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
Findings Of Fact Lucien A. Jonet took the practical examination administered by the Board of Cosmetology for licensure on February 17, 1981. Jonet obtained a score of 71.5 percent on this examination in which 75 percent is a passing score. Jonet lost three points for failure to properly drape his model for Chemical Straightening, Bleaching and Shampooing. The model used by Jonet in the examination stated she moved, loosened and removed the drape at times because of the heat and her personal discomfort. When Jonet was present, he redraped the model; however, as required by the examination procedure, Jonet was not present when the model was examined. The Board's instructions do not advise the models or the examinees that the models should not touch their drapes or towels. The Board's confidential instructions to examiners provide that points be deducted for failure to properly drape the model. At least one of the examiners testified she would take points off for this performance criteria if the drape were loose or the towel off when she checked the model. Jonet's model had hair that was of minimal length, and Jonet stated her hair was so uneven that it could not be cut to a blended, even length. He gave the model a styled, uneven shag cut. The Board's confidential instructions to the examiners require that examinees' performances be graded on an even, blended haircut with even edges and necklines. Although the instructions to examinees advise that models should have hair of sufficient length that after an inch has been cut from the hair it may be curled, there are no specific instructions that they will be graded on a blended, even cut. The Board's only instructions to examinees on haircutting at the examination are as follows from the Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1: "We recommend a basic haircut. An extremely short style cut would interfere with the performance of molding and pin curl portion of your exam. You may use the hair cutting implements of your choice. Any hair falling on the floor must be cleaned up before grading. Are there any questions?" The examiners also stated that the examinees should report problems with their models' hair that would affect the examinees performances, and that when such problems existed they would not deduct points. However, the instructions to the examinees do not contain this caveat. Jonet lost eight points on haircutting: two points for gaps left behind his model's ears, two points twice for an uneven neckline, and two points for uneven blending of the hair. One of the examiners stated that the last portion of the curriculum for most Florida cosmetology schools is spent in simulation of the Board's examination, and that these schools are well versed in the specific criteria which the Board uses in assessing performance. Jonet had sought a reexamination but was denied because he had taken the first examination with 600 hours of evaluated credit, and the Board's rules require a person with only 600 hours of school who fails the examination to finish another 600 hours. The Board denied Jonet the opportunity to seek an added 600 hours of evaluated credit. Jonet has more than 40 years' experience in cosmetology, is a graduate of a European program, was licensed in Illinois prior to an examination being required, and held an Illinois license for 23 years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that Lucien A. Jonet be permitted to take the Board of Cosmetology's examination again, and that the instructions for the examination be amended to fairly advise examinees of the examination's actual requirements and instruct the models not to touch or interfere with their hair, drapes or towels. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 14th day of January, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Lucien A. Jonet 12500 Ulmerton Road, #16 Largo, Florida 33540 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits received in evidence and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, the following facts are found. In 1980 Ruth Sinclair became interested in hair braiding and hair sculpture while she was studying the history of African art at the University of Miami. Since her initial interest in hair braiding and hair sculpture, Ruth Sinclair has made extensive efforts to study the subject and to learn and improve her skills in hair braiding and hair sculpture. Shortly after her initial interest in hair braiding and hair sculpture, Ruth Sinclair began practicing hair braiding and hair sculpture in Florida and she has continued to do so more or less continuously ever since then. Ruth Sinclair is predominantly self-taught in the field of hair braiding or hair sculpture, but she also obtained some training from others by going to California and Africa. The practice of hair braiding and hair sculpture originated in the Nok region on the west coast of Africa around 200-300 B.C. As used in Africa since that time, particular types of sculptured or braided hairstyles have served to identify the wearer's tribe or status in society. However, despite centuries of such hair braiding practices by African Blacks, the practice was virtually lost among Blacks who were brought to the United States as slaves. As practiced by Ruth Sinclair, hair braiding or hair sculpture consists of two basic categories or types of hair styles. These are the traditional styles and the contemporary styles. The traditional styles are patterned after styles that were used in the past in Africa and consist of hair braids that follow the same pattern as some forms of weaving. Sinclair ordinarily spends approximately 35 to 40 hours to produce a traditional style hair sculpture, and in more than ten percent of the cases in which Sinclair produces a traditional style hair sculpture, Sinclair charges a fee. The contemporary style involves the use of the same techniques as the traditional style but also involves the use of contemporary materials produced by modern technology such as synthetic or human hair and commercially-made ornaments or beads. In producing a contemporary style hair sculpture, Sinclair ordinarily spends approximately 8 to 20 hours, and she normally charges a fee. As practiced by Ruth Sinclair, hair sculpturing, whether of the traditional or the contemporary style, is produced primarily by hair braiding. The hair braiding is done by hand, by intertwining strands of hair. No tools are used other than a long, tapered instrument for lifting up strands of hair. The person's hair is not treated with any type of chemicals, nor is it cut or shampooed (although Sinclair requests that her patrons wash their hair before receiving any services), and Sinclair washes her hands in soap and water before, during, and after performing her services. The braided or sculptured hairstyles are normally worn for approximately 3 to 6 months. Nearly ninety percent of Sinclair's patrons were Black women. During the period from 1982 until sometime in 1984, Ruth Sinclair leased a storefront at 6009 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida, and there she conducted a business of performing hair braiding or hair sculpture. The name of the business was Uzuri Braid Shop, and the business had about twenty paying customers per week. At the Uzuri Braid Shop at 6009 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida, Ruth Sinclair employed Respondent Picala Simsa, and also Angela Powell or Powers as assistants. Picala Sims was employed as an assistant there from 1982 until 1984, and Powell or Powers from 1983 until 1984. Both were hired by Ruth Sinclair, and Ruth Sinclair paid them both a salary. Their duties were basically the same: to assist Ruth Sinclair in braiding and beading patrons' hair. On August 2, 1983, Joyce Sager, an inspector employed by the Petitioner, conducted an inspection of the Uzuri Braid Shop at 6009 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida. On that occasion, Picala Sims and Angela Powell or Powers were present and were performing hair braiding services for customers of the business. Ruth Sinclair was not present at the time, but Sager spoke with Ruth Sinclair on the telephone that day, and in the course of their conversation, Ruth Sinclair acknowledged to Inspector Sager that she was the owner of the business and that she was the employer of Picala Sims and Powell or Powers. During the period from November 1983 until November 1984, Ruth Sinclair leased space in an indoor flea market at 18200 N.W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida, and there she conducted a business of performing hair braiding or hair sculpture. The name of the business was Uzuri Braid Shop, and the business had about 15 paying customers per week. On June 9, 1984, Dorsey Hayes, an inspector employed by the Petitioner, went to the Uzuri Braid Shop at 18200 N.W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida, and spoke with Ruth Sinclair. During the course of the conversation, Ruth Sinclair acknowledged being the owner of the business and that she had been performing braided hairstyles there. None of the following people have ever been licensed to practice cosmetology or barbering in the State of Florida: Ruth Sinclair, Picala Sims, Angela Powell, or Angela Powers. Neither the Uzuri Braid Shop at 6009 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida, nor the Uzuri Braid Shop located at 18200 N.W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida, has ever been licensed to operate as a cosmetology salon or as a barber shop. There are certain conditions under which it would be inappropriate to give a person a braided hairstyle, even though the person wanted one. These conditions include the presence of a contagious scalp disease, abrasions of the scalp, hair that is not clean, or chemically treated hair that is very dry or damaged. The recognition of these conditions is a regular part of the curriculum currently being taught in schools of cosmetology in Florida, and someone not having received such training would be less likely to recognize them, which could lead to hair breakage or to the spread of contagious scalp diseases or parasites if a hair braiding service were performed when such conditions were present. The teaching of hair braiding has been a regular part of the curriculum of Florida schools of cosmetology at least since 1975.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order adopting the foregoing findings and conclusions and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1, 500.00 against Ruth Sinclair and an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 against Picala Sims. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of September, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia Graham Williams, Esq. 18583 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33056 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for disposition is whether William Engelleiter practiced cosmetology without a license, and if so, what action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Nita Spagnole is an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) in the Orlando, Florida office. On March 22, 1988, she visited the Apollo Hair Designs Salon in Melbourne, Florida, to gather affidavits for another case. William Engelleiter was in the salon and was pointed out to her as a cosmetologist. He was in the area, talking to a customer, watching TV and visiting with the other workers. She did not observe him working on hair or otherwise practicing cosmeto1ogy. Ms. Spagnole later pulled his name on the agency computer and learned that he did not have a license. William Engelleiter attended cosmetology school but did not pass the board examination. He is diabetic and frequently ill. He met the Blough's, the owners of Apollo Hair Design at a flea market. They were giving away free samples and said they needed a receptionist. Engelleiter was hired to work as a receptionist until he was able to pass the examination. He started work at Apollo on January 25, 1988, and was still employed as a receptionist in March, 1988. He left shortly later due to illness. From time to time at the salon, William Engelleiter did his mother's hair and worked on the owner's daughter and other cosmetologists, but he claims that he never received compensation for those services. His mother confirmed this. David Simon, a friend of Engelleiter's, went to the salon to buy a hairpiece. He wanted Engelleiter to get the commission but was told that he could not, because he was not a cosmetologist.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint dated May 20, 1988 be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald L. Jones, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William R. Engelleiter 1964 McKinley Avenue Post Office Box 24A Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the fact that the Petitioner has jurisdiction over both Respondents. In addition, Petitioner presented the licensing history of each Respondent which reflected that both possess current appropriate licenses. On March 4, 1985, Respondent, at his shop, accomplished a foil frosting on the complainant, Ms. Young, who had visited Respondent's shop for hair dressing services several times in the past. On each occasion, Respondent worked on her himself giving her over the period three permanent waves and four frostings. Ms. Young was familiar with the frosting process having had her hair done that way since 1967. There are several legitimate ways a hair frosting can be done. One is through a cap placed over the head with strands of hair pulled through small holes and bleached. In the foil frosting method, the affected strands of hair are isolated, bleach is applied, and the bleached hair is wrapped in a piece of foil until done. Frosting can be considered light, medium, or heavy, depending upon the amount of hair that is frosted. Ms. Young usually has a heavy frosting done. The last two times Respondent frosted her hair prior to the incident complained of here, Ms. Young contends her hair came out orange and red instead of blonde. She complained to Respondent about this both in person and by phone and Respondent allegedly told her he would correct the problem by first applying a dye to her hair and then frosting it. On the day in question, according to Ms. Young, Respondent did as he said he would and dyed her hair a deep brown. He then started to frost it even though she advised him at the time the dye had come out too dark. According to Ms. Young, Respondent told her not to worry about it. Ms. Young relates that Respondent left the bleach on her hair almost four hours. He checked her hair several times during that period but did nothing to stop the bleaching process. She contends she told Respondent that she was under the dryer too long but he either ignored her or told her to be quiet. After she became seriously concerned that her hair might be damaged, Ms. Young took herself out from under the dryer and began to remove the foil. At this point, she contends, Respondent came and took her to the wash area where he unwrapped the remaining foil packets and had Ms. Ayotte wash the bleach out of Ms. Young's hair. After this was done, Ms. Young was put back under the dryer and at this point, Ms. Young alleges, when she felt her hair, it had the consistency of taffy . She poked at it with a hair pick and found that large amounts of hair broke off each time she touched it. When she showed this to Respondent, he allegedly stated it was only dead ends coming off. At this point, convinced she would get no satisfaction from the Respondent, she paid him the charge for a frosting and left the shop. Respondent, she claims, refused to do anything more for her at the time but merely told her to go home and put a conditioner on her hair. According to Ms. Young, her hair continued to come out all evening each time she touched it which highly distressed and upset her, a state confirmed by her neighbor. By the following morning, she claims, she had accumulated seven or eight baggies of her hair which had come out. No matter how much she washed it and put conditioner on it, nothing helped and her hair continued to come out. The day after her visit to Respondent's shop, Ms. Young went to a beauty supply house where she was sold a vitamin treatment for her hair which she applied. Several days later she went to the beauty shop run by Ms. Kuhn where her hair was examined not only by Ms. Kuhn but also by Ms. Korman, both of whom concluded that her hair had been overly processed. She was given a procedure to follow for conditioning her hair which was trimmed back to a maximum length of two to three inches all over her head. Ms. Young indicates that the previous frostings she was given by Respondent were satisfactory as to hair texture if not as to color. However, she contends that the procedure he used on this occasion was different than that he used previously. She believes 75 percent of her hair had bleach applied to it. As a result of her dissatisfaction with Respondent, Ms. Young wrote a letter of complaint to DPR followed up by a formal complaint. The resultant file was forwarded to Ms. Markowitz, the local investigator, whose report was forwarded to Ms. Jimenez for consultation. Ms. Jimenez neither examined Ms. Young nor spoke with any of the witnesses involved but, based solely on her evaluation of the file only, which included Ms. Young's written statement, concluded Respondent was guilty of extreme negligence. She based her opinion on Ms. Young's recitation of the procedure followed by Respondent, and she readily admits that if the information given her was not accurate, her opinion would not be valid necessarily. Mr. Bannett does not deny applying a bleach solution to Ms. Young's hair and admits to having done each of her three previous frostings. He contends, however, that she was satisfied each time. 12 As a professional beautician, he has done thousands of frostings over the thirty or more years he has been in the business and has not experienced any problems until this time. He claims to work as a mechanic rather than as an artist in that he does a frosting the same way each time and does not deviate from his procedure. He believes that only through a routine can he effectively accomplish the process successfully. He categorically denies having dyed Ms. Young's hair before frosting it stating that to do so would have been counterproductive. It would require the bleaching of not only the natural hair color but also the dyed and would mean the bleach would have to stay on far too long. In a situation needing a color change, he puts the coloring on the hair remaining uncovered after the application of the foil packs. In a frosting Mr. Bannett starts at the bottom of the head applying the bleach and wrapping the treated area. He then does the sides the same way and works his way up to the top. It takes him about 20 to 25 minutes to accomplish all the treating and wrapping, after which he places the customer under the dryer for another 25 minutes. At that point, after 45 to 50 minutes, he checks the color of the hair. If it appears to be appropriate, he has the bleach washed from the customer's hair. If the color is not right, he replaces the wrapper and lets the bleach stay a little longer. Mr. Bannett contends that when he checked Ms. Young's hair it was right and Ms. Ayotte washed out the bleach. Not only Mr. Bannett, but also Ms. Ayotte and Ms. Ascola, both of whom were present and observed Ms. Young during the process contend she was happy with the result. They also deny that prior to the frosting Ms. Young's hair was orange or red. If Ms. Young was unhappy, they say, it was because of other matters because she left the shop happy with the way her hair looked when Mr. Bannett was through. Unfortunately, though Mr. Bannett indicates he routinely makes records of the service he gives each of his customers, if the customer does not return to the shop within a short period of time, he destroys them. Here, even though Ms. Markowitz interviewed him only slightly more than three months after the incident in question, the records had already been destroyed and he could not recall what was on them. As a result, his testimony is based solely on his limited recollection and his usual routine. It is most unlikely, however, that if Ms. Young were as unhappy as she relates, some other customer in the shop would not have overheard her discussions with Respondent or observed the state of her hair. She presented no evidence other than her own allegations as to what happened in the shop. The other evidence as to the cause of the damage was not incident specific. The over application could have been by anyone, including the complainant. On balance, therefore, it would appear that without question Mr. Bannett did a frosting of Ms. Young's hair on the date alleged. There is also no doubt that the hair was damaged by the improper application of chemicals to it. However, Petitioner has failed to conclusively show that it was Respondent who improperly applied these chemicals.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint in this case against the Respondents Ronald Bannett and Style and Color of Sunrise, Inc., be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of November, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1581 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. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1-4 Accepted and incorporated. 5-8 Rejected as unproven. 9 Accepted and incorporated. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as irrelevant to resolution of the issues of fact. 3&4 Rejected as recitations of the evidence and not findings of fact. 5 Rejected as commentary on the evidence and not as finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Jane H. Shaeffer, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Fogan, Esquire 2170 S.E. 17th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings S. Benton, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: On October 26, 1991, Respondent was employed as a nail technician/manicurist at Tropical Nails and Skin (Tropical), a cosmetology salon located in Lauderhill, Florida. At the time, she did not hold a license authorizing her to engage in the practice of cosmetology, or any specialty area thereof, in the State of Florida. Leonard Baldwin is an inspector with the Department of Professional Regulation. On the morning of October 26, 1991, Baldwin conducted an inspection of Tropical. Upon entering the salon, Baldwin observed Respondent at her station applying polish to a customer's nails. Prominently displayed at Respondent's station was a cosmetology license that bore Respondent's name and photograph. The license was forged and actually belonged, not to Respondent, but to E. Sgroi. It had been given to Respondent by a former coworker, who had altered the license by removing Sgroi's name and typing Respondent's name in its place. Respondent had affixed her photograph to the license after the license was given to her. No changes had been made to the address on the license. Shortly after entering the salon, Baldwin went to Respondent's station. He examined the license and asked Respondent if it was hers. She replied in the affirmative. Baldwin suspected otherwise. He therefore took possession of the license. He then left Respondent's station and went to another area of the salon. Approximately ten or fifteen minutes later, after Respondent had finished with her customer and the customer had paid and left the salon, Baldwin again approached Respondent and asked her about the license. This time Respondent acknowledged that the license was not really hers and that she was not licensed by the Department to practice cosmetology. Baldwin then presented to Respondent a Cease and Desist Agreement, which Respondent signed. The agreement, which was also signed by Baldwin, provided as follows: I, Gloria Torres, have been informed by a representative of the Department of Professional Regulation that I am under investigation on allegations that I have engaged in the practice of "Nails" Cosmetology without being a holder of an appropriate license or permit. Without admitting these allegations, I hereby agree to cease and desist from engaging in this activity until and unless properly licensed or permitted. I execute this agreement without receiving any representations in regard to the final disposition of the investigation. Respondent abided by the terms of the Cease and Desist Agreement. She enrolled in classes at the Academy of Beauty Arts and Sciences in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On or about November 7, 1991, the school issued her a certificate of completion in the speciality area of manicuring/pedicuring/nail extensions. On December 11, 1991, Respondent was licensed by the Board of Cosmetology to practice in this specialty area. She still holds this license. Respondent is presently in a precarious financial situation. She has recently had to bear the cost of her husband's funeral. In addition, she has had other expenses that have depleted her financial resources.
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 (1) finding that Respondent did not violate Section 477.029(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint; (2) dismissing this charge; (3) finding that Respondent violated Section 477.029(1)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint; and (4) imposing upon Respondent, for having committed these violations, an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 ($250.00 for each violation), to be paid in monthly installments of $25.00 the first four months and $50.00 the next eight months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24 day of August, 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 24 day of August, 1992.
