Findings Of Fact Marie J. Jeune, Respondent, owns an establishment known as Joset's Beauty Salon located at 341 N.W. 3rd Street, Pompano Beach, Florida. From January, 1984 until July, 1984 Respondent operated Joset's Beauty Salon as a cosmetology salon but at no time did she have a license from the Board of Cosmetology for the salon. During this time, she employed a licensed cosmetologist on the premises, and she testified that she did not know that the salon had to be licensed. She thought she was complying with the law by employing a licensed cosmetologist and obtaining an occupational license. In July, 1984 the licensed cosmetologist left her employment at Joset's Beauty Salon due to pregnancy. On October 9, 1984, Alexa Arachy, an inspector employed by the Department of Professional Regulation conducted an inspection of Joset's Beauty Salon. Inspector Arachy observed an unlicensed person, later identified as Respondent's sister-in- law, Ms. McPhaton Jeune, giving a shampoo to a woman in the salon. She also observed two shampoo sinks, a salon station, numerous open bottles of dyes and waving lotions, combs, brushes, towels, hair on the floor, and a trash container full of items which would normally result from the operation of a salon. At no time has either Respondent or Ms. McPhaton Jeune been licensed by the Board of Cosmetology or the Barber Board, nor has Joset's Beauty Salon ever been licensed by the Board of Cosmetology, or the Barber Board. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, F.S. have been considered in making the above findings of fact. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of three hundred dollars ($300). DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 2nd day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marie J. Jeune 341 N.W. 3rd Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Lawrence R. Crawford was licensed as a cosmetologist by DPR, having been issued License No. CL 0081100. By Final Order dated December 31, 1985, Respondent was found guilty of practicing cosmetology without being properly licensed and fined $450 with suspension of license until the fine was paid. (Exhibit 1) Respondent paid $225 of this fine in February 1986, but has made no subsequent payment nor has he renewed the cosmetology license which expired June 30, 1984. An inspection of Respondent's salon at 1383 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida, was conducted March 11, 1987, and Respondent was observed working on a client of the salon. At this time he had no active license. By Final Order dated August 12, 1983, the Board of Cosmetology found Respondent guilty of operating as a cosmetologist without an active salon license, assessed a fine of $50, and suspended his license until the fine was paid. (Exhibit 1). The record (Exhibit 1) fails to disclose whether this fine was paid; however, no current license was issued to Respondent. On October 2, 1987, Petitioner's inspector passed the address of Respondent's salon on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and noticed all equipment had been removed as well as the sign containing the name of the salon.
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Sections 477.15(8), 477.231(c) & (2), Florida Statutes, Rules 21F-3.01 & 21F-3.10, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent was furnished notice of hearing and acknowledged receipt of said notice and the administrative complaint. (Exhibit 2)
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a certificate as a master cosmetologist 0048790 issued by Petitioner on an unspecified date. He also holds a certificate of registration to operate a cosmetology salon license #22903 issued by Petitioner on February 2, 1976. The salon is called Mister Andrew Coiffure, and is located at 1259 East Los Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On January 28, 1976, Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's place of business, but Respondent was absent. The inspector had visited the shop on previous occasions at which time the Respondent had told him he was in the process of buying the salon, and the inspector had left an application for a state certificate of registration for a cosmetology salon. The inspector noticed there was no sign near the front door indicating that the premises were occupied by beauty or cosmetology salon. There was a card in the window which read "Mister Andrew Coiffure" (Testimony of Rubin). Respondent submitted a letter on his behalf dated June 9, 1976, which stated that he had not owned the salon at the time Petitioner's inspector had provided him with application forms for a state license. He claimed that he had had a card attached to the sign in his window which read "Beauty Salon" on January 28, 1976, but that since the inspector had not been satisfied with the card he has since changed the sign and put up 1 inch decal letters on the door spelling "Beauty Salon" (Exhibit 1). Respondent's application for a salon certificate was executed on January 29, 1976 and received by Petitioner on February 2, 1976.
Recommendation That the allegations against the 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 (904) 488-8675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P. O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Charles R. Gannon c/o Mister Andrew Coiffure 1259 East Las Olas Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
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
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Adelina Portuondo, is the holder of License Number CL 0089302 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida State Board of Cosmetology. The license authorizes Respondent to perform cosmetology services. She has held the license since 1976. On or about December 24, 1982, a Department inspector visited the premises known as Delores Beauty Salon, located at 2214 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. The visit was prompted by the fact that the Delores Beauty Salon was delinquent in renewing its license with Petitioner. While conducting the inspection, the inspector observed two apparent employees working with customers in chairs. Before the inspector was able to check the license of one of them, a Latin male, who was performing cosmetology services on a client, the Latin male quickly departed the premises. The inspector was told the male's name was either "Jorge" or "Jose," but that no other information regarding that individual was available. Respondent was not on the premises when the inspection was made, but, after being called from her other shop, she arrived a short time later. Portuondo advised the inspector that the male's name was "Jose," that he was there for a "tryout," had just arrived from Cuba and had been referred by someone at her other beauty salon. She also advised that she had just purchased the salon and was in the process of transferring ownership to her name. At the time the inspection was made, Delores Beauty Shop held no current licenses to provide either cosmetology or barber services to the public. The inspector then visited Respondent's other salon, Lena's of New York, and learned that the Latin male's name was actually Jose Bahamonde. Respondent told the inspector that Bahamonde was only a manager of the salon, whose duties included opening and closing the shop, cleaning and the like, but that he performed no professional services. Lena's of New York was apparently licensed by the Board as a cosmetology salon. On April 5, 1983, a Department inspector again visited the beauty salon operated by Respondent at 2214 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach. Respondent had signs indicating the business was now being operated as Lina Beauty Salon II, Inc. The inspector found Bahamonde on the premises and told him it was illegal to practice cosmetology and barbering without appropriate licenses. Bahamonde told the inspector he had taken the examination and was awaiting the results. The inspector returned the next day, April 6, and found Bahamonde cutting a customer's hair. The Respondent was not present on the premises. After being called by telephone, Respondent arrived shortly thereafter and denied that Bahamonde was providing professional services. Instead, she claimed he was working as a cashier and cleaning up the premises. At that time, she also produced records to show she had purchased the salon on October 5, 1982. Official Department records reflect that Bahamonde was issued cosmetology License No. CL 0141942 on July 26, 1983. Those records also reflect that as recent as October 20, 1983, Lina Beauty Salon II, Inc., held no active cosmetology or barbershop licenses. The records do indicate, however, that Respondent applied for a cosmetology salon license for the establishment in April, 1983, but the application was denied on May 9, 1983, on the ground it was incomplete. No license has been issued to Delores Beauty Salon, Inc., since its purchase by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 477.029(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in December, 1982, and April, 1983; violating Subsection 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in December, 1982; and violating Subsections 477.028(2)(b) and 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in April, 1983. It is further RECOMMENDED that a $250 administrative fine be imposed on Respondent for each violation, for a total of $1,000, and that such fine be paid within thirty (30) days of the date of the final order entered in this cause. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 November, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida to practice cosmetology, having been issued license number CL 0030044. On September 27, 1966, the Respondent was issued a cosmetology salon license numbered CE 0009517 authorizing the operation of a cosmetology salon called "Bonnie's Boutique," located at 426 South Pineapple Avenue, Sarasota, Florida, owned by the Respondent. The petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, as that relates to licensing and regulation of the activities and practices of cosmetologists and cosmetology salons. After assuming ownership of, and obtaining licensure for the operation of a cosmetology salon, the Respondent began operating Bonnie's Boutique, She operated Bonnie's Boutique as a cosmetology salon until approximately June 30, 1980, when her cosmetology salon license became ripe for renewal. She was leasing the premises in which she operated her business, which lease continued through August of 1983. The Respondent failed to renew her cosmetology salon license number CE 0009517 after it expired on June 30, 1980. From that time until August, 1983, when the lease on the premises expired, the Respondent operated Bonnie's Boutique, albeit on a limited basis due to health problems, performing cosmetology services primarily for friends and relatives. Sometime in January, 1983, in the course of an investigation of the Respondent's activities with regard to the salon premises, it was discovered by petitioner's investigator that the Respondent was operating the cosmetology salon at the above address on at least an intermittent basis without a current cosmetology salon license. Due to health problems, the Respondent has never sought to operate a fully active cosmetology salon business since the expiration of her salon licensure on June 30, 1980. Aside from the subject action there has never been any other disciplinary proceeding instituted against the Respondent with regard to her licensure status.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the evidence of record, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered imposing the penalty of a reprimand on the Respondent Bonnie J. Wagoner. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 20th day of February, 184. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bonnie J. Wagoner 1714 Devanshire Sarasota, Florida 33577 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The Respondent is charged in a two count amended administrative complaint. Count I alleges a violation of Section 477.029(1)(a) F.S., practicing cosmetology without a current active license. Count II alleges a violation of Sections 477.029(1)(i) and 477.0263(1) F.S., engaging in cosmetology services in areas other than in a licensed cosmetology salon.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology. Respondent Cathy Runkle has never been a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida. She has learned her hair cutting/trimming skills from books and video tapes borrowed from the public library. At all times material hereto, Cathy's Place, Cathy Runkle, and Cathy's Hair Design have been unlicensed as cosmetology salons. Sometime during "the Christmas holidays" (between December 25, 1990 and January 1, 1991) Respondent, her daughter, and two women friends, one of whom was Mildred Schwarz, were gathered socially at Respondent's home in Daytona, Florida. Because Respondent had just given her daughter an attractive "home permanent" and hair trim, the subject came up of whether or not the four women could start a business doing the same thing for others in their own homes and in the homes of prospective customers. Respondent prepared a sample advertising flyer in pencil on an 8 1/2 by 11-inch piece of paper that read, "Cathy's Hair Designs, Perms $40.00, Cut $10.00, Hair styling in your home." Respondent's name, home address, and telephone number were also on the sample flyer. Mildred Schwarz traced over some of the pencilled lettering on the sample flyer. The next day, Respondent gave a copy of the sample flyer to each of the three other women who had been part of the discussion. She did this so that they could decide if they wanted to be involved in such a project with her. Later during the holiday period, Respondent and her daughter visited another friend, Pam Rendon, in Mrs. Rendon's home, also in Daytona, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Rendon had been friends of Mr. and Mrs. Runkle for at least two years prior to this occasion. Mrs. Rendon runs a motel which is attached to her home. The office of the motel is also in the home. During this particular visit, a copy of the sample flyer was shown to Mrs. Rendon. Mrs. Rendon cautioned against any such business venture because it was too much hassle for Respondent, a housewife. Mrs. Rendon explained some of the pitfalls of running one's own business, including the need to purchase insurance. When Respondent and her daughter went home, the copy of the flyer brought by Respondent and her daughter was inadvertently left on Mrs. Rendon's office desk. It was never re- copied or distributed at the motel, and it was never even posted on the motel bulletin board. Mr. and Mrs. Rendon testified that it must have been thrown out in the trash. Respondent thought about the proposed project and decided against going into business. Mildred Schwarz confirmed that the business idea was never seriously considered in the first place and that Respondent never approached her about it again. Ms. Schwarz does not know what became of her copy of the flyer. There is also no evidence as to what became of the remaining two copies of the flyer. Respondent never created or distributed any more copies. Petitioner received a copy of the flyer in the mail as part of an anonymous complaint and presented no evidence that other copies were ever publicly circulated by anyone. On one occasion either before or after the creation of the original flyer but still at a time material to the period of March 1, 1990 through March 6, 1991, the dates alleged in the amended administrative complaint, Respondent had a prearranged date for lunch with Mildred Schwarz. When Respondent arrived to pick up Ms. Schwarz at Ms. Schwarz' Daytona, Florida home, Ms. Schwarz asked Respondent to trim her hair. Respondent complied with the request. Later, Ms. Schwarz picked up Respondent's lunch check, but not as a quid pro quo for the hair trim. There is no reasonable monetary correlation between the price of this particular shared meal and the cost of a hair cut as listed on the flyer. In fact, Ms. Schwarz testified that she had "owed" Respondent the meal before and apart from the hair cut. On another occasion, Respondent used a home permanent kit on Ms. Schwarz in Ms. Schwarz' home. Later, Ms. Schwarz also administered a home permanent to Respondent at Respondent's home. Both women apparently followed the directions for laymen included in the kits. These events were a courtesy exchange of favors between the two women without any disparity of cost in the permanent wave kits, which were not purchased from a cosmetology supply house. Neither Respondent nor Ms. Schwarz was ill or incapacitated at any material time. Respondent never held herself out to be a licensed cosmetologist, and Ms. Schwarz never thought she was one. Either before or after the creation of the original flyer, but still at a time material to the dates alleged in the administrative complaint, Respondent trimmed the hair of Pam Rendon and of her husband, Frank Rendon. She did this for each of them on several occasions. The Runkles and the Rendons play tennis together regularly and regularly visit in each others' homes. Respondent often invites herself or is invited by Mrs. Rendon to have coffee and sun herself beside Mrs. Rendon's motel pool. Respondent frequently babysits for Mrs. Rendon. No witness remembers exactly when or how the hair cutting occasions arose but each was spontaneous. Sometimes they occurred during a pick-up lunch when the families were gathered in the Rendons' kitchen. Sometimes they occurred when just Respondent and Mrs. Rendon were together and Mrs. Rendon asked Respondent to "do something" with Mrs. Rendon's hair. Once, at Mrs. Rendon's request, Respondent left what she was doing in her own home and came to Mrs. Rendon's house and "finished" a bad haircut Mrs. Rendon had started on herself. Respondent did not expect to be compensated for her helpfulness. Mrs. Rendon never offered Respondent compensation for her services. Mr. Rendon offered to pay Respondent on at least four separate occasions when she trimmed his hair, and Respondent consistently refused to take any money. Neither Mr. or Mrs. Rendon was ill or incapacitated during any of these events. Respondent never held herself out to be a licensed cosmetologist, and the Rendons never thought she was one. Neither the Schwarz home nor the Rendon home is a licensed cosmetology salon. Petitioner also established that on a single occasion within the time frame of the amended administrative complaint Respondent's husband took her out to dinner at a Daytona, Florida restaurant in exchange for her stopping what she was doing (presumably preparing their dinner) so as to cut and permanent his hair. Respondent's husband knew she was not a licensed cosmetologist. On one other occasion, Respondent had a prearranged social visit with an old friend elsewhere in Florida. The friend telephoned and asked Respondent to buy a home permanent kit on the way. Respondent bought the kit at a Pic'N'Save for approximately $7.00 and used it on the friend when she visited with the friend. After Respondent refused the friend's offer to reimburse her for the permanent wave kit and her gas, the friend secretly slipped a $10.00 bill into Respondent's purse to cover the monies expended by Respondent. The Respondent did not return the $10.00 because she did not look in her purse until she got home. This event occurred during the time frame alleged in the amended administrative complaint. Petitioner also established that at a social luncheon Respondent and other women guests, mostly Respondent's relatives by marriage, did various things to one another's hair. As a result, the bottle of wine and the food which were already on the hostess' table were dedicated to Respondent for her skill and efforts. Petitioner did not affirmatively prove that this event took place in Florida, and therefore jurisdiction of it has not been proven. Petitioner also established that while in New Mexico, Respondent gave her mother a home permanent and trimmed her mother's hair and that Respondent's mother bought Respondent lunch on a quid pro quo basis. New Mexico is outside Petitioner's jurisdiction. Neither of these incidents clearly occurred during the time frame alleged in the amended administrative complaint.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 26th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1-3, 5-7, 9 Accepted. 4, 8, 10, 15, Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. 11-14, 17-19 Rejected as stated because not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole or rejected as containing legal argument. Covered in FOF 5-11. 16 Accepted that this is a direct quotation from an exhibit but it is out of context and misleading from the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. Respondent's PFOF: COUNT I 1-2, 4 Rejected as legal argument. 3 The first sentence is rejected as legal argument. The second sentence is accepted. 5, 10-15 Accepted in substance but otherwise is rejected as incomplete or subordinate or as mere recitation of testimony. Legal argument is also rejected. 6-9 What is not legal argument on credibility issues or is not subordinate to the facts as found has been accepted. COUNT II 1-2 Rejected as legal argument but covered in substance. Copies furnished to: Herbert Runkle 2075 South Halifax Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Lois B. Lepp, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ms. Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 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
The Issue Whether the license of the Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a beauty salon not under the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed against Mary Wilson, d/b/a Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon on May 31, 1976 alleging: "That you, said MARY WILSON d/b/a/ Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon on August 1, 1976 and January 19, 1977 did on at least two occa- sions operate a beauty salon without the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist, at Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon, Orlando, Florida." The Respondent is the owner of tie Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon, holds no Florida registration as a cosmetologist and the subject salon is now closed. At the time of the violation notice the Respondent was practicing cosmetology in the Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon without a Florida cosmetology license and without being under the supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Recommendation Revoke the license of the Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of August, 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 Mary Wilson Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon Post Office Box 5485 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein the Petitioner, Board of Cosmetology, (Board) , was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of cosmetologists and cosmetology salons in Florida. The Respondent, Anthony Autilio, held a license as a cosmetologist and a license to operate a cosmetology salon in Florida. On August 22, 1990, Sara Kimmig, an inspector with the Department's Orlando office, entered the Respondent's cosmetology salon, Capello Hair Designers, located at 5275 Red Bug Lake Road, #117, in Winter Springs, Florida for a routine inspection. As was her custom, she examined the physical plant for compliance with the Board's sanitation rules and also checked the credentials of each operator. When she approached the station at which Ms. Nemeth was applying a permanent to a customer, she noted that Ms. Nemeth's license, displayed on the mirror, was issued by the state of Connecticut, not Florida. No Florida license was in evidence. When Ms. Kimmig asked Ms. Nemeth if she had a Florida license, Ms. Nemeth admitted she did not, but indicated she had applied for one. Ms. Nemeth also admitted she had been performing cosmetology services at that station for about three weeks. Ms. Nemeth has been licensed in Connecticut for over 10 years and that license has been kept current. When she first approached Respondent for a job, she asked to be a cleaner, but because of her long experience and the fact that she held a license in another state, he told her she could be his assistant and do shampoos, preparations, and cleanup, none of which requires a Florida license. She told him, then, that she had applied for a Florida license and, about three weeks before Ms. Kimmig's inspection, told him that she had received notice from the Board that she was qualified for licensure and authorizing her to practice pending the issuance and receipt of her Florida license. Respondent took Ms. Nemeth's word for that and did not ask to see the letter. On the basis of her representations, he assigned her a station and allowed her to cut hair, a procedure which does require a license. On the day the salon was visited by Ms. Kimmig, Ms. Nemeth was cutting the hair of and giving a permanent to a friend of the Respondent, Bruno, a shoe salesman, who had given Ms. Nemeth a free pair of shoes sometime previously. Ms. Nemeth was doing the cosmetology work for him in repayment for his prior gift to her. Mr. Autilio was not in the shop on the day Ms. Kimmig made her inspection. They spoke on the phone the next day at which time he admitted he had allowed Ms. Nemeth to start to do cosmetology work about three or four weeks previously when she advised him she had received the authorization from the Board. Ms. Nemeth, in fact, had not submitted her application to the Board prior to Ms. Kimmig's inspection. Simply put, due to some family financial reverses, she did not have the required fee to submit with the application, and in addition, had not secured all the credentials verification that she needed from Connecticut. When Mr.. Autilio found out what the situation really was, after the inspection, he immediately loaned her the necessary money for the application fee and his car, and instructed her to drive to Tallahassee, submit her application, pay the fee, and get her license. By that time she had received the information she needed to verify her credentials and did what he suggested. She was issued the required authorization letter the day she submitted her application and paid the fee. She took it back to Orlando with her. At the time of the inspection, however, and for the three or four weeks previous thereto, she practiced cosmetology, in Respondent's salon and with his concurrence, without the appropriate license. When Ms. Kimmig conducted her inspection on August 22, 1990, she discovered several other discrepancies, most of which were minor. Only one, some hair left in some equipment, was considered not to be minor but it is not the subject of this complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued herein reprimanding the Respondent, Anthony Autilio. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Offices 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 3rd day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-0871 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contra to the evidence of record. 7 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark E. Harris Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert E. Miller, Esquire Piazza, Miller & Grace, P.A. Raintree Office Park 990 Douglas Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Margaret Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
