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 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 has been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida since August 13, 1979. He currently holds license number CL 0110182, which has an expiration date of June 30, 1992. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of Best Cuts, Inc. (Best Cuts), a licensed cosmetology salon located at 5331 West Atlantic Boulevard in Margate, Florida. In late October, 1990 or early November, 1990, Luis Villate applied and interviewed for a hair stylist position at Best Cuts. During the interview, Respondent asked if Villate was licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. In response to this inquiry, Villate showed Respondent a completed State of Florida application for licensure by examination. The application contained a certification, dated January 6, 1990, and signed by the Educational Supervisor of the cosmetology school Villate had attended, that Villate met the educational and training requirements for eligibility to sit for the cosmetology licensure examination. Following the interview, Respondent telephoned the Department's offices in Tallahassee to find out if there was any legal impediment to his hiring Villate to work as a hair stylist at Best Cuts. Respondent explained to the Department representative with whom he spoke that Villate had "all his hours" of schooling and training and that he had applied for a cosmetology license. The representative told Respondent that, if such were the circumstances, it would be permissible for Respondent to employ Villate at his salon. 1/ Respondent shortly thereafter hired Villate to work at Best Cuts. The representations made to him by the Department representative did not play a role in his decision to hire Villate. Because he desperately needed a competent hair stylist to work at the salon, he would have hired Villate even if he had been told that Villate's unlicensed status rendered him ineligible for lawful employment. Villate remained an employee of Best Cuts for approximately two months, until December 4, 1991. During the period of his employment, Villate cut, washed and blow dried customers' hair. At no time during this period was he licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. The termination of Villate's employment with Best Cuts was precipitated by an inspection of the salon made by Louis Morganstern, an inspector with the Department, on December 3 and 4, 1990. During the first day of his inspection, Morganstern observed Villate cutting the hair of a customer. Upon his return to the office, Morganstern ran a computer check on Villate, which revealed that Villate had taken and failed the licensure examination and therefore was still unlicensed. The following day, at Morganstern's request, Villate signed a document agreeing to "cease and desist" from the practice of cosmetology in the State of Florida.
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 violation of law alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and (2) imposing upon Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $100 for having committed this violation. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of August, 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 19th day of August, 1991.
The Issue Whether Seligman and Latz, Inc., d/b/a May Cohen Beauty Salon did operate a cosmetology salon without the presence and supervision of a master cosmetologist in violation of Sections 477.27(1), 477.15(8), and 477.02(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Notice of this hearing was duly served on Respondent and Counsel for both parties were present. The Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration has jurisdiction over the proceedings. Respondent holds a current cosmetologist salon license Number 7150. Two inspectors from the Board of Cosmetology entered the premises of the Respondent Seligman and Latz, Inc. late in the evening on September 19, 1974 and observed the Respondents' employee Joyce McClain practicing the art of cosmetology, to wit: combing out the hair of a customer. The employee, Joyce McClain, was not a master cosmetologist at the time. The inspectors for the Board observed the employee, discussed the violation with her and wrote a violation, presented it to her and left the premises, having inspected the area which was used as the public space in which the customers were invited and which the employees performed services for and on the customers. No master cosmetologist was in the room in which the employee, Joyce McClain, was arranging the hair of a customer and no master cosmetologist was in direct supervision of the salon at the time the inspectors were inspecting the salon as a part of their employment by the Board of Cosmetology. The Hearing Officer further finds upon consideration of all the facts and the evidence that the violation by the employee, Joyce McClain, to wit: combing and arranging the hair of a customer while a master cosmetologist was not present and was not directly supervising the operation is contrary to the requirements of Section 477.04, F.S. The Hearing Officer further finds that the time of the inspection was late in the day; that the Work being done by the cosmetologist, Joyce McClain, was not an inherently dangerous procedure; that the salon had master cosmetologists in its employment although said master cosmetologists were not in direct supervision of the cosmetologist at the time of the inspection; that the comb-out or combing and arranging of the hair of a customer is the practice of cosmetology as defined in Section 477.03(e), F.S.: "(e) Hairdressing or the arranging, waving, dressing, curling, cleansing, thinning, cutting, singeing, bobbing, bleaching, tinting, coloring, steaming, straightening, dyeing, brushing, beautifying or otherwise treating by any means the hair of any person."
Recommendation Suspend the license of Respondent or not less than one day and not more than thirty (30) days. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of January, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. LaFace, Esquire Counsel for Petitioner John R. Forbes, Esquire Counsel for Respondent ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 75-594 LICENSE NO. 7150 SELIGMAN & LATZ, INC., d/b/a May Cohen Beauty Salon, Respondent. /
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of Florida statutes relating to the operation of a cosmetology salon, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Board of Cosmetology. Petitioner contends that the Respondent was properly notified of her responsibility to renew her cosmetology salon license and that she failed to do so. Respondent contends that she was never properly notified of this new statutory responsibility.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been licensed as a cosmetologist in the State of Florida. She holds License No. CL- 0071047 issued by the Board of Cosmetology. For many years, and at all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has owned and operated a cosmetology salon named "Ramona's Beauty Salon." The salon is located at 130 Dixie Highway, Auburndale, Florida. The salon has, at all material times, been open for business and doing business with the general public as a cosmetology salon. Prior to July 1, 1980, cosmetology salons were required to be registered with the Board of Cosmetology; however, there was no requirement that the registration, once obtained, be renewed. Registration of a salon was permanent. In 1978, the Legislature amended provisions of law relating to registration of cosmetology salons. Effective July 1, 1980, cosmetology salons were required to have renewed their salon license and to renew it again every two years. Because of the change in the law which imposed a new obligation to renew the registration for a salon, the Board of Cosmetology endeavored to advise its licensees of the obligation to renew the salon registration. In March, 1980, the Board mailed a newsletter to its salon licensees advising them about the change in the law. In May, 1980, the Board mailed renewal cards to its licensees. The cards were to be filled out and returned to the Board with the appropriate fee. The Board endeavored to send these notices to its salon licensees at their currently registered addresses. The address that the Board had for the Respondent's salon was the proper one. The Respondent did not receive the notices. The evidence does not reveal whether this was the result of the Board's not forwarding them to her, an error on the part of the postal service, or an error by the Respondent. The precise system that the Board used to assure that the notices were properly forwarded to its licensees was not made a part of the record. The evidence is insufficient to establish why the Respondent did not receive the notices. Prior to 1979, the Board of Cosmetology inspected the premises of its licensees on at least an annual basis. Typically, inspections were conducted more frequently than that. When the Legislature reorganized the Department of Professional Regulation, these periodic inspections ceased during the transition period. The Respondent's salon was inspected in September, 1979. It was not inspected again, however, until December, 1982. The Board endeavored to help apprise its licensees of the need to renew salon licenses by having its inspectors inform the licensees during inspections. Since the Respondent's salon was not inspected during that period, she did not receive the benefit of that advice. The Respondent's salon had been registered with the Board since 1971. She never had any reason to believe that she needed to renew her salon's registration until sometime in 1981. The Respondent's daughter was attending a cosmetology school and heard that salon licenses needed to be renewed, and passed this information on to her mother. Her mother called a representative of the Board at the Winter Haven office. Prior to the reorganization, the Board maintained its principal offices in Winter Haven. Thereafter the offices were moved to Tallahassee, but the testing function continued to be administered from the Winter Haven office. The person who the Respondent talked to at the Winter Haven office advised her that she would be receiving registration forms from Tallahassee and that she did not need to take any action until she received those forms. The Respondent attended continuing education programs during the period following the change in the registration requirement. At none of these programs was she advised of the new obligation to renew the salon license. On December 3, 1982, an inspector with the Department of Professional Regulation inspected the Respondent's salon. The inspector observed that the salon license had not been renewed. The Respondent was advised of her responsibility to obtain a current registration for the salon, and she took immediate steps to accomplish that. Her salon is now properly registered.
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Rule 21f-3.10, Florida Administrative Code. Receipt of the Administrative Complaint and the Notice of Hearing was acknowledged by the Respondent. (Exhibit 1) Counsel for the Petitioner announced at the commencement of the hearing that Respondent's cosmetology salon was out of business and that said Respondent possessed no personal Certificate of Registration as a cosmetologist. Petitioner therefore interposed no objection to dismissal of the allegation.
Recommendation That the allegation against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Larry C. Wojtowicz c/o Nancy's Beauty Salon 2931 West Gate Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida
Findings Of Fact Marie J. Jeune, Respondent, owns an establishment known as Joset's Beauty Salon located at 341 N.W. 3rd Street, Pompano Beach, Florida. From January, 1984 until July, 1984 Respondent operated Joset's Beauty Salon as a cosmetology salon but at no time did she have a license from the Board of Cosmetology for the salon. During this time, she employed a licensed cosmetologist on the premises, and she testified that she did not know that the salon had to be licensed. She thought she was complying with the law by employing a licensed cosmetologist and obtaining an occupational license. In July, 1984 the licensed cosmetologist left her employment at Joset's Beauty Salon due to pregnancy. On October 9, 1984, Alexa Arachy, an inspector employed by the Department of Professional Regulation conducted an inspection of Joset's Beauty Salon. Inspector Arachy observed an unlicensed person, later identified as Respondent's sister-in- law, Ms. McPhaton Jeune, giving a shampoo to a woman in the salon. She also observed two shampoo sinks, a salon station, numerous open bottles of dyes and waving lotions, combs, brushes, towels, hair on the floor, and a trash container full of items which would normally result from the operation of a salon. At no time has either Respondent or Ms. McPhaton Jeune been licensed by the Board of Cosmetology or the Barber Board, nor has Joset's Beauty Salon ever been licensed by the Board of Cosmetology, or the Barber Board. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, F.S. have been considered in making the above findings of fact. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of three hundred dollars ($300). DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 2nd day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marie J. Jeune 341 N.W. 3rd Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Section 477.02(6), Florida Statutes. Counsel for Petitioner announced that he had been unable to serve Respondent with a copy of the Administrative Complaint and Notice of Hearing. He further stated that Respondent no longer holds a Certificate of Registration to operate a cosmetology salon because Tippie's Beauty salon which she formerly operated is no longer in business. He further stated that he had no objection to a dismissal of the charge.
Recommendation That the allegation against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Barbara Spence c/o Tippie's Beauty Salon 209 S.W. 27 Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Findings Of Fact Respondent plead guilty of the charge of operating a beauty salon without a certificate of registration. She stated that she lad height the salon known as Styles by Stallone believing that it was a licensed cosmetology salon, but in fact the owner of the salon was barber and the salon was licensed as barber salon. The salon is now licensed and the name has been changed top Male Ego.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to Respondent for operating a beauty salon without the proper registration. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Eileen Warren 601 B. Northlake Boulevard North Palm Beach 33408
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, a post-hearing memorandum and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. During times material, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida to practice cosmetology and has been issued license number CL 0075643. During approximately March or May of 1977, Esther's Beauty Salon, located at 3326 NW 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida, was open for business and operated as such with the public as a cosmetology salon under Respondent's ownership. On February 23, 1977, Florida cosmetology salon license number CE 0024609 was issued to the Respondent for Esther's Beauty Salon. While that license, as issued, was a permanent license, it subsequently became subject to a biennial renewal. As such, the first renewal deadline thereunder was June 30, 1980. [Section 477.025(8), Florida Statutes (supp. 1978)] Respondent did not renew her cosmetologist salon license number CE 0024609. Although the Respondent first contends that she did not receive a renewal notice for her license, she later admitted that she was the subject of numerous personal problems stemming from a divorce and pregnancy with her first child and that she may have overlooked the renewal notice. It is here found that the Respondent's failure to renew her cosmetology salon license was the result of an oversight on her part. On February 2, 1983, Petitioner, through its inspector, Steven Granowitz, inspected Esther's Beauty Salon. At that time, Respondent was operating Esther's Beauty Salon. She was advised that her cosmetologist salon license number CE 0024609 was not valid. Respondent subsequently applied for a new Florida cosmetology salon license and on May 12, 1983, salon license number CE 0034670 was issued to Respondent for Esther's Beauty Salon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings and fact and conclusions of law, the fact that the Respondent upon notification by inspector Granowitz that her license was, in fact, delinquent, immediately applied for and obtained a currently active cosmetology salon license, and other mitigating factors, I hereby recommend that Respondent shall pay an administrative fine of $250. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1983.
