Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, Women's Exchange, Inc., possessed a valid Florida license to operate a cosmetology salon at 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue, Miami, Florida, under License No. CE 0032221, which license was issued on September 16, 1982, and expires on October 31, 1984. On January 20, 1983, Steven M. Granowitz, an investigator for Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, entered Respondent's salon for a routine inspection. When he entered the salon, which was located in what appeared to be a home, he noticed it was quite busy. Customers were being waited on at all operator positions, and others were waiting their turn. Upon entering the salon, Mr. Granowitz tried to find the manager to identify himself and present his credentials, but no manager was present, so he talked to the receptionist, showing her his credentials and advising her he was going to do an inspection. At first, he looked at the salon license and went to examine the four operators and their licenses. These licenses are required to be displayed prominently in the shop. None of the four operator stations were displaying licenses. Two operators indicated they had licenses, but did not have them present. Mr. Granowitz made a phone call to his board and verified that these two individuals, Yvonne Eberhart and Clara Ann Edden, were in fact licensed. The two other individuals who he observed to be at operator stations with customers in the chairs, to whom they were applying curly perms, Jacqueline Dulippe and Jeanette Toussaint, were not licensed either by the Board of Cosmetology or Barbers' Board. He, admittedly, did not watch these two unlicensed operators during the entire period he was there. Consequently, it may well be that other licensed operators also worked on the same customers. There is no doubt in his mind, however, that what he observed these two do were cosmetology operations. Licenses are required to perform the work being performed by these two individuals, though not all functions in a cosmetology salon require a license. When Mr. Granowitz discussed this situation shortly thereafter that day with Antonia Gary, one of the officers of Respondent corporation, in the salon, she indicated she was not the manager of the salon, that none of the corporate officers were involved in the day-to-day operation of the salon, and that she did not know these two individuals were not licensed. However, there was no claim that either had misrepresented their license status. Joyce Ann Hanks-Knox, President of Women's Exchange, Inc., the corporation which owns the corporation which now owns Fingertips, the salon in question, admits that the license is in the name of Women's Exchange, Inc. There is no question, however, that Women's Exchange, Inc., holds the license in question for Fingertips and that the current Fingertips salon is that which is described in the license. She is not a licensed cosmetologist, and while she spends as much as 20 hours per week in the business of Women's Exchange, Inc., these duties do not include active management of the salon. She further relates, however, that it has never been the policy of either the parent corporation or the management of Fingertips to permit unlicensed operators to work, unsupervised, on customers. She admits that both women in question worked at Fingertips and, in fact, one was hired by her. Their duties were to be trained as operators and to perform other small tasks within the salon, such as moving patrons from one area to another, cleaning the salon, and insuring that supplies were at the work stations as needed. They were also allowed to wash hair, but, in this apprentice program, nonlicensed personnel were not to give permanents or do anything else that could be considered cosmetology. All of the licensed operators knew what the apprentice program consisted of, its limitations, and that these two individuals were not licensed. As such, they should have stopped them from performing unauthorized tasks. Neither individual was hired as a cosmetologist, nor was she paid as a cosmetologist. Since neither Ms. Knox nor Ms. Gary actively supervise the operation of the salon, since Mr. Granowitz could find no one there during his visit who admitted to being in charge, and since there was no evidence presented that there was any manager assigned to the salon, it is obvious that the salon was left, for the most part, to run itself without effective management supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent corporation be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $250 for each count proven -- a total of $500. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Mr. Fred Roche Department of Professional Secretary Regulation Department of Professional 130 North Monroe Street Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32301 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joyce Hanks-Knox, Esquire President Women's Exchange, Inc. 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue Miami, Florida 33142 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of Florida statutes relating to the operation of a cosmetology salon, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Board of Cosmetology. Petitioner contends that the Respondent was properly notified of her responsibility to renew her cosmetology salon license and that she failed to do so. Respondent contends that she was never properly notified of this new statutory responsibility.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been licensed as a cosmetologist in the State of Florida. She holds License No. CL- 0071047 issued by the Board of Cosmetology. For many years, and at all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has owned and operated a cosmetology salon named "Ramona's Beauty Salon." The salon is located at 130 Dixie Highway, Auburndale, Florida. The salon has, at all material times, been open for business and doing business with the general public as a cosmetology salon. Prior to July 1, 1980, cosmetology salons were required to be registered with the Board of Cosmetology; however, there was no requirement that the registration, once obtained, be renewed. Registration of a salon was permanent. In 1978, the Legislature amended provisions of law relating to registration of cosmetology salons. Effective July 1, 1980, cosmetology salons were required to have renewed their salon license and to renew it again every two years. Because of the change in the law which imposed a new obligation to renew the registration for a salon, the Board of Cosmetology endeavored to advise its licensees of the obligation to renew the salon registration. In March, 1980, the Board mailed a newsletter to its salon licensees advising them about the change in the law. In May, 1980, the Board mailed renewal cards to its licensees. The cards were to be filled out and returned to the Board with the appropriate fee. The Board endeavored to send these notices to its salon licensees at their currently registered addresses. The address that the Board had for the Respondent's salon was the proper one. The Respondent did not receive the notices. The evidence does not reveal whether this was the result of the Board's not forwarding them to her, an error on the part of the postal service, or an error by the Respondent. The precise system that the Board used to assure that the notices were properly forwarded to its licensees was not made a part of the record. The evidence is insufficient to establish why the Respondent did not receive the notices. Prior to 1979, the Board of Cosmetology inspected the premises of its licensees on at least an annual basis. Typically, inspections were conducted more frequently than that. When the Legislature reorganized the Department of Professional Regulation, these periodic inspections ceased during the transition period. The Respondent's salon was inspected in September, 1979. It was not inspected again, however, until December, 1982. The Board endeavored to help apprise its licensees of the need to renew salon licenses by having its inspectors inform the licensees during inspections. Since the Respondent's salon was not inspected during that period, she did not receive the benefit of that advice. The Respondent's salon had been registered with the Board since 1971. She never had any reason to believe that she needed to renew her salon's registration until sometime in 1981. The Respondent's daughter was attending a cosmetology school and heard that salon licenses needed to be renewed, and passed this information on to her mother. Her mother called a representative of the Board at the Winter Haven office. Prior to the reorganization, the Board maintained its principal offices in Winter Haven. Thereafter the offices were moved to Tallahassee, but the testing function continued to be administered from the Winter Haven office. The person who the Respondent talked to at the Winter Haven office advised her that she would be receiving registration forms from Tallahassee and that she did not need to take any action until she received those forms. The Respondent attended continuing education programs during the period following the change in the registration requirement. At none of these programs was she advised of the new obligation to renew the salon license. On December 3, 1982, an inspector with the Department of Professional Regulation inspected the Respondent's salon. The inspector observed that the salon license had not been renewed. The Respondent was advised of her responsibility to obtain a current registration for the salon, and she took immediate steps to accomplish that. Her salon is now properly registered.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida to practice cosmetology, having been issued license number CL 0030044. On September 27, 1966, the Respondent was issued a cosmetology salon license numbered CE 0009517 authorizing the operation of a cosmetology salon called "Bonnie's Boutique," located at 426 South Pineapple Avenue, Sarasota, Florida, owned by the Respondent. The petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, as that relates to licensing and regulation of the activities and practices of cosmetologists and cosmetology salons. After assuming ownership of, and obtaining licensure for the operation of a cosmetology salon, the Respondent began operating Bonnie's Boutique, She operated Bonnie's Boutique as a cosmetology salon until approximately June 30, 1980, when her cosmetology salon license became ripe for renewal. She was leasing the premises in which she operated her business, which lease continued through August of 1983. The Respondent failed to renew her cosmetology salon license number CE 0009517 after it expired on June 30, 1980. From that time until August, 1983, when the lease on the premises expired, the Respondent operated Bonnie's Boutique, albeit on a limited basis due to health problems, performing cosmetology services primarily for friends and relatives. Sometime in January, 1983, in the course of an investigation of the Respondent's activities with regard to the salon premises, it was discovered by petitioner's investigator that the Respondent was operating the cosmetology salon at the above address on at least an intermittent basis without a current cosmetology salon license. Due to health problems, the Respondent has never sought to operate a fully active cosmetology salon business since the expiration of her salon licensure on June 30, 1980. Aside from the subject action there has never been any other disciplinary proceeding instituted against the Respondent with regard to her licensure status.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the evidence of record, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered imposing the penalty of a reprimand on the Respondent Bonnie J. Wagoner. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 20th day of February, 184. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bonnie J. Wagoner 1714 Devanshire Sarasota, Florida 33577 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 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 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 Whether Respondent's Deloris Overstreet license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for the reason that she failed to have or to display a certificate of registration.
Findings Of Fact At the time of the inspection by Ms. Artie Mitchell, Respondent had no certificate of registration. Ms. Mitchell left an application form with Respondent and Respondent procured the certificate of registration within fifteen (15) days thereafter. Ms. Overstreet, Respondent, has secured her certificate of registration and has it on display in the beauty shop owned by Respondent doing business as Dee's Beauty Boutique.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Bernice Benbow, allowed a non-licensed person to practice cosmetology in her beauty salon. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn, or suspended, or whether some other disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Bernice Benbow is doing business as Bernice's Beauty Salon in Cocoa, Florida. Notice of Service was entered without objection and marked Exhibit 1. The Complaint with the license attached thereto was entered into evidence as Exhibit 2 without objection. Respondent was working in said salon on the date reported herein and left the salon during working hours. Carrie Shingles, a non-licensed, non-registered person, washed the hair of a customer at said salon on said date. Carrie Shingles was not employed to serve as a cosmetologist and is not a registered cosmetologist. Carrie Shingles denied that she had the permission of Respondent to practice cosmetology. Said witness said that her duties were to fold towels and perform other non- cosmetology duties in the salon. When Respondent, Bernice Benbow, returned to the salon on the day in question, she set the hair of the customer that Carrie Shingles had shampooed and collected a fee for said shampoo and set but denied that she gave permission to Carrie Shingles to shampoo said customer.
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Rules 21F-3.02, 3.03 and 3.07, Florida Administrative Code. During the course of the hearing, counsel for Petitioner withdrew the alleged violations of Rule 3.03 and 3.07, F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Corporation operates a cosmetology salon at 1626 South Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida under Certificate of Registration Number 11579 issued by Petitioner on May 14, 1971. Petitioner's Inspector visited Respondent's salon on February 27, 1976 for a routine inspection. She discovered hair and soiled towels in cabinets at the various stations and observed that the carpeting was littered with hair. In addition, soft drink bottles and coffee cups were found in the area. Respondent's salon has been issued warnings in the past due to unclean conditions. The shop is now in a clean state. (Testimony of Padgett) Respondent's manager testified that some of the employees are natives of Puerto Rico and Cuba and are unaccustomed to the sanitary requirements of the United States thus making it difficult to control conditions. He conceded that the shop was not in proper condition on the date in question merely because that day was a Friday and the shop was quite busy. (Testimony of Wellmann)
Recommendation That Respondent be issued a formal written reprimand for violation of Rule 21f-3.02, Florida Administrative Code. 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 Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida R. Basil Rutter, President Steppe's of Florida, Inc. Box 788 Athens, Ohio
The Issue The issue in this case is whether any disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's cosmetology salon license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner and operator of a cosmetology salon known as "Reflections of You" located in Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent had purchased the salon from the previous owners. Randall Smith was an inspector for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, whose duties included the inspections of cosmetology salons. On December 24, 1994, Inspector Randall Smith conducted a routine inspection of Reflections of You. The salon was open to the public, and employees were present. Respondent was present during the inspection. During the inspection Respondent admitted to having problems with the previous owners on the purchase of the salon and thought that her lawyer had taken care of all the necessary requirements to own the business. Respondent believed that the transfer included the proper transfer of the salon license. However, Respondent had not been issued a new salon license listing her as the new owner after her purchase. After concluding his discussion with a representative from the Cosmetology Board office, Inspector Randall Smith wrote a Uniform Citation and served it on the Respondent by hand delivery. The Uniform Citation served on the Respondent indicated a fine in the amount of five hundred (500.00) dollars for failure to have a proper salon license. Respondent neither paid the citation nor challenged the fine contained in the citation. The citation therefore became a Final Order of the Board of Cosmetology on February 1, 1995 by operation of law. In mitigation of her failure to transfer her license, Respondent applied and paid fifty-five (55) dollars for a new salon license on December 24, 1994, the day after the inspection by Randall Smith, and was issued a new salon license. Presumably, Respondent's cosmetologist license was current.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(i), Florida Statutes and guilty of violating Section 477.025(7), Florida Statutes and imposing a fifty (50.00) dollar fine for the two violations. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Marge Edwards, Inspector with the Florida State Board of Cosmetology, issued a notice of violation citing Respondent for "owner leaving one cosmetologist, one student permit working alone". The time of the violation notice was dated 2:10 p.m. on June 1, 1974. Respondent George D'Zanko was out of the George D's beauty salon, a business which he owns and operates as the master cosmetologist on June 1, 1974 during the hours which includes 2:10 p.m. Mr. D'Zanko admits that he was out of the shop at that time. Respondent entered a motion to dismiss contending that Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, did not require his presence in the shop while the cosmetologists were working therein. Section 477.04, Florida Statutes, states "no registered cosmetologists may independently practice cosmetology, but he may as a cosmetologist do any or all of the acts constituting the practice of cosmetology under the immediate personal supervision of a registered master cosmetologist". The attorney for Respondent D'Zanko equates Chapter 476, Florida Statutes, which regulates barbers with Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, which regulates cosmetologists, and cites Lett vs. Florida Barbers Salary Commission, Fla. App. 247 So.2d 335, for his position that inasmuch as Respondent was in the neighborhood of the salon the actual presence of Respondent was not necessary. The Board contends that the Respondent allowed a cosmetologist to practice cosmetology without the presence and supervision of a master cosmetologist in violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. The Board contends that the presence of a master cosmetologist in a salon where the art of cosmetology is being practiced is a protection for the public and that Respondent allowed his shop to be operated without the supervision of a master cosmetologist. That the license of the Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended. The Hearing Officer finds: That Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, requires that a master cosmetologist be present in a cosmetology salon at all times when the art of cosmetology is being practiced; That Respondent George D'Zanko, the owner of the salon, Styles by George D', Inc., allowed cosmetology to be practiced in his salon at a time when there was no master cosmetologist therein; That the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist is a protection for the customers in the application of materials used in practicing the art of cosmetology.
