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 Bart Sklansky is the President of Sunshine Hair Fashions, Inc., which is the owner of a salon operating under the name of Sunshine Scissors, located at 5568 Flamingo Road, cooper city, Florida. At all times material hereto, Sunshine Hair Fashions, Inc., was licensed by the State of Florida, to operate a cosmetology salon under License No. CE0040983, and the Sunshine Scissors Salon located at 5568 Flamingo Road, Cooper City, Florida operated under that license. Mr. Sklansky owns several other salons and he visits each location from time to time to oversee the operations. Petitioner was and is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology in the State of Florida. On January 20, 1988, Leonard Baldwin, an inspector for the Department of Professional Regulation, entered the Sunshine Scissors Salon (hereinafter the "Salon") for the purpose of conducting a routine inspection of the premises. Mr. Baldwin has been an inspector for the Department of Professional Regulation for approximately four years. As part of his job, he inspects approximately 32 cosmetology salons per week and prepares a written inspection report reflecting his visit. He generally reviews those reports with the employees who are present. He will generally inspect a salon only once a year unless there are problems. At the time of Mr. Baldwin's inspection in January of 1988, the Salon was basically in good shape with the exception of the work station of one of the operators, Kenneth Hayman. The shop is professionally cleaned once a week and the employees make sure that the floors, mirrors and waiting areas are clean at all times. However, each individual operator is responsible for the cleanliness of his particular work station. While Mr. Hayman is not deliberately unsanitary, he is sometimes careless and needs constant prodding and reminders to keep his work station clean. As noted on his inspection report (Petitioner's Exhibit 3), Mr. Baldwin found certain conditions which he felt were unsatisfactory during his January 20, 1988 visit. Among the conditions he noted were the following: the back bar of at least one of the work stations was dirty and had excessive dust; there was excessive hair on the floor; combs and brushes from at least one of the work stations contained excessive hair; and it appeared that the implements and utensils from at least one work station were not being properly cleansed, sanitized, or stored. However, no direct testimony was presented as to the proper method for sanitizing or cleaning the implements and no evidence was presented as to how Respondent's procedures failed to meet the regulatory standards. Although Mr. Baldwin's investigation report (Exhibit 3) indicates as an additional deficiency that "sanitary towels/neck strips were not being placed around patrons necks," no explanation was given as to the basis for this noted deficiency and no direct testimony was offered to support this contention. All of these deficiencies, identified under the pertinent rules of the Board's, were brought to the attention of Pam Greco, one of the operators at the Salon. Bart Sklansky was not made aware of the deficiencies until several months later. He never noticed any problems during his visits to the Salon. On October 2, 1988, Mr. Baldwin again inspected the Salon. The general condition of the shop was satisfactory. However, the work station of Kenneth Hayman was again found deficient in certain areas. More specifically, the back bar area around this work station was dirty and it appeared that utensils may have been used on more than one patron without being sanitized. Mr. Baldwin did not explain how he reached this conclusion. After the second inspection, Mr. Hayman paid more attention to the cleanliness of his work station and kept it clean the majority of the time. However, on December 9, 1988, Mr. Baldwin against inspected the salon and noted similar deficiencies to those he found during the October 1988 inspection. Mr. Hayman's work station has never been the source of any customer complaints. Mr. Hayman has been informed that his work station must be kept clean and he has kept his work station clean since the last inspection.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of cosmetology enter a final order in this case finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(9), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty consisting of a reprimand and an administrative fine in the total amount of $100. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day or May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobi C. Pam Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Bart Sklansky Sunshine Hair Fashions Post Office Box 601667 North Miami Beach, FL 33160 Myrtle Aase Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-075010
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a law enforcement certificate issued by Petitioner on March 9, 1983. At times relevant to this inquiry he was employed by the Gainesville, Florida, Police Department as a patrolman. In that capacity, his duties included serving the public, issuing traffic citations, investigating automobile accidents, and making drug arrests. On March 16, 1987, Lt. Alan Morrow of the Gainesville Police Department was investigating a suspect, whose name is Carlos Bartee. In the course of this investigation, Bartee told Morrow that Officer Cunningham had been seen to ingest material which Bartee believed to be cocaine. This is said to have occurred while Cunningham was on duty. Further Cunningham is alleged to have talked to Bartee about getting something to put up Cunningham's nose. This latter remark is taken to mean cocaine, in view of the comments of Morrow, who is recognized as having expertise in interpreting the vernacular associated with the use of that drug. As a consequence of the assertions made by Bartee, an internal investigation was commenced by the Gainesville Police Department. In that pursuit, the locker of Cunningham was opened in his absence and a small container was found which, in Morrow's opinion, contained crack cocaine. Morrow has expertise in the field identification of that substance. In furtherance of the investigation, Respondent was interviewed and offered the opportunity to submit to a urinalysis to ascertain if he had been using cocaine. He was encouraged to seek legal assistance before making a decision on that overture. He was also offered some form of test involving hair follicles which is designed to detect the presence of cocaine. He declined the opportunity for the hair follicle test but agreed to undergo a urinalysis. That urine sample was given with his attorney being aware of that matter. The sample was placed in a container which was not contaminated. The giving of the sample was monitored to insure that no mistakes were made concerning whose sample it might be. The sample was sealed and protected against problems associated with the chain of custody. Respondent was asked to reveal any form of medication that he was using that might effect the results of the analysis made on the sample. He responded that he was using Ibupropen and BC powder. The urine sample was subjected to several tests, the Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Technique (EMIT) test; the High Performance Thin Layer Chromatography (HPTLC) test; and Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) test. Each test revealed the presence of cocaine. Those substances which he had admitted using; i.e., Ibupropen and BC powder, would not effect the accuracy of these results. Based upon these positive results, Respondent was terminated from his position with the Gainesville Police Department. In closing out his tenure with that Department, Captain Robert Samuel Mitchell, II, who was then the Internal Affairs Supervisor, asked Respondent why he took the test if he knew he had ingested it, taken to mean cocaine. Respondent replied that he did not think it would still be in his system that long. As identified by investigators with the Gainesville Police Department, the use of cocaine was contrary to their agency policies and to Florida law.
Recommendation Under the circumstances set out in the Findings of Fact and based upon the Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which revokes Willie C. Cunningham's law enforcement certificate. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 27th day of October, 1989.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, the Respondent Fernando Vargas Natal has been a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida, holding license number CL 009034. At all times material, Fahn Hair/Nails has been licensed as a cosmetology salon in the State of Florida, holding license number CE 0053197. At all times material, Samer Mace has been a registered nail specialist in the State of Florida, holding license number FV 0521832. Samer Mace was not licensed as a cosmetologist in the State of Florida at any time material to this case. DPR investigator Sandra McKenzie, using the name "Linda," telephoned Fahn Hair/Nails on November 28, 1990, and made an appointment to have her hair done by Samer Mace at 2:00 p.m. on November 30, 1990. On the appointment books at Fahn Hair/Nails, Samer Mace was listed as "Sam." Upon entering the business premises of Fahn Hair/Nails on November 30, 1990, at approximately 1:45 p.m., DPR investigator Richard Braun observed an appointment for "Linda" for hair services at 2:00 p.m. listed in the appointment book in the column for Sam." Investigator Braun also observed in the appointment book in the column for "Sam," other appointments scheduled that day for manicures, blow drys and washes. When Fernando Vargas Natal was questioned about the allegations concerning Samer Mace's unlicensed cosmetology activities, Mr. Natal admitted to investigator Braun that Samer Mace had been providing hair services to customers at Fahn Hair/Nails. When Samer Mace was questioned about the allegations concerning her unlicensed cosmetology activities, she admitted to investigator Braun that she had been providing hair services to customers while in the employ of the Respondent. Fernando Vargas Natal was aware that, at all times material, Samer Mace was licensed only to perform manicures, and was not licensed to perform hair services.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order in this case concluding that the Respondent has violated Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1989), and imposing an administrative penalty of a fine in the amount of $500.00. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of September, 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-2664 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. As a preface to the specific findings which follow it is noted that there is conflicting evidence on some of the relevant facts in this case. In resolving those conflicts I have, for the most part, found the testimony presented on behalf of the Petitioner to be more persuasive than the testimony presented on behalf of the Respondent. Findings proposed by Petitioner: The following paragraphs of the findings proposed by the Petitioner are accepted in whole or in substance: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. The following paragraphs of the findings proposed by the Petitioner are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details: 4 and 5. Findings proposed by Respondent: The first sentence of the findings proposed by Respondent is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The second sentence of the findings proposed by Respondent is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and as, in any event, irrelevant. The third sentence of the findings proposed by Respondent (the sentence incorporating the recommendation) is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Mr. Mark E. Harris Paralegal Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Mr. Fernando Vargas Natal Fahn Hair/Nails 11921 South Dixie Highway, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33156 Mr. Andrew H. Hand Fahn Hair/Nails 11921 South Dixie Highway, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33156
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent engaged in the practice of cosmetology without a license, a legally prohibited act which, if performed, would warrant the imposition of sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Reyna I. Guzman ("Guzman") is an individual who, at all relevant times, was employed as a cashier or administrative assistant at Koko Cuts Hair and Color Salon ("Koko Cuts") in Miami, Florida. Although Koko Cuts is a Florida-licensed salon, Guzman herself is not licensed in Florida as a cosmetologist. On February 2, 2006, two investigators of Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation ("Department") entered Koko Cuts to perform an inspection. They observed Guzman "working on" a woman's hair. The woman was sitting in a stylist's chair and appeared to be a regular customer. In fact, however, the "customer" was Guzman's sister. Guzman's boss had granted Guzman permission to color her sister's hair, using the chemicals and supplies on hand at the salon. Guzman was performing this service for her sister for free. Guzman testified credibly, and the undersigned finds, that Guzman was not paid any money for coloring her sister's hair. There was, moreover, neither clear and convincing, nor even merely persuasive, evidence that Guzman received any other service or thing of value in consideration for the work that she performed on her sister's hair. Based on the instant record, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Guzman received no "compensation"— —as that term is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G5-18.00015——in exchange for performing the service of coloring her sister's hair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order acquitting Guzman of the charges that the Department brought against her in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2006 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Reyna I. Guzman 2257 Southwest 3 Street Miami, Florida 33135 Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0790 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
