Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed cosmetologist in the state of Florida, holding license number CL-0167327. She makes her home at 882 Anita Avenue, Pensacola, Florida, along with her husband and children. Respondent works at a relative's beauty salon in another location. Respondent has been interested in hair weaving or braiding for several years. Hair weaving or braiding is done by hand, by intertwining strands of hair. No tools are used other than a needlelike instrument used for lifting up strands of hair and sewing in synthetic or human hair. An individual's hair is not treated with any type of chemical, nor is it cut or shampooed. Such manipulation of the hair is somewhat difficult and requires practice in order to weave hair well. On or about October 20, 1987, Lutrel M. Raboteaux, an investigator for the Board of Cosmetology, contacted Respondent regarding a complaint they had received about her from Denise Bryant. 1/ Mr. Raboteaux's investigation centered on whether Respondent was maintaining a cosmetology salon in her home. The only items Mr. Raboteaux found at Ms. Freeman's home were a broken chair type hair dryer and a couple of well used bottles of hair supplies for black hair. Ms. Freeman had been given the broken hair dryer. She had never used the dryer since it was not in working order. The bottles were for personal use and were only used by Ms. Freeman and her family. About two years ago, Respondent met Marie Smith. They became good friends. Through their friendship, Ms. Smith discovered that Ms. Freeman knew how to do hair weaving. Ms. Smith was interested in having her hair woven, and asked Respondent to weave her hair. Ms. Smith, in return for Respondent's weaving her hair, tutored one of Respondent's children. The hair weaving and tutoring took place at Ms. Freeman's home and consisted mostly of tightening the weave as Ms. Smith's hair grew. Ms. Smith viewed the hair weaving arrangement as more of a quid pro quo for tutoring Respondent's child. Respondent viewed the hair weaving arrangement on more of a friendship basis as a favor for a favor. Other than this one arrangement, Ms. Freeman would practice hair weaving on her family and some of her friends. They would ask her to weave their hair. As was the case with Ms. Smith, they would ask her to weave their hair and she would perform that task for them. Again as with Ms. Smith, Respondent would weave the hair of her friends at her home. She did not charge for her services. Any hair weaving that took place in Ms. Freeman's home was for free. She never received any money from the individuals she practiced on at her home. The only time she may have received anything was the tutoring swap described earlier involving Ms. Smith. Likewise, Ms. Freeman supplied no chemicals or other supplies necessary for her friends to get their hair woven. Her friends supplied those items at their own expense. Ms. Freeman's sole reason for weaving her friends' hair was to practice the art of hair weaving which she wished to specialize in. It is clear that Ms. Freeman never intended to operate a hair weaving business in her home and did not consider her home in anyway to be a beauty salon. Her home is not open to the public. Her home did not contain any equipment or chemicals used in a beauty salon. No evidence was presented that she keeps regular hours or appointments at her home. On the contrary, she in fact works at another beauty salon in Pensacola. Additionally, Ms. Freeman asked one of her teachers at a cosmetology school in Pensacola if it was all right for her to practice hair weaving at her home for free. She was informed that it was not against Florida Law and was otherwise completely unaware that there may be a problem with not having her home licensed as a salon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED: That the complaint against Ms. Freeman be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 12th day of April, 1988.
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
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Angela Maria Wynter, has not, at any time material hereto, been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. On January 25, 1992, during a routine inspection of Geta's Beauty Phase II, 19905 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida, respondent was observed "combing out" the dry hair of a woman seated in a beauty chair. When asked for her cosmetology license, respondent replied that she did not have one because she was only the shampoo girl. When informed that the services she was performing were beyond those of shampooing, which the inspector advised were limited to washing the hair and drying it with a towel, respondent ceased her activities and the customer moved to another chair where she was attended by a licensed person. 1/ Regarding respondent's employment at the salon, the proof demonstrates that she was employed to work Saturdays, at a rate of $30.00 a day, to shampoo customers' hair, and had been so employed for approximately three weeks before the subject inspection. In addition to shampooing hair, respondent's employment also included "combing out" customers' hair after it had been dried. Respondent was not, however, shown to have engaged in hair arranging or styling, as those terms are commonly used, nor was she shown to have engaged in hair cutting or other activities that might be perceived as the practice of cosmetology as defined by Section 477.013(4), Florida Statutes, discussed infra, or to have held herself out to the public as being available to perform such activities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of April 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 14th day of April 1993.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against the licenses of A Dazzles Hair Designers and Noris Quintana (Respondents) based upon violations of Sections 477.029(1)(a) and (h), and 477.0265(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondents in this case.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Nicholas Montano has been the owner and operator of a cosmetology salon named A Dazzles Hair Designers located at 7317 Miami Lakes Drive, Miami Lakes, Florida, which has been issued license number CE-0041059. Noris Quintana has been employed, at all times material hereto, at A Dazzles Hair Designers. She is not licensed as a cosmetologist in the State of Florida, but has been issued specialty license number FV-0510891 under the provisions of Section 477.013(6)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, which authorizes the holder thereof to perform manicures and pedicures, but not facial services as described in Section 477.013(6)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondents do not dispute this limitation on Quintana's specialty license. The Department is the state agency with responsibility to file and prosecute administrative complaints alleging violations of Chapters 455 and 477, Florida Statutes, in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. There is no evidence in the record of any prior license disciplinary action involving Respondents. On or about September 22, 1989, the Department's investigator, Richard J. Braun, conducted an inspection of A Dazzles Hair Designers and observed Noris Quintana, an employee at A Dazzles Hair Designers, remove wax or some other facial compound from a customer's face. Nicholas Montano and Noris Quintana admitted that Quintana did remove wax from the customer's face on the day when Braun conducted his inspection. Therefore, it is clear that Quintana was performing facial services for this client. Subsequent to the facts involved in this case, all facial chairs have been removed from A Dazzles Hair Designers, and wax facials are no longer performed at this salon. On or about July 28, 1990, an inspection of the salon was conducted by another inspector of the Department, and at that time it was found that all cosmetologists and specialists were properly and currently licensed for the activities in which they were engaged.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine of $200 on the Respondent A Dazzles Hair Designers, and an administrative fine of $125 on Noris Quintana. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of February 1991 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Mone', Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Nicholas Montano A Dazzles Hair Designers 7317 Miami Lakes Drive Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Noris Quintana 7060 West 2nd Lane Hialeah, FL 33014-5314 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a Florida-licensed cosmetology salon, holding license CE-84418, located at 2702-B Silver Star Road, Orlando, Florida 32818. On April 11, 2008, Evelyn Williams, an inspector employed by the Petitioner, conducted a routine inspection of the Respondent. During the inspection, Ms. Williams observed three individuals, identified as O'Brian Breedlove, Charley James Hawks, and Shawn Johnson, using clippers to cut the hair of salon customers. Mr. Breedlove is a Florida-licensed hair braider, holding license number HB4110. Mr. Hawks is a Florida-licensed hair braider, holding license number HB4217. Mr. Johnson is a Florida-licensed hair braider, holding license number HB3935. A licensed hair braider is essentially authorized only to weave or interweave human hair and is not allowed to perform hair-cutting. Mr. Breedlove, Mr. Hawks, and Mr. Johnson were operating outside the scope of their licenses when Ms. Williams observed each man using clippers to cut the hair of the salon's customers. Ms. Williams additionally observed that photographs of Mr. Hawks and Mr. Johnson were not displayed with their licenses. During the inspection, Ms. Williams observed that the hair-cutting tools in use at the salon were not being properly disinfected or stored. Sterilizers contained excessive amounts of accumulated hair. Some combs, brushes, and clippers were kept in a drawer that contained used neck strips and other paper products, as well as personal items including cash. Some hair- cutting tools were left on top of workstation counters rather than contained within closed storage drawers. There was excessive accumulated hair on the floor and baseboards, as well as around the workstations. The Respondent's most recent health inspection report was not conspicuously displayed near the front entrance of the salon. The lavatory at the salon was not in good repair. A sink was leaking, and a bucket had been placed underneath the sink to catch leaking water. There were no sanitary towels present, and no mechanical hand dryer was provided. Ms. Williams noted the strong smell of urine in the lavatory and observed that the ventilation appeared to be inadequate. The owner of the Respondent was not present at the time of the inspection. Ms. Williams prepared a report of her inspection and presented a copy of the report to Mr. Breedlove.
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, enter a final order, stating that the Respondent violated the statutes and rules referenced herein; imposing a $3,000 administrative fine; and revoking the Respondent's cosmetology licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 17th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: LeChea C. Parson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kwesi Korreh, Esquire Post Office Box 2487 Orlando, Florida 32802 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Division of Professions Board of Cosmetology Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether or not Respondent practiced barbering without a current active license in violation of Sections 476.204(1)(a) and (h), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of barbering pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes and Chapter 476, Florida Statutes. Ricardo Blanco, Respondent herein, during times material hereto, was not licensed to practice barbering in Florida. On September 30, 1988, Steve Yovine, an inspector employed by Petitioner, Board of Barbers, made a routine inspection of Vic's Barber Shop located at 9010 Hickory Circle in Tampa, Florida. At that time, Respondent was practicing barbering and had been so doing since approximately September 29, 1988. 1/ Since Inspector Yovine's inspection of Vic's Barber Shop on September 30, 1988, Respondent has not practiced barbering 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 $100 which shall be payable within 30 days of entry of the Final Order entered herein. 2/ DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Hair and Company currently holds License No. CE 0024217 and is a business at 1930 Hallandale Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida Respondent Ettie Studnik is the wife of the owner of Hair and Company and the bookkeeper and manager of the salon. Three (3) employees of the Respondent salon, Elena Sirak, Jethsabel Morales and Arelis Penton, were not licensed cosmetologists during the period of time pertinent to this hearing between November, 1979 and February 20, 1980. On November 27, 1979 an investigator employed by Petitioner Department, Providence J. Padrick, issued a notice of violation to Respondent Studnik for permitting an unlicensed person, Elena Sirak, to shampoo the heed of a paying customer. Sirak was also given a notice of violation. (Transcript, pages 10 through 12). Thereafter, upon a second inspection of the salon on February 20, 1980, Padrick found the same employee again giving a paying customer a shampoo. Two (2) other unlicensed persons employed by Respondent salon were also performing shampoos for paying customers. Padrick issued notices of violation to Morales and Penton, but Sirak left the salon before she could issue a second notice of violation to her. A second notice of violation was issued to Respondent Ettie Studnik as owner of the salon. The three (3) unlicensed employees of the Respondent salon were students at local beauty schools and were employed by Respondent Studnik for cleaning the salon. They were permitted to shampoo customers at times when there were numerous customers waiting in the salon to he served. (Transcript, pages 11, 12. 27, 29. 32 and 33) At the time of the first inspection in November, 1979 Padrick discussed the violation with Respondent Studnik, who represented herself as the owner of Hair and Company, and told her that unlicensed persons were not allowed to shampoo the paying customers. During the hearing the owner of Hair and Company, Neal Studnik, stated that Respondent Ettie Studnik is his wife and operates the salon in his absence. Respondent Studnik acted in behalf of the owner, under his supervision and with his consent at the time pertinent to the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that a final order be entered censuring the owner of the Respondent Hair and Company and assessing a civil penalty not to exceed $500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND 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 24th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael H. Weisser, Esquire Skylake State Bank Building 1550 NE Miami Gardens Drive North Miami Beach, Florida 33179 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be given credit for all or any of her answers to the questions challenged from the November 20, 1996, Cosmetology Written Clinical Examination.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Cosmetology was the state agency responsible for the examination and licensing of cosmetologists and the regulation of the profession of cosmetology in this state. Petitioner is a graduate of cosmetology school who took the written clinical portion of the cosmetology licensing examination administered on November 20, 1996. By Examination Grade Report issued in December 1996, Ms. Lang was advised she had earned a score of 69 on the examination. Since the passing score for the cosmetology exam is 75, Petitioner failed the examination. Thereafter, Petitioner requested a formal hearing at which she contested the score that she received on questions 15, 20, 24, 28, 30, 34, 35, 39, 56, 66, 69, 71, 72, 91, and 95. Question 15 deals with the appropriate time for tweezing the eyebrows of a client who comes in for an arch and brow tint. Though the Petitioner answered with “B,” (after softener), the correct answer to this question is “A,” (after tinting). Authority for this answer is found on page 413 of Regents/Prentis Hall Textbook of Cosmetology, Third Edition. This authority indicates that tweezing takes place after application of softener in a regular eyebrow arch. The question in issue relates to tinting. Since the client may be allergic to tint, the operator should tint before tweezing and opening the pores thereby. The Petitioner’s authority treats arching (tweezing) and tinting separately. Respondent’s authority suggests arching a week before or a week after the tint. In any case, it is clear that the procedures should not be done at the same sitting. The question posed on the examination implies they are. Petitioner’s answer to the question asked, however, is contradictory to the premise that the tinting should be done before the arching, and, therefore, the correct answer is “A.” Question 20 relates to the use of a proper color to lighten natural blonde hair which has darkened over the years. The correct answer to this question is “B,” (at the end of the treatment). However, Petitioner’s answer was “D,” (immediately after applying color to the scalp area). The authority for the Board’s answer is found in Milady’s Van Dean Manual at procedures 6 through 8, found on page 198. However, a careful review of that authority reflects it to read: Process the tint according to the strand test results. Apply the tint mixture to the hair near the scalp, being careful to avoid contact with the scalp. Apply the tint to the hair ends. A reasonable interpretation of this listing could result in the conclusion being drawn that it is appropriate for color to be applied to ends immediately after it is applied “to the hair near the scalp.” Under the circumstances here, the Board’s authority can reasonably be interpreted to support the Petitioner’s answer. Question 24 seeks the proper volume of peroxide to be used in the color formula in the circumstances cited. The Board’s correct answer to this question is “A” (10), whereas Petitioner listed “B” (20). The Board cites as its authority for its position that portion of the Regents/Prentice Hall Textbook found at the bottom of page 278 which reads: If you are going from a lighter level to a darker one, use a reduced volume, such as 10. In this system, it is assumed that for every 10 volume of developer used, you achieve one level of lightening action. The color you select will determine the amount of deposit achieved and the color of that deposit. Here, the question deals with depositing color to hair to restore a darker shade. The Board’s expert, Ms. Nealy, indicates that 10 volume deposits color to hair. Anything more gives less color. Petitioner claims 20 volume, which is most commonly used unless there is a serious problem, lifts the hair and lasts longer. However, her citation of authority furnished subsequent to the hearing appears to relate to a product-specific situation. The entire citation is not included in the materials furnished, and it is impossible to effectively evaluate Petitioner’s thesis and authority. Based on the materials furnished, the Board’s answer is deemed correct. Question 28 asks for identification of the appropriate solution to be applied to the end of hair to achieve even color results. Petitioner indicated the answer as “C” (pre-softener), whereas the Department’s correct answer was “B” (penetrating conditioner). Both of the Board’s references refer to the use of a filler as appropriate. A filler is defined as a product used to deposit color on damaged or porous hair so that the overall color is even, which is what is desired here. A conditioner filler is used to recondition damaged hair before salon service and may be applied either in a separate procedure or immediately prior to color application. Petitioner also submitted authority for her answer. However, the authority to which she refers relates to the use of a pre-softener for gray hair which is not a part of the question posed in the examination. Further, pre-softeners deal with hair curl, not color, which is at issue here. Her answer is incorrect. Question 30 tests the examinee’s knowledge of the proper steps to match a client’s hair which had been lightened but has grown back darker. The Petitioner indicated that “B” (divide the hair into sections for control), is the appropriate answer. The Board indicates that “C” (equalize the porosity of the hair), is correct. In the Board’s expert’s opinion, dividing the hair, as suggested by Petitioner, deals more with cutting, rather than coloring. Coloring should be equal throughout the hair, not applied to divided segments. Board references are found in Milady’s Textbook at page 302, and in the Prentice Hall textbook at page 277. Whereas Respondent’s written authorities do not clearly support its position, Petitioner’s authority does so. At best, Respondent’s supporting evidence is inconclusive, and Petitioner appears to have satisfactorily supported her answer. In question 34, the Board seeks to test the examinee’s knowledge regarding the proper procedural steps to achieve natural color for a client whose hair has been previously bleached and toned. Whereas Petitioner indicated the first step is to (apply conditioner to porous ends), answer “A,” the Board’s correct answer is (perform a strand test), answer “C.” The use of a strand test first will permit the cosmetologist to determine how the client’s hair will react to certain products and should always be performed. Petitioner’s answer is incorrect. Question 35 relates to the same factual situation as posed in Question 34. Here, however, the Board wants to know what products are mixed to create a highlighting shampoo. The Board’s correct answer is “A” (aniline derivative tint, developer, and shampoo), whereas Petitioner chose as her answer “D” (water, developer, and shampoo). The Board’s two references, cited previously, support its answer defining a highlighting shampoo as a mixture of shampoo and hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide is the same as a developer. Water provides no lift to the color, and Petitioner’s answer is, therefore, incorrect. Question 39 relates to the process for lightening a client’s gray and resistant virgin hair, and requires the examinee to select the proper pre-softener. Petitioner chose answer “C” (temporary rinse), whereas the Board’s correct answer is “A” (hydrogen peroxide). Gray hair is generally resistant to color. The Board’s references, cited previously, indicate that peroxide can lift the hair cuticle to make it more receptive to a tint. Petitioner provided no reference to dispute this, and her answer is incorrect. Question 56 seeks to determine the proper strength of a chemical product to use for a chemical blow-out on a client whose hair was tinted the week previously. Petitioner selected “C” (regular), whereas the Board’s correct answer is “B” (mild). According to Ms. Nealy, the Board’s expert, when treating African-American hair which has never had a chemical relaxer applied, even when using a mild tint, the operator should use a mild relaxer, rather than regular, to avoid damage to the hair. Petitioner chose regular because, according to the terms of the question, the client’s hair was in good condition. Had there been any reference to damage, she would have chosen mild. In her opinion, different product companies label the strength of their product differently. Hair which has been colored is not necessarily damaged by the coloring. However, since a chemical has been applied to the hair to color it, the operator must be careful in using additional chemicals and must use the least strength that will do the job without causing damage to the hair. For this reason, the Board’s answer is correct. Question 66 refers to a client with long, strong hair which, reportedly, has been resistant to prior efforts at applying a permanent, and asks how best to produce a lasting curl. Whereas the Board’s correct answer is “D” (shape the hair before the perm and process on medium rods), Petitioner selected “B” (process on medium rods and shape the hair after the perm). The Board’s expert contends that since the question does not reflect that the customer also sought styling, her hair should be shaped before the perm because after the perm has been applied, the hair will be curly and the operator may miscut it. Though not mentioned as a part of the question, Ms. Nealy noted that springy hair cut after a perm will, in 9 out of 10 cases, result in the cutting of more hair than is desired. Cutting after the perm is also recommended in Milady’s at page 200. Petitioner chose to shape the hair after the perm because, she contends, if it is shaped before the ends are straight, it will be hard to roll the hair. She refers as authority to the same section of the Milady’s text, though a later edition. Review of that provision reveals it to be identical to the provision in the earlier edition relied upon by the Board. Review also reveals that additional considerations, not mentioned in the examination question, qualify that section relied upon by Petitioner. Based upon the examination question as written, Petitioner’s answer is incorrect. Question 69 seeks to determine what actions might be taken to prevent hair breakage after the application of a chemical relaxer. Though Petitioner chose “C” (use a conditioning shampoo), the Board’s correct answer is “B” (perform a strand test). Ms. Nealy, the Board’s expert, indicates that whenever a chemical is to be applied to hair, the operator should do a strand test to see if the client is allergic to the chemical and if the hair will take it. Authority for that answer is found in the Prentice Hall Textbook at page 365. Petitioner offered no authority for her choice. It was incorrect. Question 71 seeks the proper temperature for drying hair saturated with an acid-based solution. The Petitioner answered “B” (cool), whereas the Board’s correct answer is “D” (warm). Neither a hot nor a cold dryer is appropriate. A hot dryer may burn the hair, but a cold dryer is less helpful than a cool one. Heat helps penetrate the solution, but a cool dryer will not support penetration. Petitioner chose her answer, cool, so that the acid- based solution would penetrate and relax the hair. Nonetheless, the authorities cited by both parties indicate that some heat is required. If external heat is used, it should be used at a warm setting. Petitioner’s answer, therefore, is incorrect. In question 72, the examination seeks information as to why some of the client’s hair remained curly after a relaxing treatment. The Board’s correct answer is “C” (subsections were too large), but Petitioner chose “B” (solution was too mild.) According to the Board’s expert, if an operator treats too large a section of hair at one time, the relaxer may not work sufficiently and may leave some curl in the hair. Petitioner’s answer, indicating that the solution was too mild, may achieve the desired result, but use of a stronger solution adds risks to the hair which need not be assumed if the size of the work section is reduced. Therefore, the Board’s answer is the better one. Question 91 calls for classification of terms. The Board’s correct answer is “A” (back combing), whereas Petitioner chose “D” (styling). The Board’s expert referred to styling as the final touch, and claims that back combing, a method of combing hair, includes such procedures as teasing, ratting, and French lacing. Authority for the Board’s position is found in Milady’s at page 143, and in the Prentice/Hall Textbook at page 198. Petitioner’s cited authority supports the Board’s position. Question 95 asks why a client’s hair does not hold curl. Petitioner claimed the answer is “B”, (too much elasticity), while the Board’s correct answer is “C”, (too much moisture). A thermal curl is a hot curl using a curling iron. Too much elasticity in the hair, as suggested by Petitioner, has little to do with why the curl won’t hold. Elasticity, as cited by Petitioner, is the ability of hair to return to normal after being stretched, and it has nothing to do with retaining too much curl. In a thermal curl, moisture is the controlling factor. Dry hair is necessary for a successful curl. For this reason, Petitioner’s answer is incorrect. All questions asked on the examination in issue are within the scope of the expected knowledge of a candidate for licensure as a cosmetologist. They are basic, entry-level questions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final order sustaining the grades given for all questions except numbers 20 and 30 on the December 1996 Cosmetology examination, and that she be given credit for questions numbers 20 and 30. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lydia S. Castle, Esquire Gulfcoast Legal Services 641 First Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lynda L. Goodgame General counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Joe Baker Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
