Findings Of Fact Victor Bosciglio and Marioe Guerra are not and never have been parties Respondent before the Division of Administrative Hearings, since no election of a Section 120.57(1) hearing has ever been filed by either of them. Respondent Robert L. Perez, Jr. is and at all times material has been the holder of a Florida barber license. At all times material hereto Perez was one of the owners of a barbershop called, "Tiffany's Hair Designers," hereafter, "Tiffany's." Tiffany's was originally owned by Perez, Bosciglio, and Guerra. The three initially applied for and obtained a barbershop license for establishment of Tiffany's in a house located at 1205 Hillsborough Avenue in Tampa, Florida, in December, 1980. Although there is some suggestion in Ms. Denchfield's testimony that barbershop license applications are normally accompanied by a proposed floor plan, neither application nor the license itself for Tiffany's was offered in evidence and so no condition of non-expansion or evidence of any other condition for granting the initial barbershop license has been established. The original Tiffany's Hair Designers was located in the house at that address and had ten ""stations" for shampoos, cuts, etc. Sometime in October 1984, the trio converted a loft area above what previously had been a freestanding building housing a downstairs garage and located at the same street address as the house. After the conversion, the loft accommodated 4 additional barber "stations." The house and garage are technically separate buildings which share a common street address, driveway, and parking area. They are on the same electric, water, and telephone bills and occupy a single parcel of land. The going through the original house building which continues to shelter the original 10 barber stations. The two buildings are operated as a single business entity, Tiffany's Hair Designers. At all times material, Tiffany's original barbershop license remained in full force and effect. It is unclear whether a series of DPR inspectors regularly inspected the two portions of Tiffany's between October 1984 and October 1985. Petitioner wishes the inference to be made that there may have been a legitimate gap in inspection schedule so that no inspector was aware of the loft conversion until October 1985. Respondent desires the inference to be drawn that a series of inspections of both portions of Tiffany's during this time period turned out favorably and no inspector found any violation by way of the three owners' failure to notify the Barber's Board of the loft conversion and failure to apply for a new barbershop license during that year. There is no conclusive proof to establish either theory. Ms. Denchfield was not the local inspector during this period, and Mr. Perez was not regularly on the premises since he was working at another shop during most of this period but it seems entirely clear that inspectors for the state were allowed complete and total access to both buildings, the loft was certainly not hidden from view, and no sanitation violations were discovered in either building. A routine inspection in October, 1985 resulted in the administrative complaint herein. Neither this inspection nor a subsequent one in March 1986 revealed any sanitary violations in either building. The parties concur that the purpose of initial and subsequent inspections of licensed barbershops is to protect consumers by ensuring adequate sanitary conditions. Inspector Denchfield found in March 1986 that the loft has all the equipment necessary under statutes and rules she administers to qualify as a separate shop without reliance on the main building. Perez knew that he was required to apply for a barbershop license to open a new shop or to relocate a shop "down the street," i.e. from one address to another, but he was initially under the belief that because the converted loft was located on the same parcel of land with the main building that a second barbershop license was not mandated. The Administrative Complaint was served in January, 1986. Respondent Perez purchased the entire premises and business venture by buying out Bosciglio and Guerra in January 1986, and immediately applied for a new barbershop license which would cover both portions of Tiffany's. It is admitted that prior to this new application no one affirmatively notified the Barber's Board of a new building or obtained a separate license for the loft building.
Recommendation That the Barber's Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint as against Robert L. Perez Jr., and if it has not already done so, dispose of the charges against Marioe Guerra, Jr. and Victor Bosciglio in accord with Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee Florida 32301. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 18th day of July, 1986.
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 Mr. R. H. Carswell, the Respondent, is the owner-operator and manager of Carswell's Marina Barber Shop, City Marina, Panama City, Florida. The subject shop has a sign denoting the fact that there is a beauty shop and a barber shop in the building. (a) A floor plan has been submitted to the Florida State Board of Barbers' Sanitary Commission as required by Section 472.24(6), Florida Statutes, to partition a barber shop section from a beauty shop section. No approval of said plan has been issued in writing. A plexiglass partition separates the barber area from the cosmetology area. There was a person working in subject barber shop who is a licensed cosmetologist but is not licensed as a barber. This person has been practicing the art of cosmetology. There are persons working in subject barber shop who are not practicing the art of barbering.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint file din this case and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Jean Mene, was not a licensed barber in the State of Florida nor was the barbershop which he owned and operated licensed. On or around November 18, 1989, Respondent was observed in the practice of barbering. At that time, he admitted that he did not hold a valid license to barber and that the barbershop in which he worked was not validly licensed. An application for licensure was offered to him by an inspector for Petitioner, but Respondent refused the offer. An employee in Respondent's shop, who was engaged in barbering, also did not have a license to barber. Over the ensuing eight months, Respondent continued his unlicensed practice, operated his unlicensed shop and employed an unlicensed practitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing on Respondent an administrative fine of $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of July 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 27th day of July, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Jean D. Mene 223 Northeast 82 Street Miami, Florida 33138 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Barbers' Board Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 =================================================================
The Issue The issues to be determined in this matter are whether Respondent, BBK Florida, LLC, a licensed massage business, allowed an unlicensed person to practice massage therapy; and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in Florida. See § 20.43(3)(g)21., and ch. 456 and 480, Fla. Stat. BBK is a licensed massage business in the state of Florida. BBK operates under the name “BBK Massage Spa” and is located in Ocoee, Florida. The Department brings this action alleging that BBK allowed an unlicensed person to practice massage at its establishment. The Department charges BBK with violating section 480.046(1)(f) and (p), Florida Statutes. Section 480.046(1)(f) prohibits the “[a]iding, assisting, procuring, or advising any unlicensed person to practice massage contrary to the provisions of this chapter or to a rule of the department or the board.” The Department’s allegations focus on the activities of Xiaohui Lu at BBK on January 17, 2017. Ms. Lu is not, nor has she ever been, licensed to practice massage in the state of Florida. At the final hearing, the Department presented the testimony of Amy Harmon, a Department Investigation Specialist. Ms. Harmon has served as an Investigation Specialist since 2010. She conducts approximately 700 to 1,000 investigations a year. Ms. Harmon inspects several different types of businesses including massage facilities, optical establishments, and pain management institutions. Her goal is to inspect each business for which she is responsible at least once a year. Ms. Harmon explained that the primary reason for inspecting massage establishments is to safeguard the public against health risks. As stated in section 480.033(3), “massage” involves: [T]he manipulation of the soft tissues of the human body with the hand, foot, arm, or elbow, whether or not such manipulation is aided by hydrotherapy, including colonic irrigation, or thermal therapy; any electrical or mechanical device; or the application to the human body of a chemical or herbal preparation. Consequently, the Florida Legislature has specifically determined that: [T]he practice of massage is potentially dangerous to the public in that massage therapists must have a knowledge of anatomy and physiology and an understanding of the relationship between the structure and the function of the tissues being treated and the total function of the body. Massage is therapeutic, and regulations are necessary to protect the public from unqualified practitioners. It is therefore deemed necessary in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare to regulate the practice of massage in this state. § 480.032, Fla. Stat. In light of this legislative directive, Ms. Harmon explained that when she inspects a massage business, her goal is to ensure that customers are not touched or treated in an inappropriate manner. Ms. Harmon remarked that licensed massage therapists receive extensive training in anatomy and physiology. They are specifically taught how to manipulate soft tissue without damaging a person’s muscles, neck, or spine. Therefore, she ensures that all persons who provide massages are properly licensed in Florida, and that their licenses are appropriately displayed in the business. She also examines the massage facility’s sanitary conditions. On the morning of January 17, 2017, Ms. Harmon conducted a routine inspection of BBK. Ms. Harmon relayed that BBK is located in a strip mall. When she entered the store, she walked into a large lobby area with a reception desk and several chairs. A single hallway led straight back from the lobby and ended in a kitchen space. Several doorways lined the hallway. At least three of these rooms are used for massage services. Curtains partition the massage rooms from the hallway. Ms. Harmon did not find anyone present in the lobby. Therefore, she headed toward the hallway. As she reached the hallway, she saw a woman walk out of one of the massage rooms. Ms. Harmon observed that the woman (later identified as Ms. Lu) was holding her hands out in front of her with her palms up. Her hands were covered in oil. Ms. Harmon announced to Ms. Lu that she was an inspector with the Department. Ms. Harmon then asked Ms. Lu if she had a message therapy license. Ms. Lu responded that she did not have a massage license, but she was not performing a massage. Instead, Ms. Lu produced a body wrapper license issued by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, as well as a New York drivers license. Ms. Harmon then walked into the massage room that Ms. Lu had just vacated. There, she found a man lying on a massage table draped in a sheet. Ms. Harmon did not observe any body wrapping materials or supplies in the room. (Neither did Ms. Harmon subsequently find any body wrapping advertisements on the premises.) Ms. Harmon deduced that the oil on Ms. Lu’s hands was used for massages, not body wrapping treatments. Consequently, Ms. Harmon concluded that the customer was prepared to receive a massage, and that Ms. Lu was going to provide it. Ms. Harmon did not ask Ms. Lu if she was, in fact, giving a massage to the man on the table. Neither did she actually see Ms. Lu physically touch the customer. However, based on her observations, she firmly believed that when she walked into BBK, Ms. Lu was in the process of providing a massage to the man lying on the table in the massage room. At that point, another woman, who identified herself as Min Zhang, emerged from the last room down the corridor (the kitchen). Ms. Zhang produced a Florida massage therapy license for Ms. Harmon, as well as a Florida drivers license. Ms. Zhang then entered the massage room to attend to the customer. Ms. Harmon further recounted that, in another room, she found a suitcase belonging to Ms. Lu by a bed. Ms. Harmon learned from the two women that Ms. Lu had only arrived at BBK that morning. In response to the Department’s allegations, BBK flatly denied that Ms. Lu was practicing massage when Ms. Harmon inspected its business on January 17, 2017. Instead, BBK asserted that Ms. Zhang, who is properly licensed, was the individual massaging the client at the time Ms. Harmon entered the establishment. Ms. Zhang testified at the final hearing. Ms. Zhang was the store manager on the date of the inspection. Ms. Zhang holds a valid massage therapy license with the State of Florida. Ms. Zhang declared that January 17, 2017, was Ms. Lu’s first day at BBK. She had never met or spoken to Ms. Lu before that morning. Consequently, Ms. Zhang claimed that she was unaware that Ms. Lu did not have a massage therapy license when Ms. Harmon arrived at the business. Ms. Zhang understood that BBK hired Ms. Lu through the internet. She did not participate in BBK’s decision to allow Ms. Lu to work at its facility. Ms. Zhang relayed that on the morning of the inspection, she was the first employee to arrive at BBK. Ms. Lu appeared shortly thereafter. Ms. Zhang introduced herself, then showed Ms. Lu around the store. Before long, the client showed up. Ms. Zhang testified that she led the client back to massage room 3 for an hour-long massage. According to Ms. Zhang, she, not Ms. Lu, was massaging the customer when Ms. Harmon entered BBK. Ms. Zhang stated that she heard Ms. Harmon walk in the front door. She then left the massage room and met Ms. Harmon in the lobby. Ms. Zhang testified that Ms. Lu was not in a massage room or the hallway. Instead, she was located back in the kitchen. After Ms. Zhang exited massage room 3, she saw Ms. Lu walking to the lobby to meet Ms. Harmon. Thereafter, both Ms. Zhang and Ms. Lu produced their licenses and identifications for Ms. Harmon. Ms. Zhang expressed that it was at this time that she learned that Ms. Lu was not a licensed massage therapist. Ms. Zhang readily acknowledged that a person is not allowed to practice massage therapy without a license. Ms. Zhang professed that she was well aware that Ms. Lu could not have massaged any BBK clients unless she held a license in Florida. Ms. Zhang emphasized that neither she, nor BBK, would allow anyone to provide massages without a license. Ms. Zhang maintained that Ms. Lu never touched the client. BBK also presented the testimony of Juan Feng. Ms. Feng identified herself as the main manager of BBK. Ms. Feng runs the business, while Ms. Zhang manages the day-to-day operations. Ms. Feng was not present at BBK during Ms. Harmon’s inspection on January 17, 2017. According to Ms. Feng, BBK first communicated with Ms. Lu after it posted a job opening for a massage therapist over the internet. Ms. Feng conveyed that BBK’s advertisement specifically stated that a Florida massage license was required for the position. Ms. Lu, who was living in New York, called BBK about the job. Ms. Feng testified that Ms. Lu represented that she was licensed in both New York and Florida. Because Ms. Lu appeared qualified for the massage therapist job, BBK invited her to come to Florida for a trial employment period. Ms. Lu travelled by bus. She arrived in Florida on the afternoon of Monday, January 16, 2017. She showed up at BBK for the first time on Tuesday morning, January 17, 2017 (the date of Ms. Harmon’s inspection). Ms. Feng remarked that, while she had spoken with Ms. Lu approximately three times over the phone, she never met her in person before the Department’s inspection. Ms. Feng learned about the inspection from Ms. Zhang, who called her just after Ms. Harmon left. Ms. Feng repeated that the first time she, or anyone else at BBK, was aware that Ms. Lu did not have a Florida massage therapy license was during Ms. Harmon’s inspection. Ms. Feng pronounced that she would never have hired Ms. Lu if she had known that Ms. Lu did not have a valid Florida license. Ms. Feng expressed that after the inspection, she explained to Ms. Lu that she would not be allowed to work at BBK without the required massage license. Ms. Feng represented that Ms. Lu never returned to BBK following Ms. Harmon’s inspection. Ms. Feng understood that Ms. Lu went back to New York. (Neither party called Ms. Lu to testify at the final hearing.) Although Ms. Feng was not present at BBK during the inspection, she testified that she has seen the store’s security video recording of Ms. Harmon’s visit. According to Ms. Feng, BBK has four video cameras mounted inside the facility. Two cameras survey the lobby, and two cameras are positioned at either end of the hallway. However, Ms. Feng disclosed that the video recording from January 17, 2017, no longer exists. The video footage is automatically recorded over after seven days. Therefore, while she claimed to have watched the video shortly after Ms. Harmon departed the store, BBK could not produce the video for the Department or at the final hearing. At the final hearing, Ms. Feng described what she watched on the video. Ms. Feng relayed that she saw Ms. Zhang and Ms. Lu arrive in the morning. But, when the client appeared, it was Ms. Zhang who escorted him back to massage room 3. Later, after Ms. Harmon entered the lobby, Ms. Feng testified that Ms. Zhang, not Ms. Lu, exited massage room 3. Ms. Zhang walked across the hall to the bathroom, then went to meet Ms. Harmon in the lobby. At that point, Ms. Feng saw Ms. Lu emerge from the kitchen and approach the front of the store. Ms. Zhang and Ms. Lu met Ms. Harmon in the lobby. Ms. Harmon then sat down in the lobby, wrote her report, and left the store.4/ Ms. Feng declared that contents of the video establish that Ms. Lu never went into massage room 3. Based on her review, Ms. Feng opined that when Ms. Harmon saw Ms. Zhang advancing up the hallway, she mistakenly determined that it was Ms. Lu coming out of the massage room. Based on the competent substantial evidence provided at the final hearing, the clear and convincing evidence in the record establishes that BBK aided, assisted, or advised an unlicensed person (Ms. Lu) to practice massage in violation of section 480.046(1)(f) and (p). Accordingly, the Department met its burden of proving that BBK should subject to an administrative sanction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order: finding that BBK Florida, LLC, violated section 480.046(1)(f) and (p); and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000, as well as a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 13th day of March, 2018.
Findings Of Fact On May 5, 1953 Petitioner issued barbershop license number BS0007761 to Respondent for the operation of Mr. S. Haircuttery, a barbershop located at 17846 South Dixie Highway, Miami, Florida. Petitioner's letter to Respondent dated May 5, 1983 states, "All persons employed as barbers or barber assistants are required to have a current and valid license." Respondent has maintained his license and operated Mr. S. Haircuttery, as owner, at all times material hereto. On October 16, 1984 Bettye C. Rogers, an inspector employed by Petitioner, entered Mr. S. Haircuttery to inspect the premises. The barbershop was very clean and sanitary, and had all required equipment. Ms. Rogers observed a person, later identified as Marietta Thompson, cutting a customer's hair. Upon inquiry it was determined that Marietta Thompson was not licensed at the time by the Barbers' Board or the Board of Cosmetology. Respondent admits that Marietta Thompson was not licensed at the time of the inspection. He points out, however, that her employment of four days was immediately terminated, and that she had been referred to him by a cosmetology school as a person who had passed her cosmetology exam and was just waiting to receive her license. Respondent has been licensed as a barber in Florida for approximately twenty years and as a cosmetologist for approximately seven years. During that time he has owned and operated four licensed shops and employed approximately fifteen licensed employees at his shops. The evidence establishes that the incident involving Marietta Thompson is Petitioner's only violation of the applicable licensing laws during the time he has been licensed. Marietta Thompson was employed by Respondent from October 13 to October 16, 1984. In making the above findings of fact, proposed findings submitted by Petitioner pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, F.S., have been considered. 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, it is recommended that petitioner issue a Final Order which imposes a reprimand against Respondent's barber shop license number BS0007761. 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
Findings Of Fact Joanne Fletcher answered the telephone the day Eddie Dingler called The Summit Men's Hair Barbershop (Summit I) asking for work. He said he was Roffler- and Sebring-trained and that he held barber's licenses both in Alabama and in Florida. Ms. Fletcher relayed this message to respondent Donald C. Allgood. At the time, Mr. Allgood was half-owner of The Summit IV, and respondent Don Pettis owned the other half. Mr. Allgood had no ownership interest in Summit I, which was licensed to Mr. Pettis. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Allgood acted as a sort of manager at Summit I the two or three days of the week he spent there, even though he was technically an independent contractor, working on commissions. Respondents had worked with each other for some seven years. The parties stipulated that respondent Donald C. Allgood "is a barber having been issued license number BB 0021833" and that respondent Don Pettis "is a barber having been issued license number BB 0011546." One Monday morning Eddie Dingler appeared in person at Summit I and talked to respondent Allgood about employment. Mr. Allgood called respondent Pettis, then took Dingler to respondent Pettis's house, where Ron Pettis was also present. Dingler told this group that he was licensed both in Florida and in Alabama and that he was conversant with the Roffler and Sebring tonsorial techniques. He was specifically asked whether he had a Florida license, and he answered affirmatively. He was not asked to produce the license certificate itself or the wallet-sized card that licensed barbers are issued. Barbers are under no requirement to carry this card on their persons. Respondent Pettis asked respondent Allgood to observe Dingler cutting hair and to hire him if he cut hair satisfactorily. Dingler was engaged as a barber on a commission basis. He proved to be a highly competent hair stylist, and "excellent barber," from a technical standpoint. Posted in is station at Summit I was what appeared to be a valid Florida barber's license with Dingler's name and photograph: he was wearing eye, glasses and a yellow shirt. Aside from the respondents, five witnesses saw this barber's license, which was counterfeit. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Respondent Pettis remembered noticing a number of plaques on the wall at Dingler's station in Summit I, including something that looked like Dingler's license. Mr. Allgood was unable to say that he had specifically seen Dingler's barber's license at any time before Dingler gathered up his things to leave after being discharged from employment. After Dingler had worked at Summit I for about three months respondent Allgood asked him if he would like to work Mondays (when Summit I was closed at Summit IV. Dingler was Interested and reported for work at Summit IV the following Monday. Michael NcNeill let him in the barbershop ,and noticed what appeared to be an official Florida barber's license among Dingler's effects. After Mr. McNeill had left the Summit IV premises, Dingler allegedly sexually assaulted a 17-year-old patron. When respondent Allgood learned of this, he told victim's father that he would fire Dingler and do what he could to see that Dingler's barber's license was revoked. Dingler was discharged the day after the alleged assault. In discussing the matter with a law enforcement officer, respondent Allgood suggested that the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) be notified so that proceedings to revoke Dingler's barber's license could be instituted. On November 24, 1980, Mr. Allgood voluntarily presented himself for an interview by Charles Deckert, an investigator for DPR. He assumed Mr. Deckert was developing a case so that action against Dingler could be taken. He learned in the interview for the first time that Dingler had never been licensed in Florida as a barber or a registered barber's assistant, according to DPR's records. In preparing the foregoing findings of fact, petitioner's proposed findings of fact and memorandum of law and respondents' proposed order have been considered, and the proposed statement and findings of fact have been adopted in substance.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner refrain from taking action against respondents on account of this technical violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 28th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia Grinsted, Esquire Post Office Drawer 915 Shalimar, Florida 32579 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Barbars Board 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Paula Joan Thigpen, known also as Paula Thigpen, is licensed by the State of Florida, Barbers' Board, to practice as a barber in the State of Florida. Her license number is BB 0025059. Respondent had been married to one William Mann on two occasions, ending in divorce. In addition, Respondent had worked as a barber in a barbershop owned by her former husband. That shop is located at 465 Kingsley Boulevard, Orange Park, Florida. This arrangement allowed her to act as a manager in fact related to the financial aspects of that barbershop, during Mann's absence. In the summer of 1983, a discussion was entered into between the Respondent and her former husband on the topic of opening a barbershop in Middleburg, Florida. It was contemplated that Mann would own the shop and that the shop would be managed by the Respondent. Should the Respondent leave the community due to the duties of her present husband who was serving in the United States Navy, Respondent and Mann understood that the Respondent would be reimbursed for the money she invested in the shop in Middleburg. It was discussed that the Respondent would be guaranteed a salary at the beginning of the shop operation in Middleburg. Finally, it was discussed that should Mann wish to dispose of his ownership of the Middleburg barbershop, Respondent would pay him for his interest in the shop and become the owner. Both Mann and the Respondent spent money in trying to establish the barbershop in Middleburg, to include equipment, supplies, advertising and other related costs. Respondent also devoted labor to establishing the shop in Middleburg. To this end, space was leased in a building in early September, 1983, with Respondent representing herself to the lessor as a partner with Mann. On September 16, 1993, Mann traveled to Tallahassee and obtained a barbershop license for the Middleburg operation, No. BS 0007886. He listed himself as the owner of the shop and paid a $25 licensing fee. The barbershop license came into the hands of the Respondent following its issuance. This occurred sometime between September 16, 1983, and September 21, 1983. The barbershop in Middleburg opened on September 19, 1983, a week earlier than had been anticipated by Mann. On that same date he contacted the Respondent and indicated that he did not wish to pursue the business venture of opening the barbershop. He stated on that occasion that he felt that it would cost too much money and the he was not in a position to guarantee the salary for the Respondent and another person who would be working in the shop. Mann offered to have the Respondent return to his business in Orange Park, Florida. Respondent declined this opportunity. Discussion was then entered into on the possibility of the Respondent buying out Mann's ownership interest. Mann did not accept that disposition. He simply stated that he wanted the shop closed. There was a further conversation on September 20, 1983, in which Mann indicated his willingness to sell the shop based upon the amount of money he had invested in the equipment and supplies and a fee which he thought he was entitled to based upon the aggravation caused by the venture. On September 21, 1983, Mann appeared at the barbershop in Middleburg and told the Respondent that he no longer wished to sell his ownership of the shop. He told her that he wished to have the shop closed and wanted the license which had been issued for the barbershop. Respondent told him that she did not know where the license was. In fact, she had it at her home. Following this exchange Mann sought the assistance of law enforcement and after discussion between a law enforcement officer and the Respondent and her former husband, Mann left the licensed premises in Middleburg, Florida. He departed in view of the fact that the lease was signed by the Respondent, accepting the officer's suggestion that he leave given the indicia of control which the lease seemed to place in the hands of the Respondent, in the eyes of the officer. Before the September 21, 1983, exchange, Respondent had prepared a document which would settle the transfer of ownership from Mann to her. That document was never executed. Nonetheless, Respondent was of the opinion that she was entitled to the ownership interest in the barbershop and she traveled to Tallahassee, Florida, on that date and sought and obtained a barbershop license for the Middleburg, Florida shop for which an initial license had been issued to Mann. The license issued to Respondent for that barbershop was BS 00078887. In the application for that license she indicated that she was the sole owner of the shop and the equipment in the shop. This request for transfer was not authorized by Mann, the shop license holder. Following the issuance of the barbershop license for the same barbershop in Middleburg, Florida, as had been licensed for the benefit of Mann, her former husband offered to sell her his interest in the shop. This offer was made in January, 1984. The offer was only open for a couple of days and the parties were unable to come to an agreement on the purchase. That sale has yet to occur. Under the circumstances of this case, as shown in the course of the hearing, Mann has remained the owner of the barbershop licensed for the Middleburg, Florida operation. This is a fact understood by the Respondent. Although there have been occasions in which Mann seemed willing to sell his ownership and associated license, that purchase was never consummated.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which revokes the barbershop registration No. BS 00078887 issued in the name of Paula Thigpen, imposes a civil penalty in the amount of $500 pursuant to Section 476.204, Florida Statutes, and declines the imposition of further penalties as might be allowed by Section 476.214(1), Florida Statutes, and Section 455.227(1), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 10th day of October 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 L. J. Arnold, III, Esquire Post Office Drawer "D" Green Cove Springs, Florida 32043 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Barber's Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent’s barbershop license, based on violations of s. 476.194(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CL-0135324. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of a barbershop which operates under the name Olga’s Beauty and Barber Shop. It has been issued license number BS-0009349 and is located in Ft. Pierce, Florida. Leonard Baldwin is an inspector for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. As part of his statutory duties, he conducts routine inspections of barbershops. As part of his statutory duties, he conducted a routine inspection of Olga’s Beauty and Barber Shop on April 20, 1996. During the course of that inspection, Olga’s Beauty and Barber Shop was open for the business of performing barbering services to members of the public. The time of inspection was approximately 11:30 a.m. He observed an elderly man getting out of the barber’s chair with a fresh haircut. The customer paid Respondent for the service. The person behind the chair was given a tip. He also observed a man, subsequently identified as Javon Stewart, Respondent’s husband, standing behind the chair and placing the clippers in a drawer. The clippers were later determined to be warm. Javon Steward is not licensed to cut hair in Florida. During the course of the inspection, Mr. Baldwin prepared and presented a “Cease and Desist Agreement” to Javon Stewart. Javon Stewart signed the Cease and Desist Agreement and agreed not to engage in the practice of barbering until and unless he was licensed. On May 23, 1996, a reinspection was conducted. During the course of that inspection, Baldwin observed a customer seated in a barber chair inside the barbershop. He saw Javon Stewart with a pair of clippers in his hand standing directly behind the seated customer using the clippers on the customer’s neck. He observed the person “finishing up his customer, cleaning off the bottom of his neck.” The phrase “cleaning off the bottom of a neck” is a barbering term that refers to a person using a set of hair clippers to cut or trim a person’s hair from the back hairline to below the collar line. In this instance, “cleaning off” actually means “cutting or trimming” the hair. During the course of the second inspection, Baldwin observed the customer getting out of the chair, paying the Respondent for the haircut and giving Stewart a tip. Javon Stewart then put the clippers into a drawer. Baldwin immediately walked over to the drawer where the hair clippers were placed and picked them up. The clippers were warm, having just been used.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 476.194(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by employing an unlicensed individual to engage in barbering services. It is further recommended that the Respondent be fined $500.00 (five hundred dollars) and issued a Cease and Desist Order. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of September, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: James E. Manning, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Barbers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ms. Olga Gibb Olga’s Beauty & Barber Shop 1236 Avenue D Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 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 Barbers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
