The Issue Whether Respondent, Elaine Jordan, doing business as Park Avenue Coiffures, did practice cosmetology without a valid Florida cosmetology license. Whether the Board should revoke, annul, withdraw or suspend the license of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Elaine Jordan, was practicing cosmetology as charged by the Board by shampooing the hair of a customer in the salon owned by Elaine Jordan doing business as Park Avenue Coiffures. Respondent holds Registration No. 18844 for the salon doing business as Park Avenue Coiffures. Respondent Elaine Jordan is not a registered, licensed cosmetologist. 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 witness was duly sworn.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Katherine Zavattaro was licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CL 0076721. At all times material hereto, Katherine Zavattaro was licensed to operate a cosmetology salon named Kit's Beauty Spot and located at 3169 East Atlantic Boulevard, Pompano Beach, Florida. On January 25, 1968, Linda Jones was issued Florida cosmetologist license number CL 0060025. This license was subject to a biennial renewal condition that required it to be renewed by June 30 of each even-numbered year. (See Rule 21F-18.06, F.A.C. quoted in pertinent part below). On January 26, 1984, an inspector employed by Petitioner, observed Jones performing cosmetology services during a routine cosmetology salon inspection of Kit's Beauty Spot. Jones was unable to produce a current, active Florida cosmetologist license upon demand by the inspector. The license posted at Jones' work station had expired on June 30, 1982. Jones told the inspector that she had mistakenly left her current license at home. However, a check of Petitioner's licensing records indicated that Jones had never renewed the license which expired on June 30, 1982. A further check of Petitioner's files subsequent to the hearing revealed no correspondence or other evidence which would support Jones' claim. Jones testified under oath at hearing that in May, 1982, she applied to renew her Florida cosmetologist license. She further testified that around August, 1982, when she had not yet received her renewed license, she made a telephone call to Tallahassee, and was informed that her renewal application had not been received. She testified that in October or November, 1982, she reapplied to renew her cosmetologist license and that near the end of December, 1982, she received her renewed license. Respondent Jones was unable to produce any documentary evidence to corroborate this testimony. She stated that she apparently lost the license as well as the money order receipt which would have supported her claim that she tendered the license renewal fee. Petitioner and Respondent Jones were given a further opportunity to search for evidence of license renewal or attempted renewal. However, no late-filed exhibits were submitted which would support Jones' testimony. At all times material hereto, Katherine Zavattaro was the owner of Kit's Beauty Spot. In June, 1982, she hired Linda Jones to work there as a cosmetologist while Jones' license was still active. She did not require Jones to produce a current Florida cosmetologist license thereafter, and apparently relied on Jones' claim of renewal and her own knowledge that Jones had previously been employed at other cosmetology salons. Jones continued to work for Zavattaro as a cosmetologist at Kit's Beauty Spot, and was so employed at the time of Petitioner's inspection on January 26, 1984. The conflicting evidence regarding Jones' licensure status is resolved against her. Respondent Jones' inability to produce any evidence to support her testimony that she had paid for and/or been issued a license, along, with the absence in Petitioner's public records of any evidence that such license had been applied for, paid for or issued, establish that Jones' testimony is a product of mistake or fabrication.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order fining Respondent Linda Jones $500, and issuing a reprimand to Respondent Katherine Zavattaro, DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 13th day of September, 1984.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 477.029(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2007),1/ regulating licensure as a cosmetologist by the State of Florida, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 477, Florida Statutes (2015). The Board is the professional licensing board charged with disciplinary final agency action against cosmetologists pursuant to chapters 455 and 477. Ms. Jorge was issued Florida cosmetology license number CL 1196463 on April 9, 2008. The Florida license was issued based upon the submission of an application for initial cosmetology license by endorsement. Supporting licensure by endorsement, the application submitted to the Board included a certification dated February 15, 2007, purporting to have been issued by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. That certification indicated that Tania Jorge2/ had completed 1200 hours of study and had been duly licensed as a certified cosmetologist since January 26, 1989. It indicated that her Puerto Rican license number was 71770. Ms. Jorge's application file also contained a transcript purportedly issued by the Academia de Belleza Maruggie in Puerto Rico indicating that her studies began on August 7, 1988, and were completed on May 30, 1989, reflecting the completion of 18 courses totaling 1200 hours of study, and the name, number, and grade received by Ms. Jorge for each course taken.3/ Puerto Rican cosmetology license number 71770 was never issued to Ms. Jorge. Ms. Jorge came to the United States from Cuba in 1980. She testified at hearing that she had never attended cosmetology school in Puerto Rico, had never lived there, and in fact had only visited there once for a few hours on a cruise. Ms. Jorge testified that she went to Specialized Beauty Center (SBC) in Kissimmee in order to prepare for and complete the Florida cosmetology licensure examination. She testified that she paid SBC for a week-long review course to prepare for the examination and that the following week SBC sent her to a different place to take the examination. She testified that she took the examination on a computer, in Spanish. She could not recall the address. Ms. Jorge testified that prior to the examination, she submitted documentation to SBC at its request showing that she had completed 1200 hours of study and completed a course on HIV. She testified that she thought she had completed all of the coursework necessary to obtain cosmetology licensure by examination. Ms. Jorge testified that she did not know that SBC had submitted an endorsement application and not an examination application. The only document introduced at hearing indicating completion of 1200 hours of study is the transcript from the Puerto Rican beauty school in Ms. Jorge's application file. The only document showing completion of an HIV course in her file is a Certificate of Completion for a four-hour course entitled "HIV/Aids 104" and dated March 17, 2008, indicating by heading and signature that it was issued by SBC. Ms. Jorge admitted that she did take that course at SBC. It was not clear why SBC would have required her to take another HIV course if she had submitted documentation showing that she had already met that requirement. Ms. Julie Roland, government analyst with the Department, credibly testified that the cosmetology exam is given at 22 locations around the state by a vendor company called Pearson VUE. She testified that Pearson VUE specializes in developing and administering various types of examinations, has had the state contract at least since 2002, and always gives the examinations at their facilities. There was no documentation in Ms. Jorge's application file from Pearson VUE indicating that Ms. Jorge had taken or passed their cosmetology examination. As Ms. Roland testified, endorsement candidates do not take the examination. Ms. Jorge's application file maintained by the Department contains some documents that do not belong there, although they are all marked with her application number. Her file contains duplicate "Attest Statement" pages: one is signed by Ms. Jorge; the other appears to contain the signature of a Katia (with no letter "h") Mathelier. It similarly contains two "Affirmation Statement" pages: one containing the signature of Ms. Jorge; the other containing a signature reading Katia Mathelier. Curiously, the Affirmation Statement page from the cosmetology license application file of Kathia (with an "h") Mathelier and the Mathelier Affirmation Statement page in Ms. Jorge's file are not identical. Not only is the first name spelled differently, the signatures appear to be in different handwriting, and they display different dates. Similarly, the two Mathelier Attest Statement forms are not simply duplicates. The name is spelled and written differently. It is not clear why the Department did not become aware of these anomalies at the time Ms. Jorge's application was submitted, when it did become aware of them, or what action, if any, was taken when it was discovered.4/ Licensing information records of the Department indicate that Kathia Mathelier is an Orlando cosmetologist who was initially licensed on April 9, 2008. Her application also contains a certificate from SBC showing completion of the HIV/AIDS 104 course. Her application also contains a certification dated February 15, 2007, purporting to have been issued by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico indicating that Kathia Mathelier was the holder of a Puerto Rican cosmetology license. Her application also contains a transcript purportedly issued by the Academia de Belleza Maruggie in Puerto Rico showing the completion of the same 18 courses totaling 1200 hours of study, the same beginning and ending dates of enrollment, exactly the same grade received in every course, and the same typographical errors as the transcript in Ms. Jorge's file. Ms. Jorge testified at hearing that she had no knowledge of Ms. Mathelier and that she did not submit any documents to SBC that were not her own. She testified that SBC prepared and organized all of the application paperwork for her and that she just signed where they told her she needed to sign. The remainder of the application was not in her handwriting. Ms. Jorge signed her application everywhere a signature was required prior to its submission to the Board, and she acknowledged that signing a document places liability on the signee for the contents of that document. There was no deposition or live testimony from Ms. Mathelier at the hearing. There was no testimony from SBC. There was none from the Academia de Belleza Maruggie. No evidence was introduced as to the roles that Academia de Belleza Maruggie or SBC may have played in the fraud, or the relationship between these entities. The inconsistencies and questions about the application are not fully explained on this record, and any complicity on the part of the schools is only a matter of speculation. Ms. Jorge's testimony is not at all credible, however. No evidence in the record supports Ms. Jorge's testimony that she completed 1200 hours of study at a school other than the Puerto Rican school. It is simply not reasonable that SBC discarded school transcripts she provided to it and unilaterally substituted a different forged transcript and a false licensure certification from Puerto Rico without the knowledge or cooperation of Ms. Jorge. The only reasonable inference is that Ms. Jorge paid SBC to submit her licensure application on her behalf, that she was aware that it contained false information, and that she knew she was not licensed as a cosmetologist in any jurisdiction. The evidence is clear and convincing that false documents were submitted to obtain Ms. Jorge's license and that she personally intended for that false application to be submitted. Ms. Jorge is a single mother of two children, one of whom is in college. Revocation of her license will greatly impact her livelihood. Other than the present action, she has practiced cosmetology without complaint since she was licensed in 2008, and no previous discipline has been imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation finding Tania Jorge in violation of section 477.029(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2007), as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; imposing an administrative fine of $500; and revoking her license to practice as a cosmetologist in the State of Florida. It is further recommended that should the board establish, by rule, requirements for reapplication by applicants whose licenses have been revoked, that Tania Jorge be permitted to apply for re-licensure upon satisfying then-current requirements for an initial license. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 22nd day of July, 2016.
The Issue Whether the certificate of registration No. 866914 should be revoked, annulled, suspended or withdrawn for violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, for practicing without a license.
Findings Of Fact Receipt for certified mail notifying Respondent of this hearing was offered into evidence as Exhibit 1 and marked without objection. The Election of Remedies, a composite exhibit marked Exhibit 2, was entered as requested without objection. Respondent was charged for practicing cosmetology without a license. Respondent admitted the violation and submitted such plea to the Board which was included in the Board's Exhibit 1. After the violation for which Ms. Gould was noticed and for which this hearing is held, Respondent took the examination for master cosmetologists, passed the examination, and was issued a Florida license.
Recommendation Suspend the certificate of registration Respondent now holds for a period of one (1) week. August 29, 1975 DATE Delphine C. Strickland Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ms. Gertie Campbell 7409 Huntley Avenue Tampa, Florida Ms. Rose Gould 1904 Bruce Street Kissimmee, Florida 32741 Ms. Mary Alice Palmer Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Post Office Box 9087 Winter Haven, Florida 33880 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY State Board of Cosmetology, Complaintant, vs. CASE NO. 75-1016 LICENSE NO. 86691 Rose Gould, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether the license of the Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a cosmetology salon not under the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on May 31, 1977, against Barbara Hagan d/b/a Hair Fashion Wig Craft by B & B charging: "That you, said BARBARA HAGAN d/b/a Hair Fashion Wig Craft by B & B on January 11, 1977 did operate a cosmetology salon without the direct supervision of a master cosme- tologist; at Hair Fashion Wig Craft by B & B, Lakeland, Florida." The Respondent, Barbara Hagan, is a master cosmetologist who had left the beauty shop she operated to make a trip to the hospital. The cosmetologist who works in Respondent's shop and who was working at the time of the notice of violation had finished school but was not a master cosmetologist at the time of the violation. The Respondent admitted that he did not have a master cosmetologist license at the time of the violation but asserts that he now is a master cosmetologist.
Recommendation Suspend the license of the Respondent for a period of not more than thirty (30) days inasmuch as this was the second time the statute was violated. The first time no written violation notice was entered but the inspector orally warned the Respondent of the violation. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1977 , in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Barbara Hagan Hair Fashion Wig Craft by B & B 1336 North Florida Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33802 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
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'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 the certificate of registration of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for the reason that Respondent, Arguster Jackson, did work as a master cosmetologist without a valid certificate of registration.
Findings Of Fact A copy of the Complaint with attached license, the certificate, and receipt for certified mail were entered into evidence as requested and marked Exhibit 1 without objection. Respondent entered a guilty plea, a copy of which was entered into evidence as requested without objection and marked Exhibit 2. Respondent Jackson did operate without a current registration required by Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. Respondent secured her master cosmetologist certificate within a time laps after the filing of this Complaint.
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of section 477.02(1), (3), (6), Florida Statutes. A copy of the Administrative Complaint and Notice of Hearing was received by Respondent, but he did not appear at the hearing. (Exhibit 1) At the commencement of the hearing, Petitioner's representative stated that Respondent's place of business, Jane's Beauty Salon, Fort Myers, Florida, is out of business and that Certificate of Registration to operate a beauty salon in that name No. 19330 issued by Petitioner in December, 1973, is no longer valid. Accordingly, counsel for Petitioner interposed no objection to dismissal of the matter.
Recommendation The the allegations against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Leon Rizzuto 2351 East Mall, Apartment 103 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
