Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed cosmetologist in Florida and was so licensed at all times here relevant. In January, 1983, Respondent began employment as a cosmetologist at the Rose Unisex Hair Salon in Clearwater, Florida. This salon was owned by Rose Sousa, who had advertised the salon for sale. In response to that ad Respondent commenced working at the salon to learn if the salon would be a profitable purchase. In April, 1983, Respondent executed a chattel mortgage agreement in favor of Rose Sousa and her husband, Joe, in consideration of the transfer of the salon to her. An assignment of the lease was contingent on the payment of this chattel mortgage. The agreement further provided that Rose Sousa would continue working at the salon for one year. On May 2, 1983, Respondent gave Sousa a cashier's check for $7,000 which Respondent had borrowed from a friend, in satisfaction of the chattel mortgage. At this time the salon was licensed in the name of Rose Sousa and this license was due to expire in a few months. Respondent believed she could operate under that license until it expired and would then be required to put the salon license in her name. On June 21, 1983, an inspector from the Department of Regulations visited the salon and checked the license of Mary Carroll, who told him she owned the salon, and the salon license which still showed Rose Sousa as owner. Some three weeks after the closing Rose Sousa quit working at the salon and most of the customers left with her. Respondent testified that Rose Sousa had opened a salon in her garage and was servicing her customers there. Regardless of this allegation, the business dropped drastically, Respondent was unable to pay the rent, and the salon was padlocked by the owner of the building. Respondent subsequently declared bankruptcy. But for a friend who took her in as a houseguest, Respondent would, literally, have been out on the street.
The Issue Whether the salon license of Richard J. Payseur, No. 20140-OB should be revoked, annulled, suspended or withdrawn because he did not display a proper sign in his salon.
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Mary Francis Pfeiffer, Inspector for the Board, testified that Respondent Richard Payseur had been the proprietor of the beauty salon under the name "Showplace Beauty Salon", New Port Richey, Florida. At her last visit, the salon was under a new proprietorship and that to the best of the Inspector's knowledge, Mr. Payseur does not operate a beauty salon in the State. The Respondent Mr. Payseur holds a Masters License No. 0083341. Mr. Payseur, the Respondent, had been issued a violation notice after a visit to the salon on January 17, 1976 and again on March 20, 1976.
Recommendation Dismiss the present complaint and warn Respondent that a violation of the State laws and regulations governing cosmetologists could jeopardize his personal license. DONE and ORDERED this 5th 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 Richard J. Payseur Box 667 Route 4 Brooksville, Florida 33512
The Issue Whether Respondent, Nancy Jo Gupton, allowed a non- licensed person to practice cosmetology in her beauty salon contrary to Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is doing business as Nancy Jo's Hair Stylist in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent was working in said salon and left the salon to take a customer to the hospital. Sue Dalton, a non-registered person washed and set the hair of one Mrs. Latham, a customer of said salon. Sue Dalton was not employed to serve as a cosmetologist.
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.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of Beauty Salon Mayelin Unisex (Salon), a cosmetology salon located at 1442 Northeast 163rd Street in North Miami Beach, Florida. The Salon was first licensed by the Department on December 19, 1990. Respondent has never been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Her application for licensure is currently pending. Charles E. Frear is an inspector with the Department. On May 16, 1990, Frear went to 1442 Northeast 163rd Street with the intention of inspecting a licensed cosmetology salon operating under the name "Hair to Hair." When he arrived at the address, Frear noticed that the sign outside the establishment reflected that Beauty Salon Mayelin Unisex now occupied the premises. The Salon was open for business. Upon entering the Salon, Frear observed Respondent removing curlers from the hair of a customer who was seated in one of the chairs. 1/ Frear asked Respondent to show him her license to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Respondent responded that she did not have such a license yet, but that she was scheduled to take the cosmetology licensure examination later that month. After learning from Respondent that she was the owner of the Salon, Frear asked to see the Salon's license. Respondent thereupon advised Frear that the Salon had not been licensed by the Department. Although she told Frear otherwise, Respondent was aware at the time that a Department-issued cosmetology salon license was required to operate the Salon. Frear gave Respondent an application form to fill out to obtain such a salon license. Respondent subsequently filled out the application form and submitted the completed form to the Department. Thereafter, she received License No. CE 0053509 from the Department to operate the Salon.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent committed the violations of law alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint; and (2) imposing upon Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 for having committed these violations. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of April, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 24th day of April, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Patricia Strange began as a cosmetologist in North Carolina in 1966. Since October of 1977 she has practiced cosmetology in Panama City, Florida. The administrative complaint filed in the present case is the first complaint ever made by any public authority against her as a cosmetologist. Ms. Strange holds cosmetology license No. CL0059441. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. On November 13, 1970, the State Board of Cosmetology issued a "Certificate of Registration To Operate A Cosmetology Salon," No. 14877, for Pat's Petite Beauty Salon, 1848 Beck Avenue, Panama City, Florida. Under this license, respondent Strange operated a beauty salon for ten or eleven years. In early 1981, the building in which respondent operated her salon was sold, and she was asked to move the salon. She was given one month's notice that the salon lease, which expired April 30, 1981, would not be renewed. During the busy month that ensued, she effected a move to a new building at 2347 St. Andrews Boulevard in Panama City, where she opened for business under the name St. Lynn Gallery of Hair Design on the first Wednesday in May of 1981. She inquired about her city occupational license and was told that she need not worry about getting another until her current occupational license expired. Respondent was unaware of any requirement to obtain a new salon license from petitioner, until August 20, 1981. Charles I. Deckard, an investigator in petitioner's employ, called on respondent on August 20, 1981. When she showed him the salon license, he told her she needed to secure another license for the new location and issued a citation. The very next day respondent closed her shop, telephoned petitioner's Tallahassee office to inquire what documents she would need to secure a new salon license, gathered up all such documents, and made the trip to Tallahassee. She took with her a $40 cashier's check in petitioner's favor, as payment for a new salon license, dated August 21, 1981. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. Petitioner then issued a new cosmetology salon license to respondent for St. Lynn Gallery of Hair Design.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Cosmetology reprimand respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 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 20th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Russell R. Stewart, Esquire Post Office Box 2542 Panama City, Florida 32401 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent did violate Section 477.02(6); 477.27(1) and Section 477.15(8), Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations of the State Board of Cosmetology promulgated pursuant there to in that he did allow students to work in the La Marick Beauty Salon, a salon owned by licensee, prior to making application and/or renewing an application for such work from the Board of Cosmetology.
Findings Of Fact Respondent F. W. Lorick, Jr. received notice of this hearing and filed his election of remedies stating no contest and that he did not plan to attend this hearing. Respondent does not personally work in the La Marick Beauty Salon, therefore employs a manager to manage the salon although it is licensed in the company's name. The company of which Respondent is president is one of a chain of beauty salons. Mrs. Madge Edwards, inspector for the State Board of Cosmetology, on or about February 24, 1976 entered Respondent Lorick's beauty salon and found a student working as a cosmetologist. The student was a non-licensed person who held no permit to work in a beauty salon. The inspector wrote a violation which is the subject of this hearing.
Recommendation Advise the Respondent F. W. Lorick, Jr. that he is guilty of violating Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, and rules and regulations promulgated thereto and that if other violations occur, his license may be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended. DONE and ORDERED this 19th 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 Mr. F. W. Lorick, Jr., President La Marick Beauty Salon 2350 S. Ridgewood Avenue - Sunshine Mall South Daytona, Florida
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Respondent is a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida, holding license number CE 0043033. Respondent has been continuously licensed since October, 1976. Since May of 1990, Respondent has also held a license as a cosmetology salon owner, license number 0052274, for a salon called B.J. Beauty Images located at 1556 NE 4th Ave. in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The salon license is scheduled to expire on October 31, 1992. Respondent began operating a salon at 1556 NE 4th Ave. in approximately March of 1990. She was previously operating a duly licensed salon at another location. At the time she moved to the 1556 NE 4th Ave. location, Respondent did not apply for a new salon license. During an inspection in March of 1990, an investigator for Petitioner informed Respondent that she needed to obtain a license for the new location. Petitioner's investigator advised Respondent that she needed to obtain a new license any time she moved her salon. No administrative action was taken against Respondent as a result of operating an unlicensed salon in March of 1990. During a follow up visit in May of 1990, Petitioner's investigator confirmed that Respondent had obtained the necessary salon license. In January of 1992, Petitioner's investigator observed that Respondent's salon had apparently moved to 1546 NE 4th Ave. Respondent's salon is generally open from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday through Friday and 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturday. Petitioner's investigator was in the neighborhood of Respondent's salon on Friday, January 3 at approximately 2:30 p.m. While the salon was generally not open for business during these hours, Respondent was present at the salon located at 1546 and there was a woman under the hair dryer. In addition, Petitioner's investigator observed that the sign for Respondent's salon had moved from 1556 NE 4th Ave. to 1546 NE 4th Ave. Upon investigation, Petitioner's investigator determined that Respondent had not obtained a license for the 1546 NE 4th Ave. location. The evidence was sufficient to establish that Respondent was operating a salon at 1546 NE 4th Ave. from November of 1991 until May of 1992 without a proper license. Respondent contends that she sent in an application for a license for the 1546 NE 4th Ave. location in December of 1991, but had not received her new license at the time of the inspection in January of 1992. Respondent did not present copies of any correspondence or checks written with respect to the alleged December 1991 application. At the time of the January 1992 inspection, Respondent did not advise Petitioner's inspector that she had submitted an application. Petitioner has no record of an application for a license for the 1556 NE 4th Ave. location until May of 1992. A salon license for this location was issued by Petitioner on May 27, 1992. The evidence was insufficient to establish that Respondent submitted an application in December of 1991 which was lost by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 477.029(1)(b), Florida Statutes imposing an administrative fine of two hundred dollars ($200) and allowing the Respondent to pay this amount in two (2) payments. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1992. Copies furnished: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Bureau Chief Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ms. Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Brenda Cunningham 1546 NE 4th Ave. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33305
