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. /
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
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, suspended or withdrawn for violating the statutes and rules pertaining to cosmetologists by operating a salon at her home without a Florida salon license.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent filed an election of remedies and plead "the facts as alleged are true but do not constitute a violation of law." The Respondent had established a beauty salon in her home prior to March 8, 1974 but was unable to receive a zoning variance to allow her to operate the salon. She was cited by Petitioner for operating a salon without a license which citation is the subject of this hearing. The Respondent is no longer operating a salon in her home and is now a duly licensed cosmetologist practicing in a licensed cosmetology salon. She has been so employed since 1974 and has complied with the laws, rules and regulations since that date.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to Respondent for failure to abide by the statute and rules governing cosmetologists. 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 Ursula Weber 9256 Martinique Drive Miami, Florida 33157
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's licenses as a cosmetologist and cosmetology salon owner in the State of Florida, should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for the alleged violations of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
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 CL 141038. From April 13, 1987 until October 31, 1990, Respondent also held a license as a cosmetology salon owner, license number CE 0044081. The salon license expired on October 31, 1990 and was not renewed for the 1990-1992 period because the check submitted for payment of the renewal fee was dishonored by the bank for insufficient funds. This case is related to a separate administrative proceeding brought against Veronica Bonani, DPR Case Number 90-4671. In that case, Ms. Bonani was found by the Florida Board of Cosmetology to have been employed by the Respondent as a cosmetologist without a Florida license from January 3, 1990 to March, 1990. After conceding the allegations in that case, Ms. Bonani was fined one hundred dollars ($100). Petitioner has suggested that the complaint against Veronica Bonani was initiated by Respondent, apparently in retribution for Ms. Bonani's terminating her employment with Respondent to take another job. At the hearing in this cause, the Respondent denied that she reported Ms. Bonani to the Department. While this dispute has little bearing on the main issues in this proceeding, the more persuasive evidence was that Respondent reported Ms. Bonani to Petitioner after Ms. Bonani left her employment. The evidence established that the Respondent employed Veronica Bonani as a cosmetologist without a Florida license from January 3, 1990 to March, 1990. Veronica Bonani began seeking licensure by endorsement in Florida sometime in the Fall of 1989. Because of some problems in obtaining the necessary documentation, she experienced delays in obtaining a license. Her formal application for licensure in Florida is dated February 6, 1990 and was filed with Petitioner on February 15, 1990. Veronica Bonani did not receive authorization to practice as a cosmetologist in Florida until April 13, 1990. However, as indicated above, Ms. Bonani began working for Respondent in early January, 1990. Prior to beginning work for Respondent, Ms. Bonani advised Respondent that she was in the process of obtaining a Florida license, but was not yet licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Respondent encouraged her to begin work anyway. When an inspector employed by Petitioner entered the Respondent's salon on February 22, 1990, the Respondent instructed Ms. Bonani to hide. However, Ms. Bonani openly revealed her status to the inspector. The inspector indicated during his February 22, 1990 visit that there was no problem with Ms. Bonani's employment since her application was pending and approval seemed imminent. This conclusion was erroneous. Respondent contends that she believed Ms. Bonani was entitled to begin work in Florida since she was in the process of obtaining licensure. However, there was no justifiable basis for Respondent to believe it was legal to employ Ms. Bonani in January, 1990. Indeed, the evidence and circumstances in this case indicate that Respondent was well aware that Ms. Bonani should not have been practicing prior to issuance of her Florida license.
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 477.0265(1)(b)(2), 477.0265(1)(d), 477.029(1)(c) and 477.029(1)(h), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine of three hundred dollars ($300) and allowing the Respondent to pay this amount in three (3) payments. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of March, 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 18th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Only Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact. The following constitutes my rulings on those proposals. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 1. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 2. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4, 5, 6 and 7. Copies furnished: Renee Alsobrook, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Steven Lulich P.O. Box 1390 Sebastian, Florida 32978 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Cosmetology Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1968, the Respondent, Elke H. M. Richey, was issued cosmetology license number CL 0060439 by the Florida Board of Cosmetology. The Respondent renewed this license as required until June 30, 1982. However, during the period from July 1, 1982, through January 10, 1983, the Respondent did not hold an active license to practice cosmetology. On November 18, 1982, Agostino Lucente, an inspector employed by the Department of Professional Regulation, went to the premises of a business named Hair Fashions by Elke, located at 1790 State Road 13, Switzerland, Florida to conduct an inspection. This business was selected for inspection because it appeared on a list of cosmetology salons whose licenses were not current. The Respondent was present during this inspection, and she admitted that she was the owner of the salon. Although the Respondent was not actually observed performing any cosmetology services, the inspector observed the Respondent make appointments for such services by telephone and with persons who came in. In addition, there was on the premises equipment used in the practice of cosmetology such as hair dryers and shampoo stations, hair rollers, creams and lotions. There was an exterior sign advertising Hair Fashions by Elke, there were business cards available for distribution inside the premises, the salon was open for business and there was displayed an occupational license with the Respondent's name on it. This evidence supports a finding that the Respondent was engaged in the practice of cosmetology. On November 24, 1980, the Florida Board of Cosmetology issued to the Respondent license number CE 0030890 for a cosmetology salon named Hair Fashions by Elke, located at 1790 State Road 13, Switzerland, Florida. This license expired on June 30, 1982, and it was not in effect when the Respondent's salon was inspected on November 18, 1982. After the inspection of November 18, 1982, the Respondent attempted to renew her cosmetology license number CL 0060439 and her cosmetology salon license number CE 0030890. On January 11, 1983, the Board of Cosmetology issued a renewal of the Respondent's cosmetology license number CL 0060439, but it did not issue to the Respondent a renewal of her cosmetology salon license number CE 0030890, and the Respondent eventually sold Hair Fashions by Elke in August of 1983.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Elke H. M. Richey, be found guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and that license number CL 0060439 be suspended for one year as penalty for count one, and that the Board of Cosmetology issue a reprimand to the Respondent, Elke H. M. Richey, as penalty for count two. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 9th day of December, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Elke H. M. Richey 1790 State Road 13 Switzerland, Florida 32043 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation - Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent pleaded nolo contendere on the election of remedies furnished by the Petitioner; however, Respondent Dannie Richardson appeared in proper person at this hearing. As the result of a normal inspection trip by the State Board of Cosmetology's beauty salon inspector Ardie Smiley Collins found the Respondent Mrs. Richardson draping a patron for service in a non licensed beauty salon. The beauty salon did not have a proper sign as required by the rules and regulations of the State Board of Cosmetology. Subsequent to the inspection noted in Findings of Fact Number 2, Respondent Richardson secured and now holds a personal license number 0051868 and also holds a salon license number 21957. The administrative complaint filed by the Board notified the Respondent that the Board seeks to revoke, annul, suspend or withdraw the personal and salon license of Dannie Richardson. However, at the hearing a representative of the Board suggested that inasmuch as the offense of Respondent was a first offense, that in the opinion of the inspector a letter of reprimand would be sufficient to satisfy the objectives of the statutes, rules and regulations of the Board.
Recommendation Dismiss the present complaint and warn Respondent that a violation of the state laws and regulations governing cosmetologists could jeopardize her personal and salon license. 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 Dannie Richardson 319 S. Childs Street Leesburg, Florida
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.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Katherine Zavattaro was licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CL 0076721. At all times material hereto, Katherine Zavattaro was licensed to operate a cosmetology salon named Kit's Beauty Spot and located at 3169 East Atlantic Boulevard, Pompano Beach, Florida. On January 25, 1968, Linda Jones was issued Florida cosmetologist license number CL 0060025. This license was subject to a biennial renewal condition that required it to be renewed by June 30 of each even-numbered year. (See Rule 21F-18.06, F.A.C. quoted in pertinent part below). On January 26, 1984, an inspector employed by Petitioner, observed Jones performing cosmetology services during a routine cosmetology salon inspection of Kit's Beauty Spot. Jones was unable to produce a current, active Florida cosmetologist license upon demand by the inspector. The license posted at Jones' work station had expired on June 30, 1982. Jones told the inspector that she had mistakenly left her current license at home. However, a check of Petitioner's licensing records indicated that Jones had never renewed the license which expired on June 30, 1982. A further check of Petitioner's files subsequent to the hearing revealed no correspondence or other evidence which would support Jones' claim. Jones testified under oath at hearing that in May, 1982, she applied to renew her Florida cosmetologist license. She further testified that around August, 1982, when she had not yet received her renewed license, she made a telephone call to Tallahassee, and was informed that her renewal application had not been received. She testified that in October or November, 1982, she reapplied to renew her cosmetologist license and that near the end of December, 1982, she received her renewed license. Respondent Jones was unable to produce any documentary evidence to corroborate this testimony. She stated that she apparently lost the license as well as the money order receipt which would have supported her claim that she tendered the license renewal fee. Petitioner and Respondent Jones were given a further opportunity to search for evidence of license renewal or attempted renewal. However, no late-filed exhibits were submitted which would support Jones' testimony. At all times material hereto, Katherine Zavattaro was the owner of Kit's Beauty Spot. In June, 1982, she hired Linda Jones to work there as a cosmetologist while Jones' license was still active. She did not require Jones to produce a current Florida cosmetologist license thereafter, and apparently relied on Jones' claim of renewal and her own knowledge that Jones had previously been employed at other cosmetology salons. Jones continued to work for Zavattaro as a cosmetologist at Kit's Beauty Spot, and was so employed at the time of Petitioner's inspection on January 26, 1984. The conflicting evidence regarding Jones' licensure status is resolved against her. Respondent Jones' inability to produce any evidence to support her testimony that she had paid for and/or been issued a license, along, with the absence in Petitioner's public records of any evidence that such license had been applied for, paid for or issued, establish that Jones' testimony is a product of mistake or fabrication.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order fining Respondent Linda Jones $500, and issuing a reprimand to Respondent Katherine Zavattaro, DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 13th day of September, 1984.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, Women's Exchange, Inc., possessed a valid Florida license to operate a cosmetology salon at 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue, Miami, Florida, under License No. CE 0032221, which license was issued on September 16, 1982, and expires on October 31, 1984. On January 20, 1983, Steven M. Granowitz, an investigator for Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, entered Respondent's salon for a routine inspection. When he entered the salon, which was located in what appeared to be a home, he noticed it was quite busy. Customers were being waited on at all operator positions, and others were waiting their turn. Upon entering the salon, Mr. Granowitz tried to find the manager to identify himself and present his credentials, but no manager was present, so he talked to the receptionist, showing her his credentials and advising her he was going to do an inspection. At first, he looked at the salon license and went to examine the four operators and their licenses. These licenses are required to be displayed prominently in the shop. None of the four operator stations were displaying licenses. Two operators indicated they had licenses, but did not have them present. Mr. Granowitz made a phone call to his board and verified that these two individuals, Yvonne Eberhart and Clara Ann Edden, were in fact licensed. The two other individuals who he observed to be at operator stations with customers in the chairs, to whom they were applying curly perms, Jacqueline Dulippe and Jeanette Toussaint, were not licensed either by the Board of Cosmetology or Barbers' Board. He, admittedly, did not watch these two unlicensed operators during the entire period he was there. Consequently, it may well be that other licensed operators also worked on the same customers. There is no doubt in his mind, however, that what he observed these two do were cosmetology operations. Licenses are required to perform the work being performed by these two individuals, though not all functions in a cosmetology salon require a license. When Mr. Granowitz discussed this situation shortly thereafter that day with Antonia Gary, one of the officers of Respondent corporation, in the salon, she indicated she was not the manager of the salon, that none of the corporate officers were involved in the day-to-day operation of the salon, and that she did not know these two individuals were not licensed. However, there was no claim that either had misrepresented their license status. Joyce Ann Hanks-Knox, President of Women's Exchange, Inc., the corporation which owns the corporation which now owns Fingertips, the salon in question, admits that the license is in the name of Women's Exchange, Inc. There is no question, however, that Women's Exchange, Inc., holds the license in question for Fingertips and that the current Fingertips salon is that which is described in the license. She is not a licensed cosmetologist, and while she spends as much as 20 hours per week in the business of Women's Exchange, Inc., these duties do not include active management of the salon. She further relates, however, that it has never been the policy of either the parent corporation or the management of Fingertips to permit unlicensed operators to work, unsupervised, on customers. She admits that both women in question worked at Fingertips and, in fact, one was hired by her. Their duties were to be trained as operators and to perform other small tasks within the salon, such as moving patrons from one area to another, cleaning the salon, and insuring that supplies were at the work stations as needed. They were also allowed to wash hair, but, in this apprentice program, nonlicensed personnel were not to give permanents or do anything else that could be considered cosmetology. All of the licensed operators knew what the apprentice program consisted of, its limitations, and that these two individuals were not licensed. As such, they should have stopped them from performing unauthorized tasks. Neither individual was hired as a cosmetologist, nor was she paid as a cosmetologist. Since neither Ms. Knox nor Ms. Gary actively supervise the operation of the salon, since Mr. Granowitz could find no one there during his visit who admitted to being in charge, and since there was no evidence presented that there was any manager assigned to the salon, it is obvious that the salon was left, for the most part, to run itself without effective management supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent corporation be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $250 for each count proven -- a total of $500. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 15th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Mr. Fred Roche Department of Professional Secretary Regulation Department of Professional 130 North Monroe Street Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32301 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joyce Hanks-Knox, Esquire President Women's Exchange, Inc. 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue Miami, Florida 33142 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
