Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY vs. SELIGMAN AND LATZ, INC., 75-000594 (1975)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 75-000594 Latest Update: Jan. 19, 1977

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. /

# 2
BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY vs MYRLIFLORE DEJEAN, D/B/A MYRLI'S HAIR AND NAIL DESIGN, 92-002399 (1992)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Fort Lauderdale, Florida Apr. 20, 1992 Number: 92-002399 Latest Update: Jul. 29, 1992

The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.

Findings Of Fact At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was an owner and operator of Myrliflore Hair and Nail Design, which is a beauty salon. Her first location of this establishment was at 2471 Pembroke Road, Hollywood, Florida. She later closed the shop on Pembroke Road and reopened her shop at 730 N.E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent was operating her beauty salon at the Hallandale location. On September 8, 1990, and on February 13, 1991, Leonard Baldwin, an inspector for the Department of Professional Regulation inspected Respondent's shop at 2471 Pembroke Road, Hollywood. Respondent's shop was open for business and was doing business at the time of Mr. Baldwin's visits. Respondent had failed to obtain a license for her beauty salon from Petitioner prior to engaging in business. Respondent does not dispute that she operated her beauty salon in Hollywood without a license for the shop. Respondent testified that she had not secured a salon license for her location in Hollywood because she had only recently come to the United States from Haiti and she had not known that a license was required. Between February 13, 1991, and March 22, 1991, Respondent closed her beauty salon located at 2471 Pembroke Road, Hollywood, and reopened her beauty salon at 730 N.E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida. On March 22, 1991, Mr. Baldwin inspected Respondent's beauty salon at the Hallandale address and found several violations of sanitation standards that had been established by rule. At the time of Mr. Baldwin's inspection, the implements for the nail station did not appear to have been sanitized, the equipment on the hair dresser's station was not clean and sanitized, instruments stored in a closed cabinet were not clean and sanitized, and the sanitation rules were not displayed. Respondent denied that her shop failed to meet sanitation standards as related by Mr. Baldwin. The conflict in the testimony is resolved by finding that the greater weight of the evidence establishes the sanitation violations to which Mr. Baldwin testified. It is found that on March 22, 1991, the implements for the nail station had not been sanitized, the equipment on the hair dresser's station was not clean or sanitized, instruments stored in a closed cabinet were not clean or sanitized, and the sanitation rules were not displayed. Respondent promptly corrected all sanitation deficiencies noted by Mr. Baldwin following the inspection of March 22, 1991.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered a Final Order be entered that finds the Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint and which assesses against Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $750.00. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 29th day of July, 1992. Copies furnished: Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Roberta L. Fenner, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Myrliflore DeJean, pro se 730 N.E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard Hallandale, Florida 33009

Florida Laws (2) 120.57477.029
# 4
BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY vs SHARON BURROWS, D/B/A CELEBRITY BEAUTY SALON, 90-003566 (1990)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Fort Lauderdale, Florida Jun. 07, 1990 Number: 90-003566 Latest Update: Oct. 25, 1990

The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.

Findings Of Fact 1 At all times material hereto, Respondent Sharon Burrows has been the owner of Celebrity Beauty Salon, License No. CE 0044646. On March 18, 1990, Petitioner conducted an inspection of Celebrity Beauty Salon. At the time, a customer was seated in each of the salon's two chairs. Flavie Atis was placing rollers in the hair of one of the customers. Since no licensure was posted as to employee Atis, inquiry by the inspector revealed that Atis did not have a current license and was not performing services pursuant to an exemption while awaiting examination or having recently graduated from a school of cosmetology. Placing rollers in a customer's hair is within the scope of the practice of cosmetology for which a license is required and is not within the scope of merely shampooing for which a license is not required. At the time of the inspection, sanitary towels and neck strips were not being used for each patron and not all equipment was free of hair.

Recommendation Base upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating the statutory and rule provisions set forth herein, imposing a $250.00 administrative fine against her, and placing her license on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of October, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 25th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-3566 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-7, 8(1), and 8(2), have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 8(3) has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 2 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 3 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Mone, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Sharon Burrows 3161 West Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Florida Laws (3) 120.57477.0265477.029
# 5
BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY vs. PATRICIA J. CANTRELL AND SHARON RISELING, 76-001052 (1976)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 76-001052 Latest Update: Oct. 06, 1977

The Issue Respondents' alleged violations of Section 477.02(6), 477.15(8), and 477.27, Florida Statutes.

Findings Of Fact Respondent Corporation operates Aries House of Beauty, 9310 A1A Alternate, Lake Park, Florida, under Certificate of Registration to operate a cosmetology salon number 20754 issued by Petitioner on October 25, 1974. Respondent was advised of the hearing and acknowledged receipt of notice of same. (Exhibit 2) Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's place of business on January 14, 1976, and observed Van Thi Nguyen giving a patron a shampoo and set on the premises. She acknowledged to the Inspector that she had no Florida state license to practice cosmetology. (Testimony of Padgett) Respondents' Officers, Patricia J. Cantrell & Sharon J. Riseling, submitted a letter prior to the hearing in which it was conceded that they had employed a non-licensed beautician under the mistaken belief that she had a Florida license. The letter indicated that the employee had impressive credentials as a cosmetologist and had possessed an Illinois license. They did not see a Florida license. The employee now holds Florida license number 022943. (Exhibit 1)

Recommendation That Respondent be issued a written reprimand for violation of Section 477.02(6), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Patricia J. Cantrell & Sharon Riseling c/o Aries House of Beauty 9310 A1A Alternate Lake Park, Florida

# 6
BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY vs. JYLES R. GARMON, D/B/A BLACKMORE BEAUTY SALON, 88-001796 (1988)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 88-001796 Latest Update: Aug. 31, 1988

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

Florida Laws (3) 120.57477.0265477.029
# 7
BARBER`S BOARD vs C. R. HIGGINSON, D/B/A BONITA SPRINGS BARBER SHOP, 91-005141 (1991)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Fort Myers, Florida Aug. 14, 1991 Number: 91-005141 Latest Update: Jan. 14, 1992

Findings Of Fact C. R. Higginson (hereafter Respondent) is a licensed barber and barbershop owner, holding Florida licenses BB 11355 and BS 8886. Respondent owns and operates the Bonita Springs Barber Shop, located at 26671 Old U.S. 41 S.E., Bonita Springs, Florida 33923. On April 25, 1991, Frank Paolella, an inspector for the Department of Professional Regulation, entered the Respondent's barbershop and performed a routine inspection of the premises for compliance with the rules of the Barber's Board. The Respondent was not present during the inspection. At the time of the inspection, there were a number of persons in and around the premises, however, the inspector observed no one sitting in the barber's stations chairs or having their hair cut. The inspector noted several violations of the Board of Barbers requirements. Three barbers stations contained equipment which was not sanitized and was covered with hair. 5 Five stations contained equipment which had been cleaned and sanitized but which was not stored in a clean cabinet. Six garbage pails located at barber stations were uncovered and contained hair and trash. One barber's license was not displayed. Prior to the inspector's departure, the barber located the license behind his sterilizer cabinet and displayed the document. The testimony of the Respondent's witness, one of the barber's present at the time of the inspection, directly contradicted the testimony of the Petitioner's inspector. The testimony of the Petitioner's inspector is credited and such conflicts have been resolved in Petitioner's favor.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Barbers' enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine of $350.00 against the Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 14th day of January, 1992.

Florida Laws (3) 120.57476.184476.214
# 8
BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY vs. LUELLA AND PORTER`S SCHOOL OF BEAUTY, ET AL., 81-001600 (1981)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 81-001600 Latest Update: Dec. 08, 1981

The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondents for alleged violations of Sections 455.277 and 477.028, Florida Statutes (1979).

Findings Of Fact Respondent Luella and Porter's School of Beauty currently holds License No. CT 0000056 and is located at 316 NE First Street, Pompano Beach, Florida. Respondent Luella A. Bailey is an owner of the Respondent beauty school and currently holds License No. IC 0031324 as a cosmetology instructor. In March of 1980 Respondent Bailey discussed a two week course of study in Esthetology given by the Respondent beauty school with Bonnie Cohen and her mother, Sharon Cohen. Bonnie Cohen and her mother were led to believe that the course, which involved the study of the face, the use of massage and water vapor and the use of various creams and oils would enable Bonnie Cohen to obtain a paid position in cosmetology salons performing facials. Respondent Bailey suggested at least two places where Bonnie Cohen might obtain employment as a person trained to perform facials: Christine Valmy Salon and Palm Aire Spa Salon. Respondent Bailey knew or should have known that in order to perform facials in a cosmetology salon an employee must be certified as a cosmetologist. Respondent Luella and Porter's School of Beauty has been in business for a long period of time and is recognized as a reputable school. Bonnie Cohen paid a fee of $500.00 and took the two week course given at Respondent school which began on March 18, 1980 and ended on March 28, 1980. She learned to massage areas of the face and neck, apply creams and chemicals used to clean and soften the skin, and learned how to apply treatments for various minor skin problems. Miss Cohen was awarded a certificate worded: "Esthetics - Scientific Facial Treatments and Skin Care Seminar. This certifies that Bonnie Cohen has parti- cipated in the Christine Valmy Seminar for Esthetics - Scientific Facial Treat- ments and Skin Care. Date, March, 1980." The certificate was signed "Christine Valmy by Luella Bailey." In October of 1980, Bonnie Cohen sought employment at two cosmetology salons, Christine Valmy Salon and Palm Aire Spa Salon, both of which were recommended to her by Respondent Luella Bailey. The owner of the Palm Aire Spa Salon discussed employment with Bonnie Cohen and would have employed her, but when Miss Cohen produced the herein described certificate instead of a cosmetology license the owner of the salon would not employ her to perform facials. A cosmetology license is required for employment.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that a final order be entered censuring Respondent Luella Bailey and imposing on her as a licensee an administrative fine not to exceed $1,000.00 In addition the Hearing Officer recommends that the license of Respondent Luella and Porter's School of Beauty be suspended for a period of six (6) months. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 21st day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Luella & Porter's School of Beauty 316 NE First Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Ms. Luella A. Bailey 3200 NW 90th Avenue Coral Springs, Florida 33065 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Petitioner, CASE NO.: 81-1600 vs. LICENSE NOS. CT0000056 IC0031324 LUELLA & PORTER'S SCHOOL OF BEAUTY AND LUELLA A. BAILEY Respondents. /

Florida Laws (5) 120.57455.225455.227477.013477.028
# 10

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer