The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 477.15(8)(9), Florida Statutes, and Regulation 21F-301, Florida Administrative Code, by operating a cosmetology salon without a salon license.
Findings Of Fact Notice of this hearing was attempted by mail and notice was left at the proper address. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the proceeding. Respondent holds a current cosmetologist license No. 18927. Respondent is or has been practicing the art of cosmetology in her home without first having secured a certificate of registration for a cosmetology salon.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether any disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent for alleged non-compliance with the graduate exemption provision of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, and the Rules pertaining to graduates of cosmetology schools as contained in Chapter 61G5, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Miriam Viera, is of Hispanic origin. Her native language is Spanish. Ms. Viera and her children are the recipients of welfare in Escambia County. Specifically, Ms. Viera and her family receive money from Aid to Family with Dependent Children and food stamps. She has always wanted to be a cosmetologist and in 1994 was able to pursue her goal of becoming a licensed cosmetologist and also attempted to get off welfare. In order to become a licensed cosmetologist Ms. Viera was required to, (1) be 16 years of age, (2) graduate from an approved school of cosmetology, (3) have completed 1200 hours of training in cosmetology, (4) complete an application for licensure thereby applying to the Board of Cosmetology to sit for the cosmetology exam and, (5) pay the required licensure and examination fees. The application to the Board of Cosmetology required that Ms. Viera's 1200 hours of training be certified by the school where she took her training and that a certificate of completion of an approved HIV/AIDS training course accompany the application. Failure to meet any one of these requirements would cause Ms. Viera to be ineligible to take the cosmetology examination, as well as ineligible for licensure. On January 29, 1994, Respondent graduated from RTI Technical Institute in Pensacola by completing 1200 hours of training in cosmetology. RTI is a State approved cosmetology school. However, RTI does not offer an HIV awareness course. The course was offered at one of the local Pensacola hospitals. After graduation Respondent decided to take approximately two weeks off. On February 17, 1994, Respondent completed her training for HIV/AIDS awareness. During this time period, Respondent had also picked up an application to take the cosmetology examination and licensure from RTI. The form the school supplied to Ms. Viera did not contain the cover letter/instruction sheet for the application. As a consequence Ms. Viera was told that the application fee would be $75.00. On February 17, 1994, Respondent secured a $75.00 money order and presented a completed application to the office of Larry Bryant, the president of RTI Cosmetology School. The application was left with Mr. Bryant so that he could certify to the Board of Cosmetology, on behalf of RTI that Ms. Viera had completed 1200 hours of cosmetology training at the school. After Mr. Bryant completed the school's part of the application, he was to send the application and the money order on to the Board of Cosmetology. Respondent indicated on her application that she wanted to take the examination in Spanish. Such a request is authorized by the Board. There was no evidence that this request was fraudulent. The fee to take the examination in Spanish was an additional of $30.00. However, Respondent was unaware of the requirement for additional money because she had not received the applications's cover letter/instruction sheet with her application. Until Respondent paid the additional $30.00 she was not eligible to take the cosmetology examination. Likewise, the cosmetology examination was not available to Ms. Viera until the additional $30.00 application fee was paid. For unknown reasons over which Ms. Viera had no control, Mr. Bryant did not complete the school's part of the application until about March 2, 1994. Consequently, Ms. Viera's application was not mailed to the Board of Cosmetology until March 2, 1994. Ms. Viera had assumed that Mr. Bryant had completed and mailed her application within a couple days of her leaving it with him. She was unaware that Mr. Bryant had not done so. Again, Ms. Viera was not eligible to take the cosmetology examination until the certification from the school was accomplished and the application received by the Board. Likewise the cosmetology examination was not available to her until the application was completed by the school and received by the Board. In the meantime, around March 1, 1994, Respondent had begun practicing cosmetology at Lee's Family Affair Studio in Pensacola, Florida. Ms. Viera had been referred to the salon by the school. Ms. Viera needed to work because, being on welfare her funds were extremely short and she had to make up the money she had used to pay the $75.00 application fee. Normally, applicants who have met all the requirements for taking the cosmetology examination are admitted to take the examination scheduled approximately 10 to 15 days after the Board of Cosmetology has received and reviewed the application. The application of Respondent was received by the office of the Cosmetology Board on March 9, 1994. Based upon this date, the next examination was offered on April 21, 1994 had the entire examination fee of $105.00 been paid. Except for the fee, Respondent's application was complete in all respects as required by Rule 61G5-18.002, Florida Administrative Code. The Board sent a letter to Respondent dated March 15, 1994, advising her that her application was not complete because she did not pay the additional $30.00 fee for the Spanish version of the cosmetology examination and that she was not eligible to sit for any examination until the fee had been paid. The letter was received by Respondent around April 6, 1994. The Board's deficiency letter was the first indication Respondent had that she owed the Board more money and that she was not eligible for the examination scheduled for April 21, 1994 and that the examination was not available to the Respondent. Lutrel Raboteaux, an inspector for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, conducted a routine inspection of Lee's Family Affair Studio, on April 6, 1994. During the course of the inspection, the salon was open to the public, employees were present, and cosmetology services were being performed on customers. Inspector Raboteaux discovered that the Respondent was an employee of the salon, and asked the salon owner to see her license. Respondent was not initially at the salon when Mr. Raboteaux began his inspection. She arrived shortly thereafter. Respondent admitted to Inspector Raboteaux that she was employed by the salon, had been working there since around the first week of March and had charged about $20.00 for a haircut. Respondent further admitted that she had sent in her application to sit for the next available examination sometime in early March, 1994, but did not have a license. Mr. Raboteaux conferred with the manager of the salon, Daniel Lee, as to the location of Respondent's license, if any. Mr. Lee informed Inspector Raboteaux that Respondent was working under the graduate exemption from cosmetology licensure. Mr. Raboteaux asked to see documentation which would prove that the Respondent was a cosmetology school graduate i.e., the application for licensure, copy of the money order or check to pay for the exam, and a copy of the receipt indicating payment that the Board of Cosmetology sends to the graduate. No documents were posted at Respondent's workstation nor were any documents produced for Inspector Raboteaux. Inspector Raboteaux completed his inspection of the salon, and noted on the salon's inspection report that Respondent's graduate exemption was subject to further investigation. Later, Inspector Raboteaux contacted the Board of Cosmetology in Tallahassee and spoke with Ms. Stacy Merchant, and employee of the Board whose duties for the Board include processing and determining eligibility of cosmetology school graduates to sit for the cosmetology exam. Ms. Merchant informed Inspector Raboteaux that the Respondent was not eligible for the graduate exemption. Ms. Merchant based her conclusion on her understanding of Chapter 477 and the Rules promulgated thereunder. Based on Ms. Merchant's representation, Inspector Raboteaux completed a Uniform Citation and served it on the Respondent by United States Mail -- Restricted Delivery. The Uniform Citation served on the Respondent indicated she was charged with practicing without a license for which the Board's fine was $500.00. Because Ms. Viera was a welfare recipient she did not have the money to pay the additional $30.00 fee, let alone a $500.00 fine which she disputed. As a consequence, Ms. Viera could not take the April 21, 1994 cosmetology examination.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found not guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993) through a violation of Section 477.0135(g), Florida Statutes (1993) and the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE 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 12th day of July, 1996.
The Issue Whether the license of the Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for allowing students to work in his salon prior to the issuance of a work permit.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on May 31, 1977 charging: "That you, said Anthony LaRoche on March 15, 1977 did allow students to work in your salon prior to the issuance of work per- mits Anthony's, Jacksonville, Florida." Anthony LaRoche, Respondent, was the owner of several businesses and has managers to operate his beauty salons. A young man was hired to work in the Respondent's beauty salon to report to work at a subsequent time when the school attended by the cosmetologist would have sufficient time to send his credentials to the office of the State Board and for him to receive his work permit from the State Board. The cosmetologist reported for work and began working and was working at the time of the inspection on March 15, 1977 and had not yet received his work permit although he had previously applied for it. Upon learning of the inspection and the violation, the Respondent immediately sent for the credentials but the work permit was not received for 22 days thereafter. After the Respondent learned that the cosmetologist did not hear from it he ceased doing the work of a cosmetologist until his work permit was received.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to Respondent for failing to ascertain whether an employee was duly certified to work in the salon owned by the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 1971, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 LaFace & Haggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Anthony LaRoche, President Anthony LaRoche, Inc. 5566 Ft. Caroline Road Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's licenses as a cosmetologist and cosmetology salon owner in the State of Florida, should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for the alleged violations of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, 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. The Respondent is a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida, holding license number CL 141038. From April 13, 1987 until October 31, 1990, Respondent also held a license as a cosmetology salon owner, license number CE 0044081. The salon license expired on October 31, 1990 and was not renewed for the 1990-1992 period because the check submitted for payment of the renewal fee was dishonored by the bank for insufficient funds. This case is related to a separate administrative proceeding brought against Veronica Bonani, DPR Case Number 90-4671. In that case, Ms. Bonani was found by the Florida Board of Cosmetology to have been employed by the Respondent as a cosmetologist without a Florida license from January 3, 1990 to March, 1990. After conceding the allegations in that case, Ms. Bonani was fined one hundred dollars ($100). Petitioner has suggested that the complaint against Veronica Bonani was initiated by Respondent, apparently in retribution for Ms. Bonani's terminating her employment with Respondent to take another job. At the hearing in this cause, the Respondent denied that she reported Ms. Bonani to the Department. While this dispute has little bearing on the main issues in this proceeding, the more persuasive evidence was that Respondent reported Ms. Bonani to Petitioner after Ms. Bonani left her employment. The evidence established that the Respondent employed Veronica Bonani as a cosmetologist without a Florida license from January 3, 1990 to March, 1990. Veronica Bonani began seeking licensure by endorsement in Florida sometime in the Fall of 1989. Because of some problems in obtaining the necessary documentation, she experienced delays in obtaining a license. Her formal application for licensure in Florida is dated February 6, 1990 and was filed with Petitioner on February 15, 1990. Veronica Bonani did not receive authorization to practice as a cosmetologist in Florida until April 13, 1990. However, as indicated above, Ms. Bonani began working for Respondent in early January, 1990. Prior to beginning work for Respondent, Ms. Bonani advised Respondent that she was in the process of obtaining a Florida license, but was not yet licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Respondent encouraged her to begin work anyway. When an inspector employed by Petitioner entered the Respondent's salon on February 22, 1990, the Respondent instructed Ms. Bonani to hide. However, Ms. Bonani openly revealed her status to the inspector. The inspector indicated during his February 22, 1990 visit that there was no problem with Ms. Bonani's employment since her application was pending and approval seemed imminent. This conclusion was erroneous. Respondent contends that she believed Ms. Bonani was entitled to begin work in Florida since she was in the process of obtaining licensure. However, there was no justifiable basis for Respondent to believe it was legal to employ Ms. Bonani in January, 1990. Indeed, the evidence and circumstances in this case indicate that Respondent was well aware that Ms. Bonani should not have been practicing prior to issuance of her Florida license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 477.0265(1)(b)(2), 477.0265(1)(d), 477.029(1)(c) and 477.029(1)(h), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine of three hundred dollars ($300) and allowing the Respondent to pay this amount in three (3) payments. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1992, 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 18th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Only Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact. The following constitutes my rulings on those proposals. 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. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 1. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 2. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4, 5, 6 and 7. Copies furnished: Renee Alsobrook, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Steven Lulich P.O. Box 1390 Sebastian, Florida 32978 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Cosmetology Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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 The issues here concern an Administrative Complaint brought by Petitioner against Respondent alleging that Respondent is guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Subsection 477.028(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and has violated Subsection 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by allowing an employee to practice cosmetology without being duly licensed as provided by Chapter 477, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Toni M. Farmer, presently holds an active cosmetology license issued by Petitioner, License No. CL0062662, for the period July 19, 1982, through June 30, 1984. Between May 6, 1980, and July 6, 1981, Farmer worked as a cosmetologist in a salon operated by Shear Pleasure, Inc., in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. Shear Pleasure, Inc., is the holder of License No. CE0027634. Beginning July 13, 1981, to the present Farmer has worked as a cosmetologist in the salon, Josef and Charles, Inc., d/b/a Josef and Charles Styling Salon, License No. CE0022674, located in Orange Park, Florida. When Farmer began her employment with Shear Pleasure she had a current and valid cosmetology license issued by Petitioner, which license expired June 30, 1980. Around August 18, 1980, Farmer forwarded a cashier's check made payable to the Board of Cosmetology for purposes of renewing her delinquent cosmetology license. Subsequent to the action on the part of Farmer and in the course of a routine inspection, Jewel Walker, an inspector for Petitioner, noted the fact of expiration of Farmer's license. This took place in 1980. When told that Petitioner had not responded to the renewal request, Walker instructed Farmer to post the indicia of payment of fees, i.e., a copy of the cashier's check of August, 1980, at Farmer's work station in the interim and to check the post office for any return of that cashier's check, due to the fact that Farmer had changed her mailing address following the transmittal of the cashier's check. Farmer made other contacts with the Tallahassee, Florida, office of Petitioner to determine the status of her renewal in 1980. In the beginning of 1981, Farmer spoke with Walker about the renewal, having failed to receive any notification confirming license renewal. (In the course of these maters, Walker had indicated certain logistical problems that were taking place, reference license renewal for cosmetologists.) The owner of Shear Pleasure, Inc., Fontaine LeMaistre, was aware of the efforts on the cart of Farmer to obtain license renewal and allowed her to continue as an employee during her tenure. When Farmer took a position with Josef and Charles, her employer was made aware of the fact that she did not have the license document and the employer was made aware of the efforts which Farmer had made to obtain the license. On August 11, 1981, Farmer requested the Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville, which had issued the August 18, 1980, cashier's check to stop payment on that check, based upon the fact that the payee, Petitioner, had not cashed the check. This request was honored and on August 13, 1981, a cashier's check was issued to Toni M. Farmer in the like amount of thirty-five dollars ($35.00), which check was subsequently cashed by Farmer. On May 12, 1982, Charles Coats, an investigator with Petitioner, made an inspection of the Orange Park business of Josef and Charles and discovered that Farmer was without a license. At that time, a copy of the original thirty- five dollar ($35.00) check written to the Board of Cosmetology was shown to Coats. Farmer related the circumstances involving efforts which she had made to obtain the license. Following this conversation, and specifically in June, 1982, Farmer paid the necessary fees and offered required credentials which allowed her license to be renewed, effective July 19, 1982.
Recommendation Based upon a full consideration of the facts found, conclusions of law reached and being otherwise informed, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered authorizing the issuance of a letter of reprimand to the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 29th day of December, 1982.
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.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Arled Corp., d/b/a Cadris Hair Design, has been licensed to operate a cosmetology salon in the State of Florida, having previously been issued license number CE 0046212. At all times material to this case, the Respondent corporation has been the owner and operator of a cosmetology salon known as Cadris Hair Design, which is located at 13635 Southwest 26th Street, Miami, Florida 33175-6377. On December 26, 1991, during the course of a routine inspection, an inspector employed by the Department of Professional Regulation discovered that Liliam de la Portilla was practicing a cosmetology specialty on the licensed premises without having a valid license to practice a cosmetology specialty. Further investigation revealed that Liliam de la Portilla had been practicing a cosmetology specialty on a regular basis on the licensed premises since approximately the middle of September of 1991. Liliam de la Portilla has previously been licensed to practice a cosmetology specialty, but her last license expired on June 30, 1990. During the period from the middle of September of 1991 through December 26, 1991, Liliam de la Portilla did not have a valid license to practice a cosmetology specialty in the State of Florida. Ms. Gladys Scheer is, and was at all material times, the president of and owner of Arled Corporation. Ms. Scheer granted permission for Liliam de la Portilla to practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design. Liliam de la Portilla was not an employee of Cadris Hair Design, but merely paid rent for the right to practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design. Ms. Gladys Scheer has known Liliam de la Portilla for approximately ten years. Ms. Scheer knew that Liliam de la Portilla had previously been licensed to practice a cosmetology specialty and assumed, but did not verify, that Liliam de la Portilla was still licensed. In September of 1991 when Ms. Scheer first allowed Liliam de la Portilla to practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design, she was not aware that Liliam de la Portilla's license had expired. Following the inspection on December 26, 1991, Ms. Gladys Scheer told Liliam de la Portilla that the latter could no longer practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design until such time as she was properly licensed.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order concluding that the Respondent is guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty consisting of a reprimand and an administrative fine in the amount of $100.00. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of August 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire N-607 Rhode Building Phase 2 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Bureau Chief Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Ms. Gladys Scheer, President Cadris Hair Design 13635 Southwest 26th Street Miami, Florida 33175-6377 Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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
