The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should be sanctioned for providing services as a cosmetologist without holding an appropriate license as required by Subsection 477.0265(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact Vega is a native of Puerto Rico and has been a hair stylist since 1984. She was employed at the Beauty Gallery and Spa Salon (the "Salon") as a shampoo girl and receptionist at all times relevant to this proceeding. English is a second language to Vega, and she does not speak, read, or write the language well. At the final hearing in this matter, Vega testified through an interpreter or translator, Carmen Rodriquez. DBPR is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, the licensure of cosmetologists and cosmetology establishments in Florida. Daniel Hogan, JD, LLM, is a regional program administrator for DBPR, a position he has held for three years. He received training from his employer in order to perform inspections of cosmetology businesses and barbershops as part of his duties. He is responsible for the Orlando office and supervises the inspections of cosmetology and barber establishments conducted by that office. The Orlando office conducts about 3,500 such inspections each year, of which Hogan has involvement in approximately 500. On or about March 29, 2005, Hogan conducted a routine annual inspection of the Salon. During the inspection, Hogan noted two individuals working at the Salon: Vega and a Mr. Torres. Torres was sitting at the front part of the Salon. Hogan identified himself to Vega and Torres as an inspector for DBPR. Neither Vega nor Torres could produce a cosmetology license for review by Hogan when asked. Hogan saw Vega at a workstation, actively engaged in cutting a customer's hair. His efforts to question Vega concerning this matter were thwarted by Vega's inability to converse in English. Vega did produce for Hogan a cosmetology license, which had been issued in Puerto Rico. She also produced a copy of a letter from DBPR wherein Vega's application for licensure had been denied. The purpose of showing those documents to Hogan was to show him that she was a legal resident. She had initially perceived him as an immigration officer. During the course of Hogan's inspection, Ms. Matos, owner of the Salon, appeared. She confirmed to Hogan that Vega had been employed at the Salon for about twelve months. Matos did not appear at the final hearing. There was no testimony by the owner as to Vega's employment position at the Salon. Upon completion of his inspection, Hogan issued an inspection report and a Citation against Vega for practicing without a license. He gave Vega a copy of the citation, which Vega signed in his presence. The citation states that Vega was practicing cosmetology without a license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation upholding the fine assessed in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 22nd day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Raquel Santiago Vega 523 Delido Way Kissimmee, Florida 34758 Drew F. Winters, Esquire Matt Yeager Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 477.02(6); 477.15(8); 477.27(1), Florida Statutes by allowing an unlicensed person to practice cosmetology in the Respondent's salon. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner-manager of the salon doing business as Hairworks, 600 East Business Hwy. 98, Panama City, Florida. Respondent appeared and admitted the fact of the two violations with which the Florida Board of Cosmetology had charged him and which were the subject of this hearing. Respondent admitted allowing Mary Whitfield to practice cosmetology in his salon with a valid cosmetology license. Said Mary Whitfield, has, as of the date of this hearing, a current Florida Cosmetology License No. 19649.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a cosmetology salon, permitted an unlicensed person to perform cosmetology services as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, dated April 24, 2007, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are found: At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed and regulated by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, as a cosmetology salon owned by Immacula Evans. Respondent is a licensed cosmetology salon, license number CE9966208, whose address of record with Petitioner is 11329 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33612. At all times material hereto, John R. Miranda was employed by the Petitioner as an Inspector. On or about March 8, 2006, Miranda conducted an inspection of Respondent's establishment located at 11329 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Miranda observed that an unidentified male was practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was personally issued to Respondent's owner. On or about March 17, 2006, Miranda conducted a re- inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of this inspection, Miranda observed that Pierre Elionze was practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was issued to Respondent. On or about March 24, 2006, Miranda conducted another inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of this inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet, Christine Marc, and Moveta S. Swalters were each practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was issued to Respondent. On or about June 7, 2006, Miranda conducted a further inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet was again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. On or about July 29, 2006, Miranda conducted another inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet yet again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. On or about August 11, 2006, Miranda conducted an inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet was again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. Respondent has engaged in the unlawful and repeated violations of Subsection 477.0265(1), Florida Statutes, between March 8 and August 11, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order revoking Respondent's cosmetology establishment license number CE 9966208, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 11th day of September, 2007.
The Issue The issues here concern an Administrative Complaint brought by Petitioner against Respondent alleging that Respondent is guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Subsection 477.028(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and has violated Subsection 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by allowing an employee to practice cosmetology without being duly licensed as provided by Chapter 477, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Toni M. Farmer, presently holds an active cosmetology license issued by Petitioner, License No. CL0062662, for the period July 19, 1982, through June 30, 1984. Between May 6, 1980, and July 6, 1981, Farmer worked as a cosmetologist in a salon operated by Shear Pleasure, Inc., in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. Shear Pleasure, Inc., is the holder of License No. CE0027634. Beginning July 13, 1981, to the present Farmer has worked as a cosmetologist in the salon, Josef and Charles, Inc., d/b/a Josef and Charles Styling Salon, License No. CE0022674, located in Orange Park, Florida. When Farmer began her employment with Shear Pleasure she had a current and valid cosmetology license issued by Petitioner, which license expired June 30, 1980. Around August 18, 1980, Farmer forwarded a cashier's check made payable to the Board of Cosmetology for purposes of renewing her delinquent cosmetology license. Subsequent to the action on the part of Farmer and in the course of a routine inspection, Jewel Walker, an inspector for Petitioner, noted the fact of expiration of Farmer's license. This took place in 1980. When told that Petitioner had not responded to the renewal request, Walker instructed Farmer to post the indicia of payment of fees, i.e., a copy of the cashier's check of August, 1980, at Farmer's work station in the interim and to check the post office for any return of that cashier's check, due to the fact that Farmer had changed her mailing address following the transmittal of the cashier's check. Farmer made other contacts with the Tallahassee, Florida, office of Petitioner to determine the status of her renewal in 1980. In the beginning of 1981, Farmer spoke with Walker about the renewal, having failed to receive any notification confirming license renewal. (In the course of these maters, Walker had indicated certain logistical problems that were taking place, reference license renewal for cosmetologists.) The owner of Shear Pleasure, Inc., Fontaine LeMaistre, was aware of the efforts on the cart of Farmer to obtain license renewal and allowed her to continue as an employee during her tenure. When Farmer took a position with Josef and Charles, her employer was made aware of the fact that she did not have the license document and the employer was made aware of the efforts which Farmer had made to obtain the license. On August 11, 1981, Farmer requested the Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville, which had issued the August 18, 1980, cashier's check to stop payment on that check, based upon the fact that the payee, Petitioner, had not cashed the check. This request was honored and on August 13, 1981, a cashier's check was issued to Toni M. Farmer in the like amount of thirty-five dollars ($35.00), which check was subsequently cashed by Farmer. On May 12, 1982, Charles Coats, an investigator with Petitioner, made an inspection of the Orange Park business of Josef and Charles and discovered that Farmer was without a license. At that time, a copy of the original thirty- five dollar ($35.00) check written to the Board of Cosmetology was shown to Coats. Farmer related the circumstances involving efforts which she had made to obtain the license. Following this conversation, and specifically in June, 1982, Farmer paid the necessary fees and offered required credentials which allowed her license to be renewed, effective July 19, 1982.
Recommendation Based upon a full consideration of the facts found, conclusions of law reached and being otherwise informed, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered authorizing the issuance of a letter of reprimand to the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 December, 1982.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 477.029(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2007),1/ regulating licensure as a cosmetologist by the State of Florida, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 477, Florida Statutes (2015). The Board is the professional licensing board charged with disciplinary final agency action against cosmetologists pursuant to chapters 455 and 477. Ms. Jorge was issued Florida cosmetology license number CL 1196463 on April 9, 2008. The Florida license was issued based upon the submission of an application for initial cosmetology license by endorsement. Supporting licensure by endorsement, the application submitted to the Board included a certification dated February 15, 2007, purporting to have been issued by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. That certification indicated that Tania Jorge2/ had completed 1200 hours of study and had been duly licensed as a certified cosmetologist since January 26, 1989. It indicated that her Puerto Rican license number was 71770. Ms. Jorge's application file also contained a transcript purportedly issued by the Academia de Belleza Maruggie in Puerto Rico indicating that her studies began on August 7, 1988, and were completed on May 30, 1989, reflecting the completion of 18 courses totaling 1200 hours of study, and the name, number, and grade received by Ms. Jorge for each course taken.3/ Puerto Rican cosmetology license number 71770 was never issued to Ms. Jorge. Ms. Jorge came to the United States from Cuba in 1980. She testified at hearing that she had never attended cosmetology school in Puerto Rico, had never lived there, and in fact had only visited there once for a few hours on a cruise. Ms. Jorge testified that she went to Specialized Beauty Center (SBC) in Kissimmee in order to prepare for and complete the Florida cosmetology licensure examination. She testified that she paid SBC for a week-long review course to prepare for the examination and that the following week SBC sent her to a different place to take the examination. She testified that she took the examination on a computer, in Spanish. She could not recall the address. Ms. Jorge testified that prior to the examination, she submitted documentation to SBC at its request showing that she had completed 1200 hours of study and completed a course on HIV. She testified that she thought she had completed all of the coursework necessary to obtain cosmetology licensure by examination. Ms. Jorge testified that she did not know that SBC had submitted an endorsement application and not an examination application. The only document introduced at hearing indicating completion of 1200 hours of study is the transcript from the Puerto Rican beauty school in Ms. Jorge's application file. The only document showing completion of an HIV course in her file is a Certificate of Completion for a four-hour course entitled "HIV/Aids 104" and dated March 17, 2008, indicating by heading and signature that it was issued by SBC. Ms. Jorge admitted that she did take that course at SBC. It was not clear why SBC would have required her to take another HIV course if she had submitted documentation showing that she had already met that requirement. Ms. Julie Roland, government analyst with the Department, credibly testified that the cosmetology exam is given at 22 locations around the state by a vendor company called Pearson VUE. She testified that Pearson VUE specializes in developing and administering various types of examinations, has had the state contract at least since 2002, and always gives the examinations at their facilities. There was no documentation in Ms. Jorge's application file from Pearson VUE indicating that Ms. Jorge had taken or passed their cosmetology examination. As Ms. Roland testified, endorsement candidates do not take the examination. Ms. Jorge's application file maintained by the Department contains some documents that do not belong there, although they are all marked with her application number. Her file contains duplicate "Attest Statement" pages: one is signed by Ms. Jorge; the other appears to contain the signature of a Katia (with no letter "h") Mathelier. It similarly contains two "Affirmation Statement" pages: one containing the signature of Ms. Jorge; the other containing a signature reading Katia Mathelier. Curiously, the Affirmation Statement page from the cosmetology license application file of Kathia (with an "h") Mathelier and the Mathelier Affirmation Statement page in Ms. Jorge's file are not identical. Not only is the first name spelled differently, the signatures appear to be in different handwriting, and they display different dates. Similarly, the two Mathelier Attest Statement forms are not simply duplicates. The name is spelled and written differently. It is not clear why the Department did not become aware of these anomalies at the time Ms. Jorge's application was submitted, when it did become aware of them, or what action, if any, was taken when it was discovered.4/ Licensing information records of the Department indicate that Kathia Mathelier is an Orlando cosmetologist who was initially licensed on April 9, 2008. Her application also contains a certificate from SBC showing completion of the HIV/AIDS 104 course. Her application also contains a certification dated February 15, 2007, purporting to have been issued by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico indicating that Kathia Mathelier was the holder of a Puerto Rican cosmetology license. Her application also contains a transcript purportedly issued by the Academia de Belleza Maruggie in Puerto Rico showing the completion of the same 18 courses totaling 1200 hours of study, the same beginning and ending dates of enrollment, exactly the same grade received in every course, and the same typographical errors as the transcript in Ms. Jorge's file. Ms. Jorge testified at hearing that she had no knowledge of Ms. Mathelier and that she did not submit any documents to SBC that were not her own. She testified that SBC prepared and organized all of the application paperwork for her and that she just signed where they told her she needed to sign. The remainder of the application was not in her handwriting. Ms. Jorge signed her application everywhere a signature was required prior to its submission to the Board, and she acknowledged that signing a document places liability on the signee for the contents of that document. There was no deposition or live testimony from Ms. Mathelier at the hearing. There was no testimony from SBC. There was none from the Academia de Belleza Maruggie. No evidence was introduced as to the roles that Academia de Belleza Maruggie or SBC may have played in the fraud, or the relationship between these entities. The inconsistencies and questions about the application are not fully explained on this record, and any complicity on the part of the schools is only a matter of speculation. Ms. Jorge's testimony is not at all credible, however. No evidence in the record supports Ms. Jorge's testimony that she completed 1200 hours of study at a school other than the Puerto Rican school. It is simply not reasonable that SBC discarded school transcripts she provided to it and unilaterally substituted a different forged transcript and a false licensure certification from Puerto Rico without the knowledge or cooperation of Ms. Jorge. The only reasonable inference is that Ms. Jorge paid SBC to submit her licensure application on her behalf, that she was aware that it contained false information, and that she knew she was not licensed as a cosmetologist in any jurisdiction. The evidence is clear and convincing that false documents were submitted to obtain Ms. Jorge's license and that she personally intended for that false application to be submitted. Ms. Jorge is a single mother of two children, one of whom is in college. Revocation of her license will greatly impact her livelihood. Other than the present action, she has practiced cosmetology without complaint since she was licensed in 2008, and no previous discipline has been imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation finding Tania Jorge in violation of section 477.029(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2007), as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; imposing an administrative fine of $500; and revoking her license to practice as a cosmetologist in the State of Florida. It is further recommended that should the board establish, by rule, requirements for reapplication by applicants whose licenses have been revoked, that Tania Jorge be permitted to apply for re-licensure upon satisfying then-current requirements for an initial license. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Rhonda Welker, is a licensed cosmetologist operating under License No. CL0116241. Her original license was issued on November 24, 1980, and expired on June 30, 1982. On November 9, 1982, Respondent was employed as a cosmetologist, and acting as such, by Coiffures by Kenneth, a beauty salon owned and operated by Respondent's father and mother, located at 887 Semoran Boulevard, Apopka, Florida. At that time, her license had expired and was denied renewal by the Board because she had failed to take 16 additional hours of continuing professional education subsequent to issuance of her license, but instead had only taken eight. As a result, she did not meet the Board requirements for renewal of her license, which became inactive at the date of expiration. When Valerie Flowers, an inspector for the Board of Cosmetology, performed her follow-up inspection of the salon where Respondent worked, on November 17, 1982, she observed Respondent styling a customer's hair. At this time, though Respondent had completed the required 16 hours of continuing professional education, her license had not yet been renewed. Respondent Rhonda Welker's current license was issued on January 30, 1983, and expires on June 30, 1984. Respondent failed to secure the required 16 hours of continuing professional education on the honest but mistaken belief that she only needed eight hours' worth. She felt that since her licensure was initially issued for less than two full years, she would only need the eight hours of continuing education for one year, which she had. Under the circumstances, Respondent, Rhonda Welker, was holding herself out as a cosmetologist when she did not have an active current Florida cosmetologist's license.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be ordered to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $50. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of September, 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 30th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Rhonda Welker 887 Semoran Boulevard Apopka, Florida 32703 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine against the Respondent by reason of statutory violations described in an Administrative Complaint which are alleged to have taken place in the course of the operations of the Respondent's cosmetology salon.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent has been licensed as a Cosmetologist, having been issued license number CL205771. The Respondent's last-known business address is 2600 Hammondville Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069, at which location he operates a Cosmetology Salon named Cut Creation. At all times material to this case, Cut Creation has been licensed as a Cosmetology Salon, having been issued license number CE53077. On February 5, 2004, the Respondent's business premises were inspected by Norma Fishner, an Investigative Specialist employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. During the course of her inspection on February 5, 2004, Norma Fishner observed Christopher Mason cutting a customer's hair on the premises of Cut Creation. On that date Christopher Mason was not licensed as a Cosmetologist in the State of Florida. On February 5, 2005, Norma Fishner also observed an unidentified male cutting a customer's hair on the premises of Cut Creation. This unidentified male ran out the front door before he could be questioned or identified by Norma Fishner. Norma Fishner questioned the Respondent about the unidentified male who ran out the door and asked the Respondent to provide identifying information about that person. The Respondent refused to provide any information about that person. It was clear that the Respondent knew the identity of the unidentified male who ran out the door and that the Respondent knew that the unidentified male did not have a Cosmetologist license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing an administrative fine in the total amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 27th day of July, 2005.
