The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Sections 477.02(4), 477.27(1) & 477.15(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates a cosmetology salon, Mourine's of Palm Beach, located at 261 Sunrise Avenue, Palm Beach, Florida, under Certificate of Registration to operate a cosmetology salon No. 18118 OB. Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's salon at 1:30 P.M. on April 23, 1976 at which time she found Respondent working on two patrons. Respondent is not a master cosmetologist and informed the Inspector that her master cosmetologist was out to lunch. After the Inspector has remained on the premises for approximately 45 minutes Respondent stated that the master cosmetologist was not working that day. (Testimony of Padgett) Respondent submitted an affidavit that on the date in question while working in her salon Inspector Padgett found patrons under dryers without the presence of her master cosmetologist who had taken her lunch hour in order to go to the doctor. Respondent stated that she was not working on patrons at this time and had not after the master had left the shop. Respondent further stated that the master operator returned approximately 20 minutes after the inspector had left the premises. (Affidavit of Witmer)
Recommendation That Respondent be issued a written reprimand for violation of Section 477.02(4), Florida Statutes. 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 P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Mourine Witmer 6361 South Atterly K Lantana, Florida 33462 Donald Kohl, Esquire 3003 South Congress Avenue Palm Springs, Florida 33461
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.
The Issue Whether Respondent practiced cosmetology in her home without a salon certificate of registration. Whether the certificate of registration for a master cosmetologist held by the Respondent should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a valid certificate of registration as a master cosmetologist No. 73476. Respondent does not hold a certificate of registration for a salon. Respondent was practicing the art of cosmetology in her home which was not in compliance with the requirements of Section 477.24(7), Florida Statutes. Said residence would not be eligible for a salon registration.
Findings Of Fact On December 22, 1977, respondent manicured a patron at the Hallmark Beauty Salon, without having been licensed by or registered with petitioner. Jacob Rubin, an investigator employed by petitioner, observed respondent at the time and asked her to produce her license. She said she had left it at home and ostensibly went to get it, but did not return before Mr. Rubin left. Mr. Rubin became suspicious and caused a search of petitioner's records to be made. On February 22, 1978, Petitioner licensed respondent as a manicuring, pedicuring, and shampooing specialist.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Wiser, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Norma Bertha Ruiz de Hidalgo c/o Hallmark Beauty Salon 3800 South Ocean Drive Hollywood, Florida
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should receive credit for answers given to certain specified questions on the Cosmetology Examination administered in December 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation and the Board are responsible for developing and administering the cosmetology examination to candidates who seek licenses to practice cosmetology in Florida. Sections 455.217 and 477.022, Florida Statutes (2002). Ms. Ross sat for the cosmetology examination on December 12, 2002. She received a scaled score of 72 points, which is a failing score. Had Ms. Ross answered two more questions correctly on the examination, she would have achieved a passing scaled score of 75 points. The Candidate Information Booklet provided to candidates for the Cosmetology Examination administered in December 2002 included an explanation of the examination and a list of textbooks and other reference sources, among which were Milady's Standard Textbook of Cosmetology-2000 ("Milady's") and Salon Fundamentals: A Resource for Your Cosmetology Career ("Salon Fundamentals"). It was suggested in the booklet that the textbooks might be useful to the candidates and that the candidates might want to review them because the books include information that is "very appropriate for measuring minimum competency on the Cosmetology Licensure Examinations." According to the Board, the correct answer to question 55 is "A"; Ms. Ross chose answer "D." Question 55 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer, while not set forth word-for-word, can be derived from information contained in Milady's and Salon Fundamentals and is also consistent with the practice of the two experts testifying on behalf of the Board. Ms. Ross should not receive credit for her answer to question 55 because the answer she gave is not the correct answer. According to the Board, the correct answer to question 4 is "C"; Ms. Ross chose answer "D." Question 4 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer, while not set forth word-for-word, can be derived from information contained in Milady's and Salon Fundamentals. Ms. Ross's attempt to distinguish between "very curly hair" and "curly ethnic hair" for purposes of the answer to this question is not convincing; the technique that is described in the answer the Board deems correct would, according to the sources, apply to very curly hair, regardless of the ethnicity of the client. Ms. Ross should not receive credit for her answer to question 4 because the answer she gave is not the correct answer. According to the Board, the correct answer to question 45 is "C"; Ms. Ross chose answer "A." Question 45 is clear and unambiguous, and one correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer, while not set forth word-for-word, can be derived from information contained in Milady's and Salon Fundamentals. Ms. Ross's rationale for selecting answer "A" indicates that she was not focusing on the specific procedure identified in question 45. Ms. Ross should not receive credit for her answer to question 45 because the answer she gave is not the correct answer. According to the Board, the correct answer to question 21 is "C"; Ms. Ross chose answer "A." Question 21 is clear and unambiguous, and one correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer, while not set forth word-for-word, can be derived from information contained in Milady's and Salon Fundamentals. Ms. Ross's rationale for selecting answer "A" indicates that she was not focusing on the specific information elicited by question 21. The question requires the candidate to respond with the proper "sequence of steps" for the procedure, and the answer deemed correct by the Board includes the most logical sequence of steps, given the information contained in Milady's and Salon Fundamentals. Both of the Board's expert witnesses agreed that the answer deemed correct by the Board was, in fact, the correct answer to question 21. One of the Board's expert witnesses testified, however, that she would not shampoo and dry the hair of a black man as part of the sequence of steps for the procedure that is the subject of question 21. This testimony is not sufficient to render the question ambiguous or the selection of answers misleading: First, question 21 does not include reference to the ethnicity of the client, and, second, the answer that the Board deems correct is the only answer that, excluding the reference to shampooing and drying the hair, contains the proper sequence of steps for the specified procedure. Therefore, even if it were inappropriate to shampoo and dry the hair as one of the steps for the procedure that is the subject of question 21, Ms. Ross's answer to question 21 does not correctly identify the sequence of the other steps that should be followed in performing the procedure. Ms. Ross should not receive credit for her answer to question 21 because the answer she gave is not the correct answer.
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, issue a final order finding that Angelica Ross is not entitled to credit for her answers to questions 4, 21, 45, and 55 of the Cosmetology Examination administered in December 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 2003.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated January 29, 2004, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence and the testimony of witnesses presented, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts were established: Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the operation of establishments providing cosmetology services, including hair care and styling, to the public. Petitioner's regulatory authority derives from Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. Respondent has at all times material to this case been subject to Petitioner's jurisdiction by virtue of its license to operate Mayelin Unisex Beauty Salon (Respondent or Mayelin), a hair salon located in North Miami Beach, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was under a legal duty to refrain from permitting unlicensed individuals to perform cosmetology services, including hair care, upon members of the public. On or about April 26, 2003, Abdel Cedeno (Cedeno), a duly-qualified inspector employed by Petitioner and whose job includes monitoring compliance with Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, went to Mayelin's during its regular business hours for the purpose of conducting a routine inspection. On that occasion, Cedeno observed one Yomaira Payero (Payero) performing cosmetology services on a customer. More specifically, Payero was observed styling or arranging the customer's hair, utilizing a blow-dryer and other cosmetology implements. Payero was not licensed to perform such services within Florida. At all times material to this case, Payero was a paid employee of Respondent. Payero's activities, which Respondent authorized and facilitated, constituted a violation by Respondent of Section 477.0265(1)(d), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued assessing Respondent an administrative penalty in the amount of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Juana Blanco Mayelin Castillo Mayelin Unisex Beauty Salon 16551 Northeast 8th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1015 Julie Malone, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
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
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the respective Administrative Complaints filed in this case and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Tracey Renee Monroe, was licensed by the Florida Cosmetology Board, and Respondent, Martha Hylton, was licensed by the Florida Cosmetology Board. On or around December 10, 1988, customer, Mary Jean Hampton went to Cora's Beauty Salon in Miami, Florida, to have her hair done by her usual cosmetologist, Martha Hylton. Ms. Hampton had been a regular customer of Ms. Hylton for approximately two years. When Ms. Hampton arrived, Ms. Hylton examined Ms. Hampton's hair, and they both decided that it was time to apply a chemical relaxer to Ms. Hampton's hair. Without performing a test of the chemical's reaction to a strand of Ms. Hampton's hair (strand test), Ms. Hylton proceeded with the application using a chemical she had used previously on Ms. Hampton's hair. When the chemical was removed, a substantial portion of hair in the crown area of Ms. Hampton head broke, leaving her with the appearance of spot balding. Ms. Hampton also suffered from a pre-existing skin condition which Ms. Hylton protected with base. When the breakage was noted, Ms. Hylton conferred with other cosmetologists in the salon and with Ms. Hampton. Ms. Hampton then mentioned that she had recently used a shampoo and conditioner, Flex, which she had not previously used. A decision was made that Respondent, Tracey Renee Monroe, would apply a procedure, bonding, to Ms. Hylton's head. Bonding involves gluing hair to the scalp and weaving the glued hair in with the remaining hair. The damage to Ms. Hampton hair was caused by the chemical relaxer. The proof failed to demonstrate that the bonding procedure contributed to the hair loss. Although performing a strand test prior to any chemical application on the hair is the acceptable procedure, the proof demonstrated that the practice is not consistently followed when a practitioner is familiar with a client's hair as Ms. Hylton knew Ms. Hampton's hair. On balance, the proof fails to demonstrate that either Respondent, Tracey Renee Monroe or that, Respondent, Martha Hylton, committed fraud, deceit, gross negligence, incompetency or misconduct within the intent of the Florida Cosmetology Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, as to Respondent, Martha Hylton, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be dismissed.; and Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, as to Respondent, Tracey Renee Monroe, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th of August 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 25th day of August 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobi Pam, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 James W. Evans, Esquire Post Office Box 420187 Miami, Florida 33142 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Florida Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
