The Issue Whether Respondent's cosmetology license should be disciplined for the alleged violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all pertinent times, Respondent, Maureen Mitchell, was a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida having been issued License No. CL0079246 in accordance with Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. At all pertinent times, Respondent was employed at Barry's Place for Hair, a cosmetology salon located in Tamarac, Florida (the "Salon"). On January 22, 1990, Karen Olszewski went to the Salon for a permanent. Ms. Olszewski had previously had permanents without any problems or complications. Respondent was the cosmetologist who gave Ms. Olszewski the permanent on January 22, 1990. After Respondent rolled Ms. Olszewski's hair, she applied the permanent solution in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Within a minute after applying the solution, Ms. Olszewski complained that it was burning her scalp. Respondent told her that the solution was heat activated and there was nothing wrong. Ms. Olszewski complained at least two other times while the solution remained in her hair. Respondent did not take any actions to relieve the discomfort. Barry Barton, the owner of the Salon, looked under the bag that had been placed on Ms. Olszewski's head and stated that he did not see any problems. The chemicals remained on Ms. Olszewski's head and scalp for approximately 5 to 10 minutes in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. When the recommended time had expired, Respondent shampooed Ms. Olszewski's hair. During the rinse, Ms. Olszewski again complained of pain. Barry Barton applied cold cream to the customer's scalp. The application of cold cream to an irritated scalp is not an accepted precaution or remedy for a chemical burn. Respondent did not properly respond to the client's continued complaints of discomfort. Respondent should have immediately stopped the procedure being performed and checked for redness or irritation of the scalp. If the search revealed any indications of a chemical irritation or a burn or if the complaints of discomfort continued, the chemical should have been immediately rinsed with cool water and a neutralizer applied. After leaving the Salon, Ms. Olszewski continued to experience discomfort. She called the Salon and the owner advised her that there was nothing that he could do. Ms. Olszewski went to a dermatologist who treated her for chemical burns on her scalp which were the result of the permanent. Ms. Olszewski experienced some temporary hair loss and had headaches for a couple of weeks following the permanent. There is no scarring or long term damage to her scalp. Respondent's conduct falls below the minimally accepted standards of a licensed cosmetologist. While there is no evidence that Respondent misapplied the chemicals or otherwise failed to follow the manufacturer's instructions, Respondent should have reacted more promptly to the customer's complaints of discomfort and terminated the procedure at an earlier point. Respondent did not make voluntary restitution to Ms. Olszewski for the cost of the permanent or the cost of the medical bills incurred. Ms. Olszewski initiated an action in small claims court for the sums. No evidence was presented as to the results of that legal action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 477.028, Florida Statutes, imposing a $200 fine and requiring Respondent to complete an advanced training course on the use of chemicals in the practice of cosmetology. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of September, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 9th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2659 The Petitioner has submitted a Proposed Recommended Order. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 - 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. Addressed in the Conclusions of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Harris Qualified Representative Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Maureen Mitchell, pro se 8100 Northwest 73rd Terrace Tamarac, Florida 33321 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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: On October 26, 1991, Respondent was employed as a nail technician/manicurist at Tropical Nails and Skin (Tropical), a cosmetology salon located in Lauderhill, Florida. At the time, she did not hold a license authorizing her to engage in the practice of cosmetology, or any specialty area thereof, in the State of Florida. Leonard Baldwin is an inspector with the Department of Professional Regulation. On the morning of October 26, 1991, Baldwin conducted an inspection of Tropical. Upon entering the salon, Baldwin observed Respondent at her station applying polish to a customer's nails. Prominently displayed at Respondent's station was a cosmetology license that bore Respondent's name and photograph. The license was forged and actually belonged, not to Respondent, but to E. Sgroi. It had been given to Respondent by a former coworker, who had altered the license by removing Sgroi's name and typing Respondent's name in its place. Respondent had affixed her photograph to the license after the license was given to her. No changes had been made to the address on the license. Shortly after entering the salon, Baldwin went to Respondent's station. He examined the license and asked Respondent if it was hers. She replied in the affirmative. Baldwin suspected otherwise. He therefore took possession of the license. He then left Respondent's station and went to another area of the salon. Approximately ten or fifteen minutes later, after Respondent had finished with her customer and the customer had paid and left the salon, Baldwin again approached Respondent and asked her about the license. This time Respondent acknowledged that the license was not really hers and that she was not licensed by the Department to practice cosmetology. Baldwin then presented to Respondent a Cease and Desist Agreement, which Respondent signed. The agreement, which was also signed by Baldwin, provided as follows: I, Gloria Torres, have been informed by a representative of the Department of Professional Regulation that I am under investigation on allegations that I have engaged in the practice of "Nails" Cosmetology without being a holder of an appropriate license or permit. Without admitting these allegations, I hereby agree to cease and desist from engaging in this activity until and unless properly licensed or permitted. I execute this agreement without receiving any representations in regard to the final disposition of the investigation. Respondent abided by the terms of the Cease and Desist Agreement. She enrolled in classes at the Academy of Beauty Arts and Sciences in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On or about November 7, 1991, the school issued her a certificate of completion in the speciality area of manicuring/pedicuring/nail extensions. On December 11, 1991, Respondent was licensed by the Board of Cosmetology to practice in this specialty area. She still holds this license. Respondent is presently in a precarious financial situation. She has recently had to bear the cost of her husband's funeral. In addition, she has had other expenses that have depleted her financial resources.
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 did not violate Section 477.029(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint; (2) dismissing this charge; (3) finding that Respondent violated Section 477.029(1)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint; and (4) imposing upon Respondent, for having committed these violations, an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 ($250.00 for each violation), to be paid in monthly installments of $25.00 the first four months and $50.00 the next eight months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24 day of August, 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 24 day of August, 1992.
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 Margrea Hudson allowed a nonlicensed person to practice cosmetology in her salon d/b/a Margrea's Beauty Salon in Lakeland, Florida.
Findings Of Fact A copy of the Administrative Complaint with Election of Remedies, Salon License No.l 6766, and the receipt for certified mail were received into evidence without objection and marked Composite Exhibit 1. Respondent admitted that she was guilty of the violation charged.
The Issue Whether Respondent allowed cosmetologists to work in Otto's Beauty Salon without a master cosmetologist being present. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn, or suspended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent appeared in person and admitted the violation as charged by the Complainant. Respondent is the occasional manager of Otto's Beauty Salon. Respondent is the master cosmetologist and the only master cosmetologist working in Otto's Beauty Salon. Respondent was absent from the shop as charged by the Board during working hours and during the time cosmetologists were working in said salon.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Patsy Arline and Roberta Stein, doing business in a partnership allowed a non-licensed person to practice cosmetology in their beauty salon, to-wit: one Gloria Gann. Whether Respondent's License No. 19208 should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact 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. The Respondents were duly sworn. Respondents admit that they allowed a person who was non- registered to practice cosmetology in the salon known as the Yellow Tulip which they own and operate as a partnership under License No. 19208. Respondents did not know of the serious consequences of their act.
