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 Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn, or suspended, or whether some other disciplinary action should be taken.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.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is in the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology. As of March 19, 1990, the Respondent had completed 1,043.5 hours of instruction in cosmetology at the Daytona Beach Community College. On this date, the school certified that the Respondent was competent to sit for examination. She was scheduled to complete another 156.5 hours of instruction by April 23, 1990, and was to graduate on that date. The Respondent mailed her application for licensure by examination on March 19, 1990. The Respondent was advised by her instructor at the cosmetology school that her application to the Florida Board Cosmetology was a formal registration that would allow her to practice temporarily without a license. Based upon these representations of her instructor, she began cutting hair for salon customers on that date. The appointment calendar for Head to Toe Salon, 200 North Woodland Boulevard, Deland, Florida, clearly demonstrates that Respondent provided cosmetology services to customers of the Head to Toe Salon on the following dates in 1990: March 19, 24, and 31; April 4, 10, and 17. On April 17, 1990, a routine inspection of the Head to Toe Salon revealed that Respondent maintained a work station in the salon and had been providing unlicensed services to customers since March 19, 1990. On May 30, 1990, the Respondent was issued License CL 0180631 by the Florida Board of Cosmetology. Mitigation The Respondent did not have actual knowledge that she was violating Florida law when she practiced cosmetology without a license between March 19 and April 17, 1990. Once she was advised of the offense, the Respondent ceased the practice immediately. Prior to hearing, the Respondent purchased the salon. The expense of the purchase has placed a financial hardship upon Respondent. She does not anticipate a profit from the business for another two years. The Respondent is frustrated because she was misinformed during her schooling about when she could begin work. However, she is willing to accept responsibility for her actions. The Respondent is committed to making sure that nonlicensed activity does not occur in her salon in the future.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of having violated Section 477.029(1)(a), Florida Statutes. That a letter or reprimand be issued to the Respondent for this violation. That the administrative fine be reduced to a total fine of $100.00. This may be paid within one year of the entry of the Final Order. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 10th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-4705 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #2,#3,#4,#5 and #8. Copies furnished to: Laura P. Gaffney, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dianna K. Gentile 783 Gainsboro Street Deltona, Florida 32725 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed May 31, 1977, against Jack Diftler, owner of the Haircuttery, charging: "That you, said Jack Diftler on March 25, 1977 did allow a cosmetologist to practice in your salon without the supervision of a master cosmetologist at The Haircuttery, St. Augustine, Florida." The Respondent, Jack Diftler, is a master cosmetologist who had left the beauty shop he owned to make an emergency trip to Miami. The cosmetologist who works in his shop and who is not a master cosmetologist failed to obey his instructions which were to cease his cosmetology work and work repairing the shop while he, the master cosmetologist, was absent. The cosmetologist, Michael Diamond, failed to obey instructions and did perform cosmetology work in the absence of the master cosmetologist.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to the Respondent. The disobedience of an employee is an extenuating circumstance. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jack Diftler, Owner The Haircuttery 52 Spanish Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
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 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 Respondents' alleged violation of Sections 477.02(4), 477.15(8) & 477.27(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Corporation operates the Get Your Head Together Cosmetology Salon at 687 N.E. 79 Street, Miami, Florida, under Certificate of Registration Number 15219 issued by Petitioner on February 15, 1971. On April 7, 1975, Petitioner's Inspector visited Respondent's place of business and found two cosmetologists, Sergio Ruiz Calderon and Silvia Gonzalez, engaging in the practice of cosmetology without the presence of a master cosmetologist. Calderon was drying a customer's hair with a blower and Gonzalez was providing another customer with frosting and a hair cut. (Testimony of Patrick). Respondent's President, Geno Tranchida, testified that his brother, a master cosmetologist, was due to arrive at the salon at noon on April 7, and that he therefore left for lunch about 11:45 after instructing his employees not to perform any work while he was gone. The employees disregarded these orders and when Geno Tranchida returned his brother called and informed him that he was ill. (Testimony of Geno Tranchida).
Recommendation That Respondent be issued a written reprimand for the violation of Section 477.02(4), Florida Statutes 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 Geno and Peter Tranchida c/o Get Your Head Together, Inc. 687 N.E. 79 Street Miami, Florida
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
