The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 477.21(1); 477-15(8) and 477.02(4), Florida Statutes, by operating a cosmetology salon on at least three different occasions to-wit: January 23, 1975, January 24, 1975 and January 30, 1975, without the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact Notice of this hearing was served on Respondent. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the proceeding. Respondent holds a current cosmetology salon license No. 14954 and cosmetologist license No. 68986 Respondent, by her own written admission, has, on January 23, January 24 and January 30, 1975, operated her salon without the supervision of a master cosmetologist.
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 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 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 the Respondent did practice cosmetology in her home without a valid salon license in violation of Section 477.02(1)(3), F.S. and Rule 21F-3.10, F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Brenda J. Lopsenzski is the holder of cosmetology license No. 0081729. Mrs. Margaret L. Boswell, Inspector for the Board of Cosmetology, entered the home of Respondent at which time Respondent was shampooing a lady's hair in her home. The home was not properly equipped as a beauty salon at the time of the inspection b Mrs. Boswell and there were no patrons in the home other than the lady upon whose hair the Respondent was working. The testimony of the Respondent which I believe to be the facts and which were not denied by the Inspector for the Board were as follows: Respondent held a junior license and in order to keep her skill and in order to do favors for a few friends, would style hair for these friends. She charged them no fee and "practiced" both for her benefit and the benefit of a few friends. The actions of Respondent as shown by the testimony and evidence are not a violation of Chapter 477, F.S. or Rule 21F-3.10, F.A.C.
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of August, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida Brenda J. Lopsenzski 406 North Boyd Street Winter Garden, Florida
The Issue Whether Respondent practiced cosmetology in a salon in Florida without a cosmetologist license as required by Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. Whether the Board has jurisdiction over Respondent. Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was practicing cosmetology by shampooing the hair of a customer of Bernice Benbow d/b/a Bernice's Beauty Salon at a time when Respondent, Carrie Shingles had no certificate to practice cosmetology. Respondent admitted she was not a registered cosmetologist; that she did shampoo the hair of a customer in Bernice's Beauty Salon; that she performed such work without the permission of Bernice Benbow, the owner of the salon; that she did not know said action was contrary to the Florida Statutes or the rules and regulations of the Board of Cosmetology. Notice of Service was entered without objection and marked Exhibit 1. The witnesses were duly sworn
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. August 27, 1975 date DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Bernice Benbow 702 Magnolia Street Cocoa, Florida Ms. Carrie Shingles 606 Poinsett Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ms. Artie Leigh Mitchell 427 Roosevelt Avenue Merritt Island, Florida Ms. Mary Alice Palmer Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Post Office Box 9087 Winter Haven, Florida 33880
Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1968, the Respondent, Elke H. M. Richey, was issued cosmetology license number CL 0060439 by the Florida Board of Cosmetology. The Respondent renewed this license as required until June 30, 1982. However, during the period from July 1, 1982, through January 10, 1983, the Respondent did not hold an active license to practice cosmetology. On November 18, 1982, Agostino Lucente, an inspector employed by the Department of Professional Regulation, went to the premises of a business named Hair Fashions by Elke, located at 1790 State Road 13, Switzerland, Florida to conduct an inspection. This business was selected for inspection because it appeared on a list of cosmetology salons whose licenses were not current. The Respondent was present during this inspection, and she admitted that she was the owner of the salon. Although the Respondent was not actually observed performing any cosmetology services, the inspector observed the Respondent make appointments for such services by telephone and with persons who came in. In addition, there was on the premises equipment used in the practice of cosmetology such as hair dryers and shampoo stations, hair rollers, creams and lotions. There was an exterior sign advertising Hair Fashions by Elke, there were business cards available for distribution inside the premises, the salon was open for business and there was displayed an occupational license with the Respondent's name on it. This evidence supports a finding that the Respondent was engaged in the practice of cosmetology. On November 24, 1980, the Florida Board of Cosmetology issued to the Respondent license number CE 0030890 for a cosmetology salon named Hair Fashions by Elke, located at 1790 State Road 13, Switzerland, Florida. This license expired on June 30, 1982, and it was not in effect when the Respondent's salon was inspected on November 18, 1982. After the inspection of November 18, 1982, the Respondent attempted to renew her cosmetology license number CL 0060439 and her cosmetology salon license number CE 0030890. On January 11, 1983, the Board of Cosmetology issued a renewal of the Respondent's cosmetology license number CL 0060439, but it did not issue to the Respondent a renewal of her cosmetology salon license number CE 0030890, and the Respondent eventually sold Hair Fashions by Elke in August of 1983.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Elke H. M. Richey, be found guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and that license number CL 0060439 be suspended for one year as penalty for count one, and that the Board of Cosmetology issue a reprimand to the Respondent, Elke H. M. Richey, as penalty for count two. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 9th day of December, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 9th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Elke H. M. Richey 1790 State Road 13 Switzerland, Florida 32043 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation - Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida, having been issued Florida cosmetology license, number CL 0057719. At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent had been the owner of a cosmetology salon named Bikini Unisex Beauty Salon, located at 2500 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida, although at the time of the hearing Respondent had sold his interest in Bikini Unisex Beauty Salon. At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent was licensed to operate the Bikini Unisex Beauty Salon as a cosmetology salon, having been issued Florida cosmetology salon license number, CE 0025617. On September 7, 1984, Alexa Aracha (Aracha), an inspector employed by Petitioner, conducted a routine inspection at Bikini Unisex Beauty Salon to check for compliance with sanitation and licensure requirements. At the time of the inspection, Mamie L. Thompson (Thompson) was shampooing the hair of a salon customer. Respondent has admitted that Thompson was employed by him, d/b/a Unisex Bikini Beauty Salon, as a cosmetologist the past fourteen (14) years. Thompson's cosmetology license, number CL 0031825, expired on June 30, 1984, and was not renewed until November 17, 1984. Although it appears that Thompson had completed the necessary hours of continuing education to have her license renewed, the record is clear that between July 1, 1984 and November 17, 1984 Thompson's cosmetology license, number CL 0031825, was in an inactive status. Respondent, due to Thompson's length of employment with him, did not check Thompson's license to see if it was current and was unaware that her license had expired. At the time of the inspection, Linda S. Marlowe (Marlowe) was present in the salon but was not working. Respondent's appointment book indicated that Marlowe had scheduled appointments for the afternoon of the day of the inspection. Respondent admitted that Marlowe was employed by him, d/b/a Bikini Unisex Beauty Salon, as a cosmetologist, and had worked a couple of days just prior to the inspection. The record is clear that Marlowe's cosmetology license, number CL 0057700, expired June 30, 1984, and was not renewed until January 16, 1985. Although it appears that Marlowe had completed the necessary hours of continuing education to have her license renewed the record is clear that between July 1, 1984 and January 16, 1985 Marlowe's cosmetology license, number CL 0057700, was in an inactive status. The record shows that there had been sickness in Marlowe's family and due to this sickness, she did not have the necessary funds to renew her license. Again, due to Marlowe's length of employment with Respondent, Respondent did not check Marlowe's license to see if it was current and was unaware that her license had expired. At all times material to this proceeding, Linda S. Marlowe and Mamie L. Thompson were not licensed to practice barbering in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the charge of violating Section 477.0265(1)(b)2., (1)(d), Florida Statutes (1983) be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of the violation of Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statues (1983). For such violation, considering the mitigating circumstances surrounding the violation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology issue a letter of Reprimand to the Respondent. Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 25th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Valentino Malloggi Pro se 2500 E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard Hallandale, Florida 33009 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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.
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Section 477.02(4) & 477.15, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates Kemp's Beauty Salon, 404 N.E. 10th Street, Boynton Beach, Florida, under Certificate of Registration Number 16286 to operate a cosmetology salon issued by Petitioner on November 18, 1971. (Stipulation). On May 22, 1975, Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's salon and observed a man styling the hair of a patron. On May 23, the Inspector returned and observed the same man doing the same thing. He informed her that he did not have a state license. Respondent was not present on either occasion. (Testimony of Jennings) Respondent testified at the hearing that he had had no idea that the individual in question, who was a patron of the shop, was going to work on customers. On May 23rd Respondent had left the shop to have lunch. (Testimony of Kemp).
Recommendation That Respondent's salon license 16286 be suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Thomas Kemp Kemp's Beauty Salon 404 N.E. 10 Street Boynton Beach, Florida
