marlowe had completed the necessary hours of continuing education to have her license renewed the record is clear that between July 1, 1984 and January 16, 1985 Marlowe's cosmetology license, number CL 0057700, was in an inactive status. The record shows that there had been sickness in Marlowe's family and due to this sickness, she did not have the necessary funds to renew her license. Again, due to Marlowe's length of employment with Respondent, Respondent did not check Marlowe's license to see if it was current and was unaware that her license had expired. At all times material to this proceeding, Linda S. Marlowe and Mamie L. Thompson were not licensed to practice barbering in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the charge of violating Section 477.0265(1)(b)2., (1)(d), Florida Statutes (1983) be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of the violation of Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statues (1983). For such violation, considering the mitigating circumstances surrounding the violation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology issue a letter of Reprimand to the Respondent. Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 25th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Valentino Malloggi Pro se 2500 E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard Hallandale, Florida 33009 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Section 477.02(6), Florida Statutes. Upon Motion of Petitioner, the name of the President of Respondent firm as shown in the Administrative Complaint was amended to reflect his correct name, Alfred Ditraglia.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Corporation holds Certificate of Registration Number 21624 to operate a cosmetology salon which was issued on May 8, 1975, by Petitioner. (Stipulation). On July 15, 1975, Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's place of business and observed Carmen Victoria Jackson washing a customer's hair. On July 29, 1975, he observed her doing the same thing. She had informed him on July 15th that she had no state license. On July 29th she told him that the shampoo girl had not shown up for work and that is why she was washing a customer's hair. (Testimony of Rubin). At the hearing, the employee testified that she had not been shampooing on either occasion mentioned by Petitioner's inspector. She asserted that on July 15th a customer had merely asked her to pass a towel to her and that while she was doing so the Inspector entered the store. She claimed that on July 29th although customers were in the store, she was not working on them, but was merely taking towels to the back of the premises to wash them. (Testimony of Jackson).
Recommendation That Respondent's Certificate of Registration Number 21624 to operate a cosmetology salon be suspended for a period of 30 days under the authority of Section 477.15(8), for violation of Section 477.02(6), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Alfred Ditraglia, President Al Stephens, Inc. 425 Hollywood Mall Hollywood, Florida ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY IN RE: FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-1053 SALON LICENSE NO. 21624 ALFRED DITKOGLIA, PRESIDENT, AL STEPHENS, INC., Respondent. / FINAL AGENCY ORDER The Florida State Board of Cosmetology adopts as part of the Agency's Final Order the conclusions of law, interpretation of administrative rules and findings of fact dated July 28, 1976, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The State Board of Cosmetology, having reviewed the recommended penalty of the hearing examiner and considering the circumstances of this case, the State Board of Cosmetology feels that the recommended penalty is appropriate and therefore adopts the recommended penalty and imposes a suspension of the salon license of the Respondent for a period of thirty (30) days. That the suspension shall be effective beginning on the first day of October, 1976, and shall terminate on October 30, 1976. That the Respondent shall deliver its license no. 21624 covered by this suspension by certified mail, return receipt requested, prior to the effective date of the suspension and the said license will be available for re-delivery to the Respondent at the State Board Administrative Office, 301 Avenue A, Southwest, Winter Haven, Florida, or will either he mailed at the option of the Respondent on the last day of the suspension period. ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1976. Violet Llaneza, Chairman Florida State Board of Cosmetology Copies Mailed To: Alfred Ditkoglia, President Al Stephens, Inc. 425 Hollywood Mall Hollywood, Florida Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida =================================================================
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a Florida-licensed cosmetology salon, holding license CE-84418, located at 2702-B Silver Star Road, Orlando, Florida 32818. On April 11, 2008, Evelyn Williams, an inspector employed by the Petitioner, conducted a routine inspection of the Respondent. During the inspection, Ms. Williams observed three individuals, identified as O'Brian Breedlove, Charley James Hawks, and Shawn Johnson, using clippers to cut the hair of salon customers. Mr. Breedlove is a Florida-licensed hair braider, holding license number HB4110. Mr. Hawks is a Florida-licensed hair braider, holding license number HB4217. Mr. Johnson is a Florida-licensed hair braider, holding license number HB3935. A licensed hair braider is essentially authorized only to weave or interweave human hair and is not allowed to perform hair-cutting. Mr. Breedlove, Mr. Hawks, and Mr. Johnson were operating outside the scope of their licenses when Ms. Williams observed each man using clippers to cut the hair of the salon's customers. Ms. Williams additionally observed that photographs of Mr. Hawks and Mr. Johnson were not displayed with their licenses. During the inspection, Ms. Williams observed that the hair-cutting tools in use at the salon were not being properly disinfected or stored. Sterilizers contained excessive amounts of accumulated hair. Some combs, brushes, and clippers were kept in a drawer that contained used neck strips and other paper products, as well as personal items including cash. Some hair- cutting tools were left on top of workstation counters rather than contained within closed storage drawers. There was excessive accumulated hair on the floor and baseboards, as well as around the workstations. The Respondent's most recent health inspection report was not conspicuously displayed near the front entrance of the salon. The lavatory at the salon was not in good repair. A sink was leaking, and a bucket had been placed underneath the sink to catch leaking water. There were no sanitary towels present, and no mechanical hand dryer was provided. Ms. Williams noted the strong smell of urine in the lavatory and observed that the ventilation appeared to be inadequate. The owner of the Respondent was not present at the time of the inspection. Ms. Williams prepared a report of her inspection and presented a copy of the report to Mr. Breedlove.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, enter a final order, stating that the Respondent violated the statutes and rules referenced herein; imposing a $3,000 administrative fine; and revoking the Respondent's cosmetology licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: LeChea C. Parson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kwesi Korreh, Esquire Post Office Box 2487 Orlando, Florida 32802 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Division of Professions Board of Cosmetology Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The Respondent is charged in a two count amended administrative complaint. Count I alleges a violation of Section 477.029(1)(a) F.S., practicing cosmetology without a current active license. Count II alleges a violation of Sections 477.029(1)(i) and 477.0263(1) F.S., engaging in cosmetology services in areas other than in a licensed cosmetology salon.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology. Respondent Cathy Runkle has never been a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida. She has learned her hair cutting/trimming skills from books and video tapes borrowed from the public library. At all times material hereto, Cathy's Place, Cathy Runkle, and Cathy's Hair Design have been unlicensed as cosmetology salons. Sometime during "the Christmas holidays" (between December 25, 1990 and January 1, 1991) Respondent, her daughter, and two women friends, one of whom was Mildred Schwarz, were gathered socially at Respondent's home in Daytona, Florida. Because Respondent had just given her daughter an attractive "home permanent" and hair trim, the subject came up of whether or not the four women could start a business doing the same thing for others in their own homes and in the homes of prospective customers. Respondent prepared a sample advertising flyer in pencil on an 8 1/2 by 11-inch piece of paper that read, "Cathy's Hair Designs, Perms $40.00, Cut $10.00, Hair styling in your home." Respondent's name, home address, and telephone number were also on the sample flyer. Mildred Schwarz traced over some of the pencilled lettering on the sample flyer. The next day, Respondent gave a copy of the sample flyer to each of the three other women who had been part of the discussion. She did this so that they could decide if they wanted to be involved in such a project with her. Later during the holiday period, Respondent and her daughter visited another friend, Pam Rendon, in Mrs. Rendon's home, also in Daytona, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Rendon had been friends of Mr. and Mrs. Runkle for at least two years prior to this occasion. Mrs. Rendon runs a motel which is attached to her home. The office of the motel is also in the home. During this particular visit, a copy of the sample flyer was shown to Mrs. Rendon. Mrs. Rendon cautioned against any such business venture because it was too much hassle for Respondent, a housewife. Mrs. Rendon explained some of the pitfalls of running one's own business, including the need to purchase insurance. When Respondent and her daughter went home, the copy of the flyer brought by Respondent and her daughter was inadvertently left on Mrs. Rendon's office desk. It was never re- copied or distributed at the motel, and it was never even posted on the motel bulletin board. Mr. and Mrs. Rendon testified that it must have been thrown out in the trash. Respondent thought about the proposed project and decided against going into business. Mildred Schwarz confirmed that the business idea was never seriously considered in the first place and that Respondent never approached her about it again. Ms. Schwarz does not know what became of her copy of the flyer. There is also no evidence as to what became of the remaining two copies of the flyer. Respondent never created or distributed any more copies. Petitioner received a copy of the flyer in the mail as part of an anonymous complaint and presented no evidence that other copies were ever publicly circulated by anyone. On one occasion either before or after the creation of the original flyer but still at a time material to the period of March 1, 1990 through March 6, 1991, the dates alleged in the amended administrative complaint, Respondent had a prearranged date for lunch with Mildred Schwarz. When Respondent arrived to pick up Ms. Schwarz at Ms. Schwarz' Daytona, Florida home, Ms. Schwarz asked Respondent to trim her hair. Respondent complied with the request. Later, Ms. Schwarz picked up Respondent's lunch check, but not as a quid pro quo for the hair trim. There is no reasonable monetary correlation between the price of this particular shared meal and the cost of a hair cut as listed on the flyer. In fact, Ms. Schwarz testified that she had "owed" Respondent the meal before and apart from the hair cut. On another occasion, Respondent used a home permanent kit on Ms. Schwarz in Ms. Schwarz' home. Later, Ms. Schwarz also administered a home permanent to Respondent at Respondent's home. Both women apparently followed the directions for laymen included in the kits. These events were a courtesy exchange of favors between the two women without any disparity of cost in the permanent wave kits, which were not purchased from a cosmetology supply house. Neither Respondent nor Ms. Schwarz was ill or incapacitated at any material time. Respondent never held herself out to be a licensed cosmetologist, and Ms. Schwarz never thought she was one. Either before or after the creation of the original flyer, but still at a time material to the dates alleged in the administrative complaint, Respondent trimmed the hair of Pam Rendon and of her husband, Frank Rendon. She did this for each of them on several occasions. The Runkles and the Rendons play tennis together regularly and regularly visit in each others' homes. Respondent often invites herself or is invited by Mrs. Rendon to have coffee and sun herself beside Mrs. Rendon's motel pool. Respondent frequently babysits for Mrs. Rendon. No witness remembers exactly when or how the hair cutting occasions arose but each was spontaneous. Sometimes they occurred during a pick-up lunch when the families were gathered in the Rendons' kitchen. Sometimes they occurred when just Respondent and Mrs. Rendon were together and Mrs. Rendon asked Respondent to "do something" with Mrs. Rendon's hair. Once, at Mrs. Rendon's request, Respondent left what she was doing in her own home and came to Mrs. Rendon's house and "finished" a bad haircut Mrs. Rendon had started on herself. Respondent did not expect to be compensated for her helpfulness. Mrs. Rendon never offered Respondent compensation for her services. Mr. Rendon offered to pay Respondent on at least four separate occasions when she trimmed his hair, and Respondent consistently refused to take any money. Neither Mr. or Mrs. Rendon was ill or incapacitated during any of these events. Respondent never held herself out to be a licensed cosmetologist, and the Rendons never thought she was one. Neither the Schwarz home nor the Rendon home is a licensed cosmetology salon. Petitioner also established that on a single occasion within the time frame of the amended administrative complaint Respondent's husband took her out to dinner at a Daytona, Florida restaurant in exchange for her stopping what she was doing (presumably preparing their dinner) so as to cut and permanent his hair. Respondent's husband knew she was not a licensed cosmetologist. On one other occasion, Respondent had a prearranged social visit with an old friend elsewhere in Florida. The friend telephoned and asked Respondent to buy a home permanent kit on the way. Respondent bought the kit at a Pic'N'Save for approximately $7.00 and used it on the friend when she visited with the friend. After Respondent refused the friend's offer to reimburse her for the permanent wave kit and her gas, the friend secretly slipped a $10.00 bill into Respondent's purse to cover the monies expended by Respondent. The Respondent did not return the $10.00 because she did not look in her purse until she got home. This event occurred during the time frame alleged in the amended administrative complaint. Petitioner also established that at a social luncheon Respondent and other women guests, mostly Respondent's relatives by marriage, did various things to one another's hair. As a result, the bottle of wine and the food which were already on the hostess' table were dedicated to Respondent for her skill and efforts. Petitioner did not affirmatively prove that this event took place in Florida, and therefore jurisdiction of it has not been proven. Petitioner also established that while in New Mexico, Respondent gave her mother a home permanent and trimmed her mother's hair and that Respondent's mother bought Respondent lunch on a quid pro quo basis. New Mexico is outside Petitioner's jurisdiction. Neither of these incidents clearly occurred during the time frame alleged in the amended administrative complaint.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 26th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1-3, 5-7, 9 Accepted. 4, 8, 10, 15, Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. 11-14, 17-19 Rejected as stated because not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole or rejected as containing legal argument. Covered in FOF 5-11. 16 Accepted that this is a direct quotation from an exhibit but it is out of context and misleading from the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. Respondent's PFOF: COUNT I 1-2, 4 Rejected as legal argument. 3 The first sentence is rejected as legal argument. The second sentence is accepted. 5, 10-15 Accepted in substance but otherwise is rejected as incomplete or subordinate or as mere recitation of testimony. Legal argument is also rejected. 6-9 What is not legal argument on credibility issues or is not subordinate to the facts as found has been accepted. COUNT II 1-2 Rejected as legal argument but covered in substance. Copies furnished to: Herbert Runkle 2075 South Halifax Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Lois B. Lepp, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ms. Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the alleged violations occurred and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Great Expectations Precision Haircutters, is a cosmetology salon located in Melbourne, Florida. Its owner, Twin Towers Hair Stylists, Inc. is a New York corporation authorized to do business in Florida. Sharon Bross manages the salon and is the corporate owner's resident agent in Florida. The amended administrative complaint in this proceeding was served, by certified mail, on Sharon Bross. In August 1987, Sara Kimmig, an inspector for various boards within the Department of Professional Regulation, visited the Respondent salon in Melbourne. She found the salon open and conducting business, with three persons in the waiting area and four operators engaged in performing services. She found that the salon's license number CE 0038872 expired in October 1986. The salon opened for business in April 1986. All licenses expire on October 31st of even-numbered years, therefore the license expired shortly after it was obtained. Ms. Bross was informed of the violation and she immediately applied for and obtained a renewal license. At the hearing, Ms. Bross conceded that the license had expired, but that she had not received a renewal notice and the expiration was an oversight. The license on its face, however, indicates the October 31, 1986, expiration date. There was no evidence of past or other concurrent violations by this salon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of the violations, as charged, and fined $500.00 DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 5th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Ray Shope, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Sharon Bross, Resident Agent Twin Towers Hair Stylists, Inc. Great Expectations Precision Haircutters 1525 West New Haven West Melbourne, Florida 32904 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Adelina Portuondo, is the holder of License Number CL 0089302 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida State Board of Cosmetology. The license authorizes Respondent to perform cosmetology services. She has held the license since 1976. On or about December 24, 1982, a Department inspector visited the premises known as Delores Beauty Salon, located at 2214 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. The visit was prompted by the fact that the Delores Beauty Salon was delinquent in renewing its license with Petitioner. While conducting the inspection, the inspector observed two apparent employees working with customers in chairs. Before the inspector was able to check the license of one of them, a Latin male, who was performing cosmetology services on a client, the Latin male quickly departed the premises. The inspector was told the male's name was either "Jorge" or "Jose," but that no other information regarding that individual was available. Respondent was not on the premises when the inspection was made, but, after being called from her other shop, she arrived a short time later. Portuondo advised the inspector that the male's name was "Jose," that he was there for a "tryout," had just arrived from Cuba and had been referred by someone at her other beauty salon. She also advised that she had just purchased the salon and was in the process of transferring ownership to her name. At the time the inspection was made, Delores Beauty Shop held no current licenses to provide either cosmetology or barber services to the public. The inspector then visited Respondent's other salon, Lena's of New York, and learned that the Latin male's name was actually Jose Bahamonde. Respondent told the inspector that Bahamonde was only a manager of the salon, whose duties included opening and closing the shop, cleaning and the like, but that he performed no professional services. Lena's of New York was apparently licensed by the Board as a cosmetology salon. On April 5, 1983, a Department inspector again visited the beauty salon operated by Respondent at 2214 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach. Respondent had signs indicating the business was now being operated as Lina Beauty Salon II, Inc. The inspector found Bahamonde on the premises and told him it was illegal to practice cosmetology and barbering without appropriate licenses. Bahamonde told the inspector he had taken the examination and was awaiting the results. The inspector returned the next day, April 6, and found Bahamonde cutting a customer's hair. The Respondent was not present on the premises. After being called by telephone, Respondent arrived shortly thereafter and denied that Bahamonde was providing professional services. Instead, she claimed he was working as a cashier and cleaning up the premises. At that time, she also produced records to show she had purchased the salon on October 5, 1982. Official Department records reflect that Bahamonde was issued cosmetology License No. CL 0141942 on July 26, 1983. Those records also reflect that as recent as October 20, 1983, Lina Beauty Salon II, Inc., held no active cosmetology or barbershop licenses. The records do indicate, however, that Respondent applied for a cosmetology salon license for the establishment in April, 1983, but the application was denied on May 9, 1983, on the ground it was incomplete. No license has been issued to Delores Beauty Salon, Inc., since its purchase by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 477.029(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in December, 1982, and April, 1983; violating Subsection 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in December, 1982; and violating Subsections 477.028(2)(b) and 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in April, 1983. It is further RECOMMENDED that a $250 administrative fine be imposed on Respondent for each violation, for a total of $1,000, and that such fine be paid within thirty (30) days of the date of the final order entered in this cause. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 November, 1983.
