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.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Rhonda Welker, is a licensed cosmetologist operating under License No. CL0116241. Her original license was issued on November 24, 1980, and expired on June 30, 1982. On November 9, 1982, Respondent was employed as a cosmetologist, and acting as such, by Coiffures by Kenneth, a beauty salon owned and operated by Respondent's father and mother, located at 887 Semoran Boulevard, Apopka, Florida. At that time, her license had expired and was denied renewal by the Board because she had failed to take 16 additional hours of continuing professional education subsequent to issuance of her license, but instead had only taken eight. As a result, she did not meet the Board requirements for renewal of her license, which became inactive at the date of expiration. When Valerie Flowers, an inspector for the Board of Cosmetology, performed her follow-up inspection of the salon where Respondent worked, on November 17, 1982, she observed Respondent styling a customer's hair. At this time, though Respondent had completed the required 16 hours of continuing professional education, her license had not yet been renewed. Respondent Rhonda Welker's current license was issued on January 30, 1983, and expires on June 30, 1984. Respondent failed to secure the required 16 hours of continuing professional education on the honest but mistaken belief that she only needed eight hours' worth. She felt that since her licensure was initially issued for less than two full years, she would only need the eight hours of continuing education for one year, which she had. Under the circumstances, Respondent, Rhonda Welker, was holding herself out as a cosmetologist when she did not have an active current Florida cosmetologist's license.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be ordered to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $50. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of September, 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 30th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Rhonda Welker 887 Semoran Boulevard Apopka, Florida 32703 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the practice of cosmetology or a specialty without an active license in violation of Section 477.0265, Florida Statutes (2005), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the testimony of witness presented, and the record in this case, the following findings of fact are found: At all times material hereto, Respondent was regulated by the Department. Respondent's last know address and his address of record with the Department is 421 Champagne Lane, Brandon, Florida 33510. This is also the address written on the Election of Rights Form submitted to the Department in which Respondent requested a formal hearing. At all times material hereto, John Miranda was employed by the Department as an environmental health specialist, where he has been working for approximately nine (9) years. As an environmental health specialist, Mr. Miranda conducts inspections for the Board of Cosmetology. On December 14, 2005, Mr. Miranda conducted an inspection of the Eclips Barber Shop (Eclips) located at 1221 Kingsway Plaza, in Brandon, Florida. During the inspection, Mr. Miranda observed Respondent cutting hair. However, when asked to do so, Respondent did not produce either a barber license or cosmetology license. On December 14, 2005, Respondent was not licensed as either a barber or a cosmetologist. Respondent was eligible to take the cosmetology examination on September 10, 2004. As of December 20, 2005, Respondent had successfully completed all parts of the cosmetology licensing examination. Respondent was not licensed as a cosmetologist until more than three months after the December 14, 2005, inspection. Respondent was initially issued a cosmetology license, License No. CL 1183800, on or about March 31, 2006. That license is current and active, with an effective date of March 31, 2006, through October 31, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent, Camilo Torres, engaged in the practice of cosmetology without a license, an act proscribed by Subsection 477.0265(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), and (2) imposing an administrative fine of $500 for that violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Camilo Torres 421 Champagne Lane Brandon, Florida 33511 Lee C. Hawley Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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
The Issue Whether Respondent practiced cosmetology in a salon in Florida without a Florida cosmetologist license as required by Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent admitted the violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, as charged by the Florida State Board of Cosmetology. Respondent practiced cosmetology without a Florida license. Respondent now has a current Florida Cosmetologist License No. 19649.
