Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Jyles R. Garmon is and has been licensed to practice cosmetology and operate a cosmetology salon in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbers CL 0028487 and CE 0034472. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the owner of the cosmetology salon known as Blackmore Beauty Salon located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. At Blackmore Beauty Salon, the brushes and combs are cleaned and dried with an electric dryer every night. Similarly, the sinks in the bathroom are cleaned and the work stations are wiped with a wet towel every night. Clean combs and brushes are used for each customer visiting the salon. They are cleaned in a large sanitizing tub in the back of the salon. Additionally, the brush dryer contains formaldehyde tablets and formaldehyde tablets are kept in the drawers where the sanitized combs and brushes are stored. The floors at the Blackmore are swept as soon as possible. Although the sinks are rinsed, some of tne chemicals used in the salon will stain the sinks. It is not possible to clean the stains in the sinks after each customer, but clorox is used regularly to remove the stains. On January 21, 1987, Leonard Baldwin, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, conducted the annual inspection of Blackmore Beauty Salon. His inspection report reflected that there were no problems or deficiencies. On January 7, 1988, Baldwin again inspected the Blackmore Beauty Salon. No evidence was offered as to any prior disciplinary actions against Respondent who has been licensed since July 1, 1957 or against the Blackmore Beauty Salon which has been licensed since April 5, 1983.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 31st day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Tobi C. Pam, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jyles R. Garmon, II 1217 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Bruce D. Lamb, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent practiced cosmetology in her home without a salon certificate of registration. Whether the certificate of registration for a master cosmetologist held by the Respondent should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a valid certificate of registration as a master cosmetologist No. 73476. Respondent does not hold a certificate of registration for a salon. Respondent was practicing the art of cosmetology in her home which was not in compliance with the requirements of Section 477.24(7), Florida Statutes. Said residence would not be eligible for a salon registration.
The Issue The issue at the hearing was whether Respondent's cosmetology salon license was subject to discipline for alleged violations of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated thereunder.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Hattie Nesbit, is licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. The Respondent also holds a Florida cosmetology salon license for her beauty salon, Nesbit's Beauty Salon. 1/ Ms. Nesbit works part-time at her salon. She employs two to three other very experienced licensed cosmetologists. The salon has four beauty stations. Ms. Nesbit's beauty station is the first station after entering the salon premises. The other employees occupy the other stations. They are aware of the Board's rules for the operation and sanitation of a beauty salon. Additionally, Respondent has the Board's sanitation rules posted on the wall of the salon. The salon in general is clean and well-kept. Eileen Thomas, the Petitioner's inspector, conducted a random inspection of the Respondent's salon on February 21, 1989. Ms. Nesbit was not present during the inspection. While there the inspector observed that the container for the deposit of hair was a garbage can located in the back room. The room was closed off from the beauty salon. At the time of the inspection the container had hair in it. The garbage can cover was not on the container and the lid was not located at the time of the inspection. The Board's rules provide that a lid must be kept on the container for the deposit of hair. Respondent's receptacle for the deposit of hair was not maintained in such a manner. Therefore, Respondent is subject to discipline under the Board's rules governing the maintenance of container for the deposit of hair. The inspector, also, observed Ms. Blount, one of the beauticians employed by Respondent, apply chemicals to a patron's hair without using a spatula. Since Ms. Nesbit was not present at the salon she was unaware of the employee's disregard of the Board's rule that all chemicals be applied with a spatula. However, the salon owner is the person responsible for the operation of the salon and is responsible for violations committed by the employees of the salon. Respondent's lack of knowledge only goes to mitigate the penalty which should be imposed for the employee's failure to observe the Board's rules. The evidence showed that Respondent had reasonably instructed her employees on sanitary procedure and required them to follow that procedure. Respondent posted the sanitation rules on the wall of the salon as a reminder of those rules. Respondent's violation is nominal. In light of these facts Respondent should receive a nominal penalty. A letter of reprimand would be an appropriate penalty for this type of violation. Additionally, the inspector observed that the wet sanitizers located in four of the stations at the salon were only one third to one half full of a sanitizing solution. A wet sanitizer is any type of container that is large enough to hold a sanitizing solution in which a comb or brush can be completely immersed for proper sanitation. In this case, the containers provided by Respondent were large enough to allow for the complete immersion of a comb or brush in a sanitizing solution. There were combs and brushes in the wet sanitizers at the four stations. Those combs and brushes were not completely immersed in the sanitizing solution because the solution was low. The Rule on the provision of wet sanitizers does not require that the containers be filled all the time. The rule only requires that the containers be large enough to allow for immersion. The Rule requires only that a comb or brush be immersed prior to its use. The Rule does not require that a comb or brush be immersed all of the time. In this case Respondent provided containers of the correct size. However, no evidence was presented that the Respondent's operators were using the combs or brushes in the wet sanitizers without first properly sanitizing them. The fact that the jars were low in solution at the limited point in time of the inspection does not clearly and convincingly support a conclusion that Respondent's operators were not utilizing proper sanitation procedures before the combs and brushes were used on a customer. Without evidence of such use Respondent cannot be guilty of a violation of the Board's rule on the provision of wet sanitizers and the sanitation of combs or brushes before their use.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order reprimanding Respondent for violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes and imposing a $25 fine. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 19th day of December, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of Beauty Salon Mayelin Unisex (Salon), a cosmetology salon located at 1442 Northeast 163rd Street in North Miami Beach, Florida. The Salon was first licensed by the Department on December 19, 1990. Respondent has never been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Her application for licensure is currently pending. Charles E. Frear is an inspector with the Department. On May 16, 1990, Frear went to 1442 Northeast 163rd Street with the intention of inspecting a licensed cosmetology salon operating under the name "Hair to Hair." When he arrived at the address, Frear noticed that the sign outside the establishment reflected that Beauty Salon Mayelin Unisex now occupied the premises. The Salon was open for business. Upon entering the Salon, Frear observed Respondent removing curlers from the hair of a customer who was seated in one of the chairs. 1/ Frear asked Respondent to show him her license to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Respondent responded that she did not have such a license yet, but that she was scheduled to take the cosmetology licensure examination later that month. After learning from Respondent that she was the owner of the Salon, Frear asked to see the Salon's license. Respondent thereupon advised Frear that the Salon had not been licensed by the Department. Although she told Frear otherwise, Respondent was aware at the time that a Department-issued cosmetology salon license was required to operate the Salon. Frear gave Respondent an application form to fill out to obtain such a salon license. Respondent subsequently filled out the application form and submitted the completed form to the Department. Thereafter, she received License No. CE 0053509 from the Department to operate the Salon.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent committed the violations of law alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint; and (2) imposing upon Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 for having committed these violations. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of April, 1991. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1991.
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Sections 477.02(4), 477.27(1) & 477.15(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates a cosmetology salon, Mourine's of Palm Beach, located at 261 Sunrise Avenue, Palm Beach, Florida, under Certificate of Registration to operate a cosmetology salon No. 18118 OB. Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's salon at 1:30 P.M. on April 23, 1976 at which time she found Respondent working on two patrons. Respondent is not a master cosmetologist and informed the Inspector that her master cosmetologist was out to lunch. After the Inspector has remained on the premises for approximately 45 minutes Respondent stated that the master cosmetologist was not working that day. (Testimony of Padgett) Respondent submitted an affidavit that on the date in question while working in her salon Inspector Padgett found patrons under dryers without the presence of her master cosmetologist who had taken her lunch hour in order to go to the doctor. Respondent stated that she was not working on patrons at this time and had not after the master had left the shop. Respondent further stated that the master operator returned approximately 20 minutes after the inspector had left the premises. (Affidavit of Witmer)
Recommendation That Respondent be issued a written reprimand for violation of Section 477.02(4), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Mourine Witmer 6361 South Atterly K Lantana, Florida 33462 Donald Kohl, Esquire 3003 South Congress Avenue Palm Springs, Florida 33461
The Issue Whether Respondents operated their cosmetology salon in violation of the rule then in effect in which each cosmetology salon owner or manager should send to the Board every five (5) years a certificate from a licensed electrician showing that the electrical equipment in said salon is in safe operating condition. Regulation 21F-3.02, of the rules and regulations of the State Board of Cosmetology. Whether Respondents' license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact The witness and Respondents were duly sworn. The Notice of Service and Complaint were entered without objection and marked Exhibit 1. The Election of Remedies and Electrical Certificate were entered into evidence as Exhibit 2 without objection. Respondents held a license as required by Board of Cosmetology Rule 21F-3.02, which was dated 1969. A notice of violation was written up by the Board at the five-year expiration of said license which was in 1974. Since the writing of the violation notice, the Board has rescinded the rule requiring an electrical certificate and Respondnets not having procured a certificate in a timely fashion did not then attempt to secure said certificate inasmuch as the rule had been rescinded.
Findings Of Fact Marie J. Jeune, Respondent, owns an establishment known as Joset's Beauty Salon located at 341 N.W. 3rd Street, Pompano Beach, Florida. From January, 1984 until July, 1984 Respondent operated Joset's Beauty Salon as a cosmetology salon but at no time did she have a license from the Board of Cosmetology for the salon. During this time, she employed a licensed cosmetologist on the premises, and she testified that she did not know that the salon had to be licensed. She thought she was complying with the law by employing a licensed cosmetologist and obtaining an occupational license. In July, 1984 the licensed cosmetologist left her employment at Joset's Beauty Salon due to pregnancy. On October 9, 1984, Alexa Arachy, an inspector employed by the Department of Professional Regulation conducted an inspection of Joset's Beauty Salon. Inspector Arachy observed an unlicensed person, later identified as Respondent's sister-in- law, Ms. McPhaton Jeune, giving a shampoo to a woman in the salon. She also observed two shampoo sinks, a salon station, numerous open bottles of dyes and waving lotions, combs, brushes, towels, hair on the floor, and a trash container full of items which would normally result from the operation of a salon. At no time has either Respondent or Ms. McPhaton Jeune been licensed by the Board of Cosmetology or the Barber Board, nor has Joset's Beauty Salon ever been licensed by the Board of Cosmetology, or the Barber Board. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, F.S. have been considered in making the above findings of fact. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of three hundred dollars ($300). DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 2nd day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marie J. Jeune 341 N.W. 3rd Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a State of Florida-licensed cosmetologist (license number CL 0127356) and the owner and operator of Marie's Beauty Salon, a State of Florida-licensed cosmetology salon (license number CE 0040980) located in Fort Lauderdale. Leonard Baldwin is an inspector with the Department. Baldwin has conducted various inspections of Marie's Beauty Salon. His last inspection was conducted on April 24, 1992. 2/ Nancy Victor is not now, nor has she ever been, licensed to practice cosmetology, or any specialty area thereof, in the State of Florida. Victor was hired by Respondent to work as a shampooist in Respondent's salon. Her first day of work was April 24, 1992. At around noon on that day the mother of a young customer walked into the salon to pick up her daughter. The daughter, however, was not ready to leave. She still had rollers in her hair. The mother was in a hurry. She approached Victor and asked her to remove the rollers from her daughter's hair. Victor obliged the mother and began removing the rollers. Respondent, who was working on the hair of a customer seated in the chair next to the one in which the daughter was seated, overheard the discussion between the mother and Victor. Respondent was aware that it was unlawful for a person to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida without a license. Furthermore, she knew that Victor did not have a license to practice cosmetology in this state. Nonetheless, inasmuch as she was busy with another customer and Victor did not have any shampooing that she needed to do, Respondent allowed Victor to remove the rollers from the daughter's hair. As Victor was removing the roller's from the daughter's hair, Baldwin entered the salon to conduct a routine inspection. When Respondent saw Baldwin, she instructed Victor to stop what she was doing and leave the area. Victor did what she was told and went to the rear of the salon. Respondent then went over to the daughter and finished removing the rollers from her hair.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order finding that Respondent violated Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and fining her $75.00 for having committed said violation. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of September, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1992.
