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 Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn, or suspended, or whether some other disciplinary action should be taken.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 Whether Respondent violated Section 477.02(6); 477.15(8); 477.27(1) and (2), F.S. by allowing a person to practice the art of cosmetology in her salon without said person being a registered cosmetologist by the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Marlene Fletcher, d/b/a the Beauty Parlour, did allow one Victoria Kane to practice the art of cosmetology, to-wit: the giving of a permanent wave to a customer in Respondent's salon at a time in which she held no Florida license. Respondent discussed by long distance telephone the circumstances attending the giving of said permanent wave by the said Victoria Kane. The said Victoria Kane was not in the employ of the Respondent; however, said Victoria Kane was under the control of the Respondent inasmuch as the practice of the art of cosmetology was in the salon of Respondent and at a time in which the Respondent was present.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the practice of cosmetology or a specialty without an active license in violation of Section 477.0265, Florida Statutes (2005), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the testimony of witness presented, and the record in this case, the following findings of fact are found: At all times material hereto, Respondent was regulated by the Department. Respondent's last know address and his address of record with the Department is 421 Champagne Lane, Brandon, Florida 33510. This is also the address written on the Election of Rights Form submitted to the Department in which Respondent requested a formal hearing. At all times material hereto, John Miranda was employed by the Department as an environmental health specialist, where he has been working for approximately nine (9) years. As an environmental health specialist, Mr. Miranda conducts inspections for the Board of Cosmetology. On December 14, 2005, Mr. Miranda conducted an inspection of the Eclips Barber Shop (Eclips) located at 1221 Kingsway Plaza, in Brandon, Florida. During the inspection, Mr. Miranda observed Respondent cutting hair. However, when asked to do so, Respondent did not produce either a barber license or cosmetology license. On December 14, 2005, Respondent was not licensed as either a barber or a cosmetologist. Respondent was eligible to take the cosmetology examination on September 10, 2004. As of December 20, 2005, Respondent had successfully completed all parts of the cosmetology licensing examination. Respondent was not licensed as a cosmetologist until more than three months after the December 14, 2005, inspection. Respondent was initially issued a cosmetology license, License No. CL 1183800, on or about March 31, 2006. That license is current and active, with an effective date of March 31, 2006, through October 31, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent, Camilo Torres, engaged in the practice of cosmetology without a license, an act proscribed by Subsection 477.0265(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), and (2) imposing an administrative fine of $500 for that violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Camilo Torres 421 Champagne Lane Brandon, Florida 33511 Lee C. Hawley Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Section 477.14(1) & 477.17, Florida Statutes. Receipt of Administrative Complaint and Notice of Hearing was acknowledged by Respondent. (Exhibit 1)
Findings Of Fact On May 20, 1975, Respondent was employed at the Elizabeth Arden cosmetology salon, 340 Miracle Mile, Coral Gables, Florida. This salon operates under Certificate of Registration No. 21626 issued by Petitioner on May 8, 1975. Petitioner's inspector had seen an ad in the Miami Herald to the effect that Respondent was employed at that establishment and she was aware of the fact that he did not hold a current cosmetologist license. She visited him on May 20, 1975 and he stated at that time that he had applied for a license. The inspector checked with Petitioner's records personnel and discovered that his license had not been renewed at that time. (Testimony of Padrick) Respondent submitted letters dated June 25, 1976 in which he stated that he had planned to attend his hearing but was unable to do so because of illness in the family. He further stated that he had been a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida for over 20 years, and previously one in Illinois for over six (6) years. He stated that he had severe medical problems and went out of the beauty field for approximately two years and when the job opportunity at Elizabeth Arden came along he forwarded a check for $35.00 to Petitioner to reinstate his cosmetology Certificate and that when Petitioner's inspector entered the shop on May 20, 1975, his new license had not yet been received. However, he did show her the check stub. They then jointly called Petitioner's Winter Haven office and he was advised that the check had not been received but that he should send a money order and his old license stub. He did so and his license was received on June 14, 1975. (Statement of Respondent)
Recommendation That the allegation against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Robert Wintermute c/o Elizabeth Arden 340 Miracle Mile Coral Gables, Florida
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 Respondents operated their cosmetology salon in violation of the rule then in effect in which each cosmetology salon owner or manager should send to the Board every five (5) years a certificate from a licensed electrician showing that the electrical equipment in said salon is in safe operating condition. Regulation 21F-3.02, of the rules and regulations of the State Board of Cosmetology. Whether Respondents' license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact The witness and Respondents were duly sworn. The Notice of Service and Complaint were entered without objection and marked Exhibit 1. The Election of Remedies and Electrical Certificate were entered into evidence as Exhibit 2 without objection. Respondents held a license as required by Board of Cosmetology Rule 21F-3.02, which was dated 1969. A notice of violation was written up by the Board at the five-year expiration of said license which was in 1974. Since the writing of the violation notice, the Board has rescinded the rule requiring an electrical certificate and Respondnets not having procured a certificate in a timely fashion did not then attempt to secure said certificate inasmuch as the rule had been rescinded.
