The Issue The issue for disposition is whether William Engelleiter practiced cosmetology without a license, and if so, what action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Nita Spagnole is an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) in the Orlando, Florida office. On March 22, 1988, she visited the Apollo Hair Designs Salon in Melbourne, Florida, to gather affidavits for another case. William Engelleiter was in the salon and was pointed out to her as a cosmetologist. He was in the area, talking to a customer, watching TV and visiting with the other workers. She did not observe him working on hair or otherwise practicing cosmeto1ogy. Ms. Spagnole later pulled his name on the agency computer and learned that he did not have a license. William Engelleiter attended cosmetology school but did not pass the board examination. He is diabetic and frequently ill. He met the Blough's, the owners of Apollo Hair Design at a flea market. They were giving away free samples and said they needed a receptionist. Engelleiter was hired to work as a receptionist until he was able to pass the examination. He started work at Apollo on January 25, 1988, and was still employed as a receptionist in March, 1988. He left shortly later due to illness. From time to time at the salon, William Engelleiter did his mother's hair and worked on the owner's daughter and other cosmetologists, but he claims that he never received compensation for those services. His mother confirmed this. David Simon, a friend of Engelleiter's, went to the salon to buy a hairpiece. He wanted Engelleiter to get the commission but was told that he could not, because he was not a cosmetologist.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint dated May 20, 1988 be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 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 9th day of December, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald L. Jones, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William R. Engelleiter 1964 McKinley Avenue Post Office Box 24A Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent practice cosmetology without being licensed and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: The Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology in Florida. On December 8, 1987, Leonard Baldwin, inspector for Petitioner, inspected a cosmetology salon known as "The Hairstylist" which is located at 8672 Griffin Road, Cooper City, Florida. During inspector Baldwin's routine inspection at that time, Respondent was working at the Hairstylist as a cosmetologist. Respondent had been so employed for approximately two weeks. Respondent was not licensed as a cosmetologist at the time of inspector Baldwin's inspection on December 8, 1987, nor was she licensed at the time of Petitioner's official records search on March 18, 1988. Respondent did not appear at the hearing to contest or otherwise refute the charges that she had engaged in the practice of cosmetology without a license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) payable to Petitioner within 30 days of issuance of its Final Order. Respondent be issued a letter of reprimand by Petitioner with guidance instructions. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of September, 1988, 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 29th day of September, 1988.
The Issue The central issue in this cause is whether or not Respondent is guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(b), Florida Statutes which prohibits the operation of a cosmetology salon without a current license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Respondent, Before & After, Inc. d/b/a Design of Miami, is not licensed as a cosmetology salon. Respondent does business at 8200 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. Bernard R. Gaeta is the secretary/treasurer of the Respondent corporation and was present at the business location on or about January 9, 1986. On or about January 9, 1986, Providence Padrick went to the business location (8200 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida) in response to an advertisement for cosmetology services. The purpose of the visit was to inspect the premises regarding the services claimed by the ad. An individual known as Jerry Schrank shared space with Respondent and had been responsible for the ad in question. When Ms. Padrick made the inspection she was attended by Mr. Gaeta who showed her the area used by Mr. Schrank. Additionally, Mr. Gaeta furnished Ms. Padrick with a brochure which outlined the services offered by Respondent. During her inspection of the Respondent's premises Ms. Padrick observed three or four shampoo bowls of the type normally used in cosmetology salons. As a result of her inspection of Respondent's business premises, Ms. Padrick interviewed Carmen Cannizzo to determine what services were being performed by Respondent's employees. Ms. Cannizzo is a licensed cosmetologist employed on a salaried basis by the Respondent. According to Ms. Cannizzo, Respondent sells hairpieces or wigs which are fitted and then attached to the customers' heads. Respondent uses two methods of wig or hairpiece attachment: weaving and taping. The weaving method requires the weaving of an anchor thread through the customer's natural hair which then holds the hairpiece in place once it is similarly secured to the woven thread. Regardless of the method of attachment, the customer's hair must be styled to blend in with the hairpiece. Customer preference and the amount of natural hair available determine which attachment method is used. While it is not part of the fee charged by Respondent, Ms. Cannizzo will also trim a customer's hair or shampoo it upon request. Ms. Cannizzo has been directed not to perform these services but does so to augment the tips she receives. Prior to the inspection of Respondent's business premises Ms. Padrick identified herself and her occupation to Mr. Gaeta. Ms. Padrick inspected the public areas of Respondent's business and, by invitation, an office area used by Mr. Gaeta.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order finding Respondent in violation of Section 477.029(1)(b), Florida Statutes and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 11th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3689 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 1 is accepted in finding of fact paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 is rejected. Whether Respondent has been licensed as a salon in the past is unclear. That Respondent operates as a cosmetology salon is a question of law addressed in the conclusions. Paragraph 3 is accepted. It should be noted, however, that all services described in the brochure may not be offered at the Respondent's business. Only those services found to be performed by Respondent are included in the findings of fact. Paragraph 4 is accepted. See paragraph 3 above. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Respondent does not dispute that it shampoos hairpieces for its customers. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 are accepted. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: None submitted COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0760 Frank E. Freeman 2930 North East Second Court Miami, Florida 33137 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0760 William O'Neil General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent engaged in the practice of cosmetology without a license, a legally prohibited act which, if performed, would warrant the imposition of sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Reyna I. Guzman ("Guzman") is an individual who, at all relevant times, was employed as a cashier or administrative assistant at Koko Cuts Hair and Color Salon ("Koko Cuts") in Miami, Florida. Although Koko Cuts is a Florida-licensed salon, Guzman herself is not licensed in Florida as a cosmetologist. On February 2, 2006, two investigators of Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation ("Department") entered Koko Cuts to perform an inspection. They observed Guzman "working on" a woman's hair. The woman was sitting in a stylist's chair and appeared to be a regular customer. In fact, however, the "customer" was Guzman's sister. Guzman's boss had granted Guzman permission to color her sister's hair, using the chemicals and supplies on hand at the salon. Guzman was performing this service for her sister for free. Guzman testified credibly, and the undersigned finds, that Guzman was not paid any money for coloring her sister's hair. There was, moreover, neither clear and convincing, nor even merely persuasive, evidence that Guzman received any other service or thing of value in consideration for the work that she performed on her sister's hair. Based on the instant record, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Guzman received no "compensation"— —as that term is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G5-18.00015——in exchange for performing the service of coloring her sister's hair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order acquitting Guzman of the charges that the Department brought against her in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2006 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Reyna I. Guzman 2257 Southwest 3 Street Miami, Florida 33135 Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0790 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street 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
