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
The Issue Whether Respondent's Deloris Overstreet license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for the reason that she failed to have or to display a certificate of registration.
Findings Of Fact At the time of the inspection by Ms. Artie Mitchell, Respondent had no certificate of registration. Ms. Mitchell left an application form with Respondent and Respondent procured the certificate of registration within fifteen (15) days thereafter. Ms. Overstreet, Respondent, has secured her certificate of registration and has it on display in the beauty shop owned by Respondent doing business as Dee's Beauty Boutique.
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 Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a State of Florida-licensed cosmetologist (license number CL 0127356) and the owner and operator of Marie's Beauty Salon, a State of Florida-licensed cosmetology salon (license number CE 0040980) located in Fort Lauderdale. Leonard Baldwin is an inspector with the Department. Baldwin has conducted various inspections of Marie's Beauty Salon. His last inspection was conducted on April 24, 1992. 2/ Nancy Victor is not now, nor has she ever been, licensed to practice cosmetology, or any specialty area thereof, in the State of Florida. Victor was hired by Respondent to work as a shampooist in Respondent's salon. Her first day of work was April 24, 1992. At around noon on that day the mother of a young customer walked into the salon to pick up her daughter. The daughter, however, was not ready to leave. She still had rollers in her hair. The mother was in a hurry. She approached Victor and asked her to remove the rollers from her daughter's hair. Victor obliged the mother and began removing the rollers. Respondent, who was working on the hair of a customer seated in the chair next to the one in which the daughter was seated, overheard the discussion between the mother and Victor. Respondent was aware that it was unlawful for a person to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida without a license. Furthermore, she knew that Victor did not have a license to practice cosmetology in this state. Nonetheless, inasmuch as she was busy with another customer and Victor did not have any shampooing that she needed to do, Respondent allowed Victor to remove the rollers from the daughter's hair. As Victor was removing the roller's from the daughter's hair, Baldwin entered the salon to conduct a routine inspection. When Respondent saw Baldwin, she instructed Victor to stop what she was doing and leave the area. Victor did what she was told and went to the rear of the salon. Respondent then went over to the daughter and finished removing the rollers from her hair.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order finding that Respondent violated Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and fining her $75.00 for having committed said violation. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of September, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent allowed cosmetologists to work in Otto's Beauty Salon without a master cosmetologist being present. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn, or suspended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent appeared in person and admitted the violation as charged by the Complainant. Respondent is the occasional manager of Otto's Beauty Salon. Respondent is the master cosmetologist and the only master cosmetologist working in Otto's Beauty Salon. Respondent was absent from the shop as charged by the Board during working hours and during the time cosmetologists were working in said salon.
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the offenses set forth in the respective Administrative Complaints filed in this case and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Tracey Renee Monroe, was licensed by the Florida Cosmetology Board, and Respondent, Martha Hylton, was licensed by the Florida Cosmetology Board. On or around December 10, 1988, customer, Mary Jean Hampton went to Cora's Beauty Salon in Miami, Florida, to have her hair done by her usual cosmetologist, Martha Hylton. Ms. Hampton had been a regular customer of Ms. Hylton for approximately two years. When Ms. Hampton arrived, Ms. Hylton examined Ms. Hampton's hair, and they both decided that it was time to apply a chemical relaxer to Ms. Hampton's hair. Without performing a test of the chemical's reaction to a strand of Ms. Hampton's hair (strand test), Ms. Hylton proceeded with the application using a chemical she had used previously on Ms. Hampton's hair. When the chemical was removed, a substantial portion of hair in the crown area of Ms. Hampton head broke, leaving her with the appearance of spot balding. Ms. Hampton also suffered from a pre-existing skin condition which Ms. Hylton protected with base. When the breakage was noted, Ms. Hylton conferred with other cosmetologists in the salon and with Ms. Hampton. Ms. Hampton then mentioned that she had recently used a shampoo and conditioner, Flex, which she had not previously used. A decision was made that Respondent, Tracey Renee Monroe, would apply a procedure, bonding, to Ms. Hylton's head. Bonding involves gluing hair to the scalp and weaving the glued hair in with the remaining hair. The damage to Ms. Hampton hair was caused by the chemical relaxer. The proof failed to demonstrate that the bonding procedure contributed to the hair loss. Although performing a strand test prior to any chemical application on the hair is the acceptable procedure, the proof demonstrated that the practice is not consistently followed when a practitioner is familiar with a client's hair as Ms. Hylton knew Ms. Hampton's hair. On balance, the proof fails to demonstrate that either Respondent, Tracey Renee Monroe or that, Respondent, Martha Hylton, committed fraud, deceit, gross negligence, incompetency or misconduct within the intent of the Florida Cosmetology Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, as to Respondent, Martha Hylton, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be dismissed.; and Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, as to Respondent, Tracey Renee Monroe, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th of August 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 25th day of August 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobi Pam, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 James W. Evans, Esquire Post Office Box 420187 Miami, Florida 33142 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Florida Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
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
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Marge Edwards, Inspector with the Florida State Board of Cosmetology, issued a notice of violation citing Respondent for "owner leaving one cosmetologist, one student permit working alone". The time of the violation notice was dated 2:10 p.m. on June 1, 1974. Respondent George D'Zanko was out of the George D's beauty salon, a business which he owns and operates as the master cosmetologist on June 1, 1974 during the hours which includes 2:10 p.m. Mr. D'Zanko admits that he was out of the shop at that time. Respondent entered a motion to dismiss contending that Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, did not require his presence in the shop while the cosmetologists were working therein. Section 477.04, Florida Statutes, states "no registered cosmetologists may independently practice cosmetology, but he may as a cosmetologist do any or all of the acts constituting the practice of cosmetology under the immediate personal supervision of a registered master cosmetologist". The attorney for Respondent D'Zanko equates Chapter 476, Florida Statutes, which regulates barbers with Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, which regulates cosmetologists, and cites Lett vs. Florida Barbers Salary Commission, Fla. App. 247 So.2d 335, for his position that inasmuch as Respondent was in the neighborhood of the salon the actual presence of Respondent was not necessary. The Board contends that the Respondent allowed a cosmetologist to practice cosmetology without the presence and supervision of a master cosmetologist in violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. The Board contends that the presence of a master cosmetologist in a salon where the art of cosmetology is being practiced is a protection for the public and that Respondent allowed his shop to be operated without the supervision of a master cosmetologist. That the license of the Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended. The Hearing Officer finds: That Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, requires that a master cosmetologist be present in a cosmetology salon at all times when the art of cosmetology is being practiced; That Respondent George D'Zanko, the owner of the salon, Styles by George D', Inc., allowed cosmetology to be practiced in his salon at a time when there was no master cosmetologist therein; That the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist is a protection for the customers in the application of materials used in practicing the art of cosmetology.
