Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves an appeal by petitioner, Marline Lewis, challenging the score she received on the September 1993 barber licensure examination. The examination is administered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation on behalf of respondent, the Barbers' Board (Board). According to the examination grade report issued on September 29, 1993, petitioner received a grade of 69 on the practical portion of the examination. The Board requires a grade of at least 74.5 in order to be licensed. The barber examination consists of two parts: written and practical. The practical portion of the examination is in issue here and has five categories: haircut, permanent wave, shampoo, sanitation and technique. As clarified at hearing, petitioner contends that the examiners who assessed her performance did not assign a proper score on the haircut category, and that one examiner improperly gave her no credit on one item of the sanitation category. She also contends that there were conversations between two examiners during the examination that disrupted her concentration, and that other individuals entered the examination room and momentarily congregated around her work area. Petitioner took the practical portion of the examination on the afternoon of September 20, 1993, at Lively Vocational/Technical Center in Tallahassee, Florida. The examination room contained four work areas, one in each corner of the room, with each area having four work stations consisting of a mirror, chair, cabinet, counter and sink. Each candidate was assigned to one of the work stations. When petitioner took the examination, there were fourteen candidates, including herself. Each candidate was required to be accompanied by a model on whom the procedures could be performed. Petitioner brought her husband as a model. Four examiners were assigned the task of grading the fourteen candidates. The room was divided in half for testing purposes, and two examiners graded seven candidates at two work areas while the other two examiners graded the remaining seven candidates. Each set of examiners circulated around their assigned work areas so that they could observe and monitor the skills of the candidates. Thus, it was not possible for an examiner to observe a candidate for every moment during the entire examination. In petitioner's case, her examiners were Roland Bordelon and Jeri Scott, two licensed barber stylists with nine and eleven years experience, respectively, in grading the examination. According to examiner Scott, she always gave the benefit of the doubt to the candidate. On the other hand, examiner Bordelon said he tended to grade more rigidly. Before the examination, all examiners were given standardization training, which was designed to insure that the examiners graded in a "standardized" or consistent fashion. This training included the grading of live models during a simulated or mock examination. In addition, they reviewed a grader's manual which provided criteria and instructions on how to grade the examination. The examiners were told to grade independently of one another, and they were not to confer on the grades to be given a candidate. After the grading was completed, the two grades were compiled, and an overall grade was given the candidate. The haircut category contains nine separate items to be rated by the examiner. A maximum of forty-five points can be attained in this category. The sanitation category contains ten items with a maximum of twenty-five points. The examiner was required to give a "yes" or "no" score on each category, with a "yes" meaning full credit and a "no" meaning zero credit. This rating was then recorded contemporaneously on a scoring sheet. In the event a "no" score was given, the examiner was required to fill in a comments section on the scoring sheet which identified the basis for the negative rating. Finally, if one examiner gave a "yes" and the other a "no," the candidate received one-half credit on the item. In the haircut portion of the test, examiner Bordelon gave a "no" on items B-8, B-9, B-10, B-12, and B-14 while examiner Scott gave a "no" on items B-11, B-12, and B-15. In all other respects, the two were consistent in their grading. Their combined scores resulted in petitioner receiving a total grade of 24 out of 45 points. Petitioner contends that she successfully completed a taper haircut on her model and did not deserve to receive a "no" on so many items. She also questions the consistency of the examiners' grading. The more credible and persuasive evidence, however, is that the items were graded in a fair manner and that a number of deficiencies were noted in her performance. They included sides not proportional, holes in the sides and back, side burns not shaven, holes in the top, blending problems, and uneven outlines. Although the two examiners disagreed on several items, such inconsistencies were not shown to be unreasonable or illogical. Moreover, the scores are averaged to adjust for any potential bias by the examiners. In other words, the averaging process reduces the subjectivity of the examiner's scoring and takes into account the fact that one examiner may grade too leniently or too severe. Therefore, the grade given in the haircut category should not be changed. In the sanitation category of the examination, petitioner contests the "no" grade she received from examiner Bordelon on item B-1. That item requires a candidate to wash her hands before beginning the haircut. Examiner Scott stated that she did not see petitioner wash her hands, but since she did not observe petitioner every moment before the haircut began, she gave her the benefit of the doubt. Examiner Bordelon stated he did not observe petitioner wash her hands and thus gave her a "no." Since petitioner stated that she washed her hands prior to the beginning of the haircut, and examiner Bordelon did not testify that he had petitioner in his eyesight for every moment prior to the time she began cutting hair, it is found that petitioner should be given a "yes" rating on item B-1 and an additional two points. After adjusting her score, her total score is 71, or still less than the required 74.5. Besides her own testimony, petitioner presented the testimony of her former instructor, Terry Collier, who is a licensed barber stylist. Collier suggested that the examiners did not have sufficient experience and training in cutting the hair of African-Americans. From this premise, he drew the conclusion that the examiners likewise were insufficiently trained to judge the merits of a haircut given to a black model. The evidence shows, however, that during the past decade both examiners have graded numerous candidates who used black models. This is confirmed by the fact that approximately one-half of all test candidates and models are black. In addition, both examiners operate barbershops serving African-American clients. Finally, both Collier and the Board's witnesses agreed that subjective judgment calls must be made by the examiners while grading a candidate. Therefore, petitioner's contention regarding the qualifications of the examiners is deemed to be without merit. Finally, petitioner claims she was distracted by conversations between the two examiners during the examination. Both examiners denied discussing the merits of the candidate's skills, but admitted they made have engaged in "small talk" at various times, particularly during the permanent wave part of the examination, a category not in issue here. Also, petitioner stated that four or five unidentified persons came into the examination room during the examination and stood behind her for a few moments. This was confirmed by her husband. Even if these events occurred, however, all candidates would have been subjected to the same testing conditions and thus no candidate would have received an unfair advantage during the examination process. Moreoever, petitioner concedes that during the examination she never complained that she was being distracted. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to relief on this ground.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Barbers' Board enter a final order changing petitioner's grade on the September 1993 barber stylist examination from 69 to 71. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6792 Petitioner: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 3. Rejected as being unnecessary. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 9-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 12-13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 14-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 17-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 25-26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 27-29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 30-31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 32. Rejected as being unnecessary. 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Respondent: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Rejected as being unnecessary. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 11. Rejected as being unnecessary. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 13-15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 18-22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 23-24. Rejected as being unnecessary. 25-26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 29. Rejected as being unnecessary. 30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. NOTE: Where a proposed finding of fact has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Suzanne Lee, Executive Director Barbers' Board 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0769 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Leatrice E. Williams, Esquire 604 Hogan Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 W. Frederick Whitson, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Barbers' Board should discipline the Respondent (a licensed barber and barbershop) for permitting a person in his employ to practice barbering without a license in violation of Sections 476.204(1)(a) and (h) and 476.194(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1987).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Bruce Heineman, holds a valid Florida barber license, license number BB-0018489 which was originally issued on May 8, 1968, and has been continuously licensed as a barber since that time. No record of prior disciplinary action appears in Respondent's file. Respondent, Bruce Heineman operates a barbershop under the business name of "Cuttin Corners," located at 3107 South Orlando Drive, #7B, Sanford, Florida 32771. Said barbershop operates under a current valid barbershop license which was originally issued to Respondent on September 9, 1986. Sara Kemmeck, an inspector with the Department, testified that she personally observed an employee of Respondent, Tina Prescott, giving a customer a haircut on August 31, 1988, at his barbership. Upon demand, the employee was unable to produce a valid barbers license. The unrebutted evidence demonstrated that Tina Prescott was engaged in the practice of barbering without a valid license for a minimum of two weeks, while an employee of Respondent. Tina Prescott was issued a cosmetology license on November 7, 1988, license number CL-0174999, which permits her to practice barbering in a licensed barbershop.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should have received a passing grade on the written part of her barber examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Nina D. Odom, was a candidate on the April 1997 barber examination. The test is administered by the Bureau of Testing, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Bureau), while licensure is conferred by Respondent, Barbers' Board (Board). There are two parts to the barber examination, a written portion and a practical portion. On an examination taken more than one year earlier, Petitioner had received a passing grade on the practical part of the examination. For the April 1997 examination, Petitioner received a score of 72 on the written part of the examination. In order to pass that part, a minimum score of 75 is required. Contending that she "wasn't pleased with [her] results," Petitioner requested a formal hearing to challenge her grade. In her letter requesting a hearing, Petitioner contended that the Bureau advised that her "weak area" was "implements," but the questions she failed were not in that subject area. As clarified at hearing, she challenged questions 2, 58, and 63, all multiple choice questions, contending that she should have received credit for her answers. Also, she questioned whether she should be required to pay a $150.00 reexamination fee even if she had already passed the practical part of the examination. Finally, Petitioner complained that she was required to retake both parts of the examination even if she failed only one part. The letter prompted this proceeding. The written portion of the barber examination is not an open book examination. Prior to the examination, however, candidates are given a copy of a "Candidate Information Booklet" (Booklet), which identifies in general terms the contents of the test and the reference materials from which the questions will be drawn. The questions are multiple choice and the correct answers are always taken from one of the reference materials in the Booklet. Because the questions are confidential, and may be used on future examinations, the actual text of the challenged questions will not be repeated here. In this case, Petitioner has contended that she should have been given credit for her answers to questions 2, 58, and Prior to the hearing, the Bureau agreed that Petitioner should have been given credit for question 58. This results in Petitioner's grade being raised to slightly above 73, which is still short of a passing grade. Question 2 tests the candidate's knowledge of a procedure to be used on a client. Petitioner selected an incorrect answer but contended that it was based on information she received from her instructors in 1992 while attending the Hair Design School in Jacksonville, Florida. However, witness Stewart, who helped draft the test questions, established that the correct answer is drawn from a recognized textbook, and that the information Petitioner received during her schooling was in error. Question 63 tests the candidate's knowledge of another procedure which licensed hair stylists must perform. Again, Petitioner selected an incorrect answer. Witness Stewart established that the correct answer was drawn from a recognized textbook cited in the Candidate's Information Booklet, and that Petitioner's answer was incorrect. The Board has promulgated Chapter 61G3-16, Florida Administrative Code, which contains the requirements for examination for licensure, reexamination, and examination review. Rule 61G3-16.001(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[t]here shall be two parts to the examination, a written portion and a practical portion." The evidence shows that Petitioner has successfully completed the practical part of the examination but has failed the written part on four consecutive occasions. Rule 61G3-16.002(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[a]n applicant who fails the state examination for licensure in whole or in part shall be required to pay the reexamination fee as set forth in Rule 61G3-20.007." Therefore, under the terms of the rule, Petitioner is required to pay the reexamination fee of $150.00 even if she passes one part of the two-part examination. Rule 61G3-16.002(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[a]n applicant shall be required to retake only the portion of the examination on which he or she failed to achieve a passing grade. However, an applicant must pass both portions of the examination within a one year period in order to qualify for licensure." Because Petitioner had not passed the practical part of the examination within one year of when she sat on the written part of the examination, she was properly required to retake both parts of the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Barbers' Board enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for a passing grade on the written portion of the April 1997 barber examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Nina D. Odom 1230 East 7th Street, Apartment 9 Jacksonville, Florida 32206 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Joe Baker, Executive Director Barbers' Board 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0769 Lynda Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Should Respondent receive a passing score on the practical portion of the Barber Examination given on January 13, 1997?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Examination for Licensure as a Barber is administered by the Department’s Bureau of Testing and consists of two parts: Part I, Written; and Part Two, Practical. Petitioner passed Part I and Part I is not in contention. The Candidate Information Booklet for the Barber Examination (Information Booklet) provides as follows: GRADING CRITERIA FOR THE PRACTICAL EXAMINATION The performance of each candidate on the examination is evaluated by two examiners. The score necessary to achieve a passing grade shall be no less than seventy-five (75) percent out of one hundred (100) percent based on the average of the examiners’ scores. This means that a candidate will receive all the possible points for a procedure if both examiners evaluate the candidate as performing the procedure. If one examiner evaluates the candidate as performing the procedure and one examiner evaluates the candidate as failing to perform the procedure, the candidate will receive half of the possible points for the procedure. If both examiners evaluate the candidate as failing to perform the procedure, the candidate will not receive any points for the procedure. Under Part II (Practical) the candidate is graded on the following procedures. The number in parentheses is the maximum number of points that the candidate can receive upon successfully completing each procedure. Sanitation and Patron Protection (25) Technique (10) Shampoo Service (10) Haircut (45) Chemical Service (10) Total possible points (100) Based on the Examination Grade Report the Petitioner received the following scores on the procedures listed above: Sanitation and Patron Protection 24 Technique 10 Shampoo Service 10 Haircut 5 Chemical Service 0 Total points received 49 Petitioner is contesting the grading of the Haircut procedure only. The following is the criteria to be rated under the Haircut procedure: B-8. Top is even and without holes, gaps, or steps. B-9. Top (horseshoe) blends with the sides and back. B-10. Front outline are even. B-11. Haircut is proportional and sides are equal in length. B-12. Sides and back are without holes, gaps, or steps B-13 Sides blend with the back. B-14. Sideburns and outline are even. B-15. Sideburns, outline and neckline are clean shaven. B-16. Neckline is properly tapered. Examiner Jerri Scott gave Petitioner credit for correctly performing Criteria B-10 and B-12 but determined that Petitioner had failed to properly perform criteria B-8, B-9, B-11, and B-13 through B-16. Examiner Char Feliciano determined that Petitioner had failed to properly perform criteria B-8 through B-16. During the hearing, the Department agreed to grant Petitioner full credit for B-10 and B-12 since there was some inconsistency in the examiners' grading which gave Petitioner 10 points on the Haircut procedure rather than the 5 points reported on the Examination Grade Report. This gave Petitioner a total score of 54 points out of a possible 100 points on the Practical part of the examination. Each examiner individually examined the haircut performed by Petitioner and determined, based on the criteria set forth in the Information Booklet and the Examiner's Grading Sheet, that Petitioner had failed to properly perform B-8, B-9, B-11, and B-13 through B-16 The evidence is clear that Petitioner failed to properly perform B-8, B-9, B-11, and B-13 through B-16 of the Practical part of the Barber Examination given on January 13, 1997, notwithstanding the testimony of Petitioner to the contrary which I find lacks credibility. Additionally, the evidence is clear that Petitioner failed to receive a passing score on the Practical part of the Barber Examination given on January 13, 1997.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to the Practical part of the Barber Examination given on January 13, 1997. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Baker, Executive Director Board of Barbers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Linda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32299-0792 R. Beth Atchison Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James Jenkins, Jr., pro se Post Office Box 4092 Lake Wales, Florida 33853-4092
The Issue The issues in these cases concern several administrative complaints brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation against Respondent. In DOAH Case No. 89-4454/DPR Case No. 0093417, Respondent is alleged to have employed a number of individuals to practice as barber instructors who have not been licensed by the State of Florida. In addition, allegations were placed that Respondent had not met sanitation standards required by law; that barbering students and instructor trainees were not under the constant supervision of a licensed instructor; that insufficient numbers of instructors were provided based upon the preceding months' average daily attendance; that a current inspection rating sheet, as well as a copy of the sanitation rules were not displayed; that a full-time instructor statement of employment was not available; that students/school contracts were not available and that a drinking fountain of bottled water needed to be refilled, as revealed in an inspection of January 7, 1988. In DOAH Case No. 89-4453/DPR Case No. 0097551 pertaining to an inspection of April 8, 1988, Respondent is said to have employed a Calvin Gates to practice as a barber instructor without Gates having been issued a license from the State of Florida. Finally, DOAH Case No. 89- 4452/DPR Case No. 0108179 alleges that by inspection of November 17, 1988, it was revealed that Joseph Kaufmann had been employed to teach barbering by Respondent and was operating on an expired barber instructor's license, which had expired approximately August 1, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed barber school in the State of Florida which operated at 5863 University Boulevard W. and 4416 Brentwood Avenue in Jacksonville, Florida, at times significant to these administrative complaints. On January 7, 1988, Gail Hand, an inspector for Petitioner, inspected the Brentwood Avenue facility. This inspection was a routine quarterly inspection. The Jacksonville, Florida, operations of the Roffler Hair Design College are 50% owned by Stewart Arnett Smith, Sr. and 50% owned by Stewart Arnett Smith, Jr., his son. On January 7, 1988, Hand was accompanied in her inspection by Cheryl Baker, whom she understood to be the manager based upon Baker's remarks. In fact, Baker was a secretary; and the actual manager of the facility was an individual named Mattz, who was out ill on this date. Mattz, at that time, was a licensed barber instructor. Neither of the owners were in attendance at the commencement of the inspection. Arnett Smith, Jr. had left to go to his other facility on University Boulevard. He was summoned back to the Brentwood Avenue barber school to participate in the inspection. He arrived approximately 20 to 40 minutes later. During the inspection, Velma Chambers was observed by Hand to be seated in a classroom while a student spoke to the class. At this time, Chambers was an instructor trainee. She had entered into a contract with Respondent on May 14, 1987 to be completed by November 14, 1987 pertaining to 600 hours of course instruction directed toward her becoming a barber instructor. Nonetheless, beyond the date of November 14, 1987, she was still at the school in a capacity, which was other than a licensed instructor in Florida, and under these facts is found to have been a barber instructor trainee on this date. In addition, a work schedule for instructors at the facility, be they licensed barber instructors or instructor trainees, showed Chambers to be filling the role of instructor at the school. Although this schedule had not been prepared by the owners, it was provided to Hand by the younger Smith upon his arrival at Brentwood Avenue on the inspection date. Baker had also pointed Chambers out as being one of the instructors in the facility. Calvin Gates, who was on the floor in the Brentwood Avenue facility, was pointed out by Baker as the instructor on the floor. The floor is where services are given to the public, as distinguished from the classroom, where theory is taught. Gates was not a licensed barber instructor in Florida on the date in question. He, too, had entered into a contract to receive course work toward his instructor's license. His contract with Respondent commenced on September 15, 1987 to be consummated on March 15, 1988. A Dave Dison was found in a room where mannequins are kept and the students are allowed to practice. Dison was pointed out by Baker as being certified for the new students, and Baker commented that Dison's license was at the University Boulevard facility. This is taken to mean that Dison was a licensed barber instructor, whose license was not available at the Brentwood Avenue facility. Having considered the remarks of Baker made to Hand and the testimony of the younger Smith at hearing, it is unclear whether his employment was that of licensed instructor or as instructor trainee waiting a license examination to become a barber instructor. In either case, he had not been licensed by the State of Florida as a barber instructor on the date of the inspection. His name does not appear in the schedule of instructors; but on the date of inspection, he was observed instructing new students using mannequins. According to the investigative report, which comments are credited, the younger Smith admitted to Hand that Dison did not have a Florida license and that Dison had commented to Smith that he, Dison, was having problems with his license in Mississippi. Subsequent to the time of inspection, Dison was dismissed as an employee of Respondent. Terry B. Collier and Patricia Frances Wilson were shown on the schedule to have instructor duties related to the floor duty for Collier and classroom duty for Wilson. Shirley Johnson was shown as having unspecified duties from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Thursday. None of these persons were in attendance on the date of inspection, nor did they have barber instructor licenses at that time. It can be fairly inferred that they were considered by Respondent to be instructor trainees. It cannot be fairly inferred that any knowledge which they might impart on some date other than the inspection date would be in a setting in which the ratio of students to licensed instructors was not in keeping with legal requirement or that they were allowed to pursue their duties as trainee instructors without appropriate supervision from licensed instructors. The process of teaching people to become instructors contemplates the opportunity for those persons to also instruct while undergoing their training. To be successful in an allegation of impropriety by Respondent, proof has to be offered that these persons were, on some date, allowed to instruct without appropriate supervision and in a situation in which the ratio of licensed instructors to students was inadequate. That was not shown as it pertains to the three trainee instructors not in attendance at the time of inspection. The fact that the younger Smith told Hand that he thought the instructor trainees could teach students and be counted as part of the required number of instructors does not change this impression. In addition to Mattz, who was out ill, an individual whose name is Parks was scheduled to work at the Brentwood Avenue facility on the inspection date. Parks was a licensed instructor at the time. He had left the building for some undisclosed reason before the time of the inspection. A Mr. Lewis was also a licensed instructor, who was scheduled to work at the Brentwood Avenue facility on that date; but he was not due in the facility until 1:00 p.m. and had not arrived at the time of the inspection. Although the younger Smith has an instructor's license, he was not performing the function of instructor on the inspection date and was not listed on the schedule of instructors. Effectively, this meant that although students were undergoing instruction, that instruction was being provided by persons who were not licensed instructors and under the supervision of licensed instructors. On the date of the inspection, Baker calculated the average daily attendance to be 105 students. She had some difficulty in arriving at this figure. The younger Smith spoke to Hand on January 11, 1988 by telephone in which he suggested that that figure of 105 should be corrected to 56, based upon some mistake made by the secretary. On January 15, 1988, a letter bearing the signature of Cheryl Baker was written concerning the average daily attendance in which it was reported that she had stated the attendance as 90 and that the correct daily attendance should be 59. Whatever the true figure, students were in attendance and they were not receiving instruction from licensed barber instructors. The inspection also revealed that the current inspection rating sheet and sanitation rules had not been posted or displayed. The explanation by Smith was that the facility had been recently painted and that they had not been put back in their usual place. Hand asked for a copy of the missing inspection rating sheet and sanitation rules but does not recall whether she was shown a copy of these items. The reason why the items pertaining to the current inspection rating sheet and sanitation rules were not produced, based upon Hand's recollection, was that they could not be found. On April 8, 1988, Hand returned to the Brentwood Avenue facility for further inspection and observed Gates teaching. On that occasion, he was introduced by Mattz as the other instructor on duty, with Mattz being one of the two instructors. Seventeen students were present at that time. Two instructors would have been needed to offer instruction to that many students. The average daily attendance on that date was 72 students. On that date, Gates was not licensed by the State of Florida as a barber instructor. On a later date, Hand spoke to the younger Smith about the inspection. On this occasion, Smith changed his point of view from the situation in which he had commented at the first inspection of January 17, 1988. In that earlier inspection, he had stated that he thought that trainees could teach students and be counted as the required number of instructors. In the discussion regarding the April 8, 1988 inspection, he indicated that he did not count instructor trainees as instructors and that Hand must have misunderstood his comments during the previous inspection. On the occasion of the inspection of April 8, 1988, Hand was provided confirmation of Gates' employment, which stated that he was employed as an instructor at the school. The younger Smith tried to explain the circumstance with Gates on the basis that Gates had already taken his barber instructor test and that he had been notified that he had failed and that he had to retake the test and had appealed it with success. All of this information is hearsay and not subject to use for fact finding. Regardless of the true situation of Gates' attempt to gain his barber instructor license, he did not have a license on April 8, 1988 and should not have been allowed to instruct and be counted in the census of licensed instructors. On November 17, 1988, Hand conducted a routine inspection of the University Boulevard West facility. She found Joseph Kaufmann practicing with an expired instructor's license which was displayed. Kaufmann told Hand that he had renewed his license in August of 1988 but that it was returned with a request for an additional $50.00 late fee. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence is a form dated August 2, 1988 pertaining to this license and states that the renewal and fee had been postmarked after the expiration date of July 31, 1988. As a consequence, the basic fee of $50.00 was being returned with the expectation that the request for relicensure should be resubmitted with a total amount of $100.00 being paid, $50.00 for the basic license and $50.00 for a penalty and for reinstatement. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3A admitted into evidence is another form dated December 1, 1988 from Petitioner which states that the renewal and check in the amount of $100.00 was being returned because the request was being processed and the enclosed check was, not required. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence is a copy of postmarks of August 1, 1988 purportedly from Kaufmann, and November 29, 1988, again, purportedly from Kaufmann. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence is a letter from Mr. Tunnicliff, as chief attorney for the Department of Professional Regulation, addressed to Kaufmann, in which it is indicated that any action against Kaufmann was being dismissed associated with the complaint that Kaufmann was practicing with an expired instructor's license. It indicates that although probable cause was believed to exist, that Kaufmann had violated practice standards, in light of the circumstances, it was determined to dismiss the action. This is said to have been based upon the perception that while Kaufmann was practicing with an expired license because of miscommunication between Kaufmann and the Barbers Board, there had been a delay in the renewal of the license. Respondent was notified by telephone on November 22, 1988 concerning the Kaufmann situation. The younger Smith told Hand in that telephone conversation that Kaufmann had renewed his license and had shown Respondent's representative, the younger Smith, a copy of a money order received. Kaufmann had told Hand that on August 1, 1988, he had resubmitted his basic fee with an additional $50.00. Kaufmann showed Hand a copy of a money order receipt with no date. He did not have any correspondence available that he had received from Petitioner concerning his renewal. Hand checked with the office of the Barbers Board on November 21, 1988 and was told that the license had not been renewed and no money had been received. Kaufmann told Hand on the inspection date that because of some problems with mail, they received his money and sent it back because it was late and said that he owed another $50.00 which coincides with the remarks of Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. By contrast, in the conversation of November 21, 1988 between Hand and the Barbers Board, Hand was being told that the Barbers Board had received no money. The younger Smith, with the indication of a money order being sent by Kaufmann to renew his barber instructor license and a remark that he had sent his money in and that he had not received the license renewal back, assumed that things were acceptable. The younger Smith also took solace in the fact that there are problems at times with license renewals, which have to be rectified. Nonetheless, it is evident that Kaufmann was operating as a licensed instructor on November 17, 1988 without having received his license renewal and under the auspice of a license that was being displayed and clearly showed that it was no longer in effect.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts and the Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which fines Respondent in the amount of $1,250.00 and entering a letter of reprimand in the disciplinary file associated with DOAH Case No. 89-4452/DPR Case No. 0108179. DONE and ORDERED this 31st 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 31st day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 89-4452, 89-4453, 89-4454 The following disposition is made of the proposed facts of the parties: Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1 through 3 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 4 is subordinate to facts found, except for its reference to the inspection date as being April 13, 1988. The inspection date was April 8, 1988. Paragraph 5 is subordinate to facts found as far as it is stated in the unnumbered page 4. It appears that some of the Proposed Recommended Order is missing to include the balance of the fact finding at an unnumbered page 5. Respondent's Facts The facts pertaining to DOAH Case No. 89-4452 are subordinate to facts found. The facts pertaining to DOAH Case No. 89-4453 are rejected. The documented information related to the Calvin Gates contract, which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence, shows the conclusion of his training on March 15, 1988, before the inspection of April 8, 1988. The relevant fact is that Gates was not a licensed instructor on April 8, 1988. The comments pertaining to DOAH Case No. 89-4454, which refer to a letter of September 1, 1988 from Robert C. Kent, Esquire, have been taken into account in the fact finding in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Stewart Arnett Smith, Jr. 5110 University Boulevard West Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Samuel L. Ferguson, Executive Director Department of Education State Board of Independent Postsecondary Vocational, Technical Trade and Business Schools 209 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Barbers Board 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert C. Kent, Esquire 1532 Atlantic Boulevard Post Office Box 10174 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Except to the extent consistent with the following findings of fact, all proposed findings of fact are rejected as either not supported by competent substantial evidence, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, or irrelevant. At all times between August 4, 1983, and March 2, 1984, Respondent was licensed to practice barbering in the State of Florida, having been issued barber License Number BD 0019428. Respondent was also licensed to own and operate Roney Plaza Barbershop in Miami Beach, Florida, during the same time period, having been issued barbershop License Number BS 0004727. During this time period, Respondent owned and was operating this barbershop. Both licenses expire July 31, 1984. On August 4 and 5, 1983, Respondent employed a person to engage in the practice of barbering at Roney Plaza Barbershop who did not hold a valid license as a barber or registered barber's assistant.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Barbers' Board require Respondent to pay an administrative fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00). DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 28th day of March 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Rosen, Esquire 420 Lincoln Road, Suite 320 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Myrtle S. Aase, Executive Director Barbers' Board 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 issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Gary Cook, should have received a passing score on the Barber Practical Examination taken by him in November 1996.
Findings Of Fact On or about November 25, 1996, Petitioner, Gary Cook, took the Barber Practical Examination (hereinafter referred to as the "Exam"). The Exam was scored by two examiners: Geri Scott and Don Gibson. The Bureau of Testing of Respondent, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department") subsequently notified Mr. Cook that he had earned a total score of 70 on the Exam. A score of 75 is considered a passing grade. Mr. Cook was notified by the Department that he earned a total score of 14.00 points on the sanitation portion of the Exam. The maximum score which may be earned for the sanitation portion of the Exam is 25.00. On or about December 30, 1996, Mr. Cook requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the determination of his score on the Exam. Mr. Cook challenged his score on the sanitation portion of the Exam. The sanitation portion of the Exam consists of ten criteria for which points may be earned: Criteria Maximum Score Used proper linen setup for the shampoo 2 Properly stored clean and dirty linen during the shampoo 3 Washed hands before beginning the haircut 2 Used the proper linen setup for the haircut 3 During the haircut tools were replaced in sanitizer after each use 3 Properly stored clan and dirty linen during the haircut 2 Washed hands before beginning the permanent wave 2 Used the proper linen/cottonwrap setup for the permanent wave 3 Kept tools sanitized during the permanent wave 3 Properly stored clean and dirty linen during the permanent wave 2 TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 25 The criteria of the sanitation portion of the Exam are designated as "procedures" which candidates are required to meet during the Exam. If both examiners determine that a candidate carried out a procedure, the candidate is awarded the total available points for the procedure. If both examiners determine that a candidate did not carry out the procedure, the candidate is awarded no points for the procedure. Finally, if one examiner determines that a candidate carried out the procedure and the other examiner disagrees, the candidate is awarded half of the available points for the procedure. On the sanitation portion of the Exam Mr. Cook received no points for procedures B-2, C-2, and C-3. Mr. Cook received half the points available for procedures B-4 and C-4. Mr. Cook specifically alleged that he should have been awarded the maximum points for procedures B-2, B-4, C-2, C-3, and C-4. For procedure B-2, the examiners were to determine whether "[t]he candidate used the proper linen setup for the haircut." This procedure was worth a total of 3 points. Both examiners determined that Mr. Cook had not used the proper linen setup. For purposes of procedure B-2, the haircut includes shaving around the outline of the hair. Therefore, proper linen setup for the shave is a part of the haircut. Mr. Cook did not dispute the fact that he had not used the proper linen setup for the shave portion of the haircut. Mr. Cook suggested that the haircut portion of the Exam did not include the shave. The evidence failed to support this assertion. Rule 61GK3-16.001(7)(a)8., Florida Administrative Code, provides that a "haircut" for purposes of barber examinations includes a determination that "[s]ideburns, outline and neckline are clean shaven." See also, Page 7 of the Candidate Information Booklet, Respondent's Exhibit 3. Mr. Cook failed to prove that he fulfilled the requirements of procedure B-2. For procedure B-4, the examiners were to determine whether "[t]he candidate properly stored clean and dirty linen during the haircut." [Emphasis added] This procedure was worth a total of 2 points. One examiner determined that Mr. Cook had not met this criterion. Mr. Cook, therefore, was awarded 1 point for this procedure. The examiner that found that Mr. Cook had not performed procedure B-4 properly determined that Mr. Cook had placed a box of rubber gloves on a bar behind the area in which he was working. The Department has cited no authority which defines the term "linens" as including rubber gloves. The common definition of the term "linens" does not suggest that rubber gloves constitute linens. The term "linen" is defined as follows: 1 a : cloth made of flax and noted for its strength, coolness, and luster b : thread or yarn spun from flax 2 : clothing or household articles made of linen cloth or similar fabric3 : paper made from linen fibers or with a linen finish Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 1984. Mr. Cook should have received full credit for procedure B-4. Therefore, Mr. Cook should have received one additional point on procedure B-4. For procedure C-2, the examiners were to determine whether "[t]he candidate used the proper linen/cotton wrap setup for the permanent wave." This procedure was worth a total of 3 points. Both examiners determined that Mr. Cook had not met this criterion. Both examiners determined that Mr. Cook had failed to use a proper cotton-wrap setup. Mr. Cook failed to explain what steps he undertook in setting up for the permanent wave. Mr. Cook, therefore, failed to prove that he fulfilled the requirements of procedure C-2. For procedure C-3, the examiners were to determine whether "[t]he candidate kept tools sanitized during the permanent wave." This procedure was worth a total of 3 points. Both examiners determined that Mr. Cook had not met this criterion. Both examiners determined that Mr. Cook had placed rods used for the permanent on the back bar. Mr. Cook failed to prove that the did not leave rods on the back bar while performing the permanent wave. Mr. Cook, therefore, failed to prove that he fulfilled the requirements of procedure C-3. For procedure C-4, the examiners were to determine whether "[t]he candidate properly stored clean and dirty linen during the permanent wave." This procedure was worth a total of 2 points. One examiner determined that Mr. Cook had not met this criterion. The examiner who found that Mr. Cook had not met this criterion determined that Mr. Cook had left end-wraps on the back bar. Mr. Cook failed to prove that he did not leave end- wraps on the back bar. Mr. Cook, therefore, failed to prove that he fulfilled the requirement of procedure C-4. All of the criteria for the sanitation portion of the Exam are listed in a Candidate Information Booklet for the Barber Examination. See page 6 of Respondent's Exhibit 3. The booklet also explains the scoring procedure. Mr. Cook proved that he should have been awarded one additional point on the sanitation portion of the Exam. Therefore, Mr. Cook earned a total score of 71 on the Exam. Mr. Cook's score is below a passing score of 75.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Barbers Board, finding that Gary Cook should have received a total score of 71 on the Barbers Practical Examination of November 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Cook 202 Mulberry Circle Crawfordville, Florida 32327 R. Beth Atchison, Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Joe Baker Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Barbers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent, Martin Rosales1/ (Respondent), engaged in the practice of barbering without a license and displayed as his own the barbering license of another, and, if so, what administrative penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was not licensed as a barber by the Department's Board of Barbers for the State of Florida. John Miranda, during all times relevant to this proceeding, was employed by Petitioner as an inspector. Mr. Miranda's job responsibilities include conducting inspections of barbershops. On September 13, 2014, Petitioner, through its employee, Mr. Miranda, inspected the premises of Sanchez Barbershop/Salon (Barbershop). During the inspection, Mr. Miranda observed, and photographed, Respondent performing barbering services on a customer. Specifically, Respondent was cutting a customer's hair. During the inspection on September 13, 2014, Mr. Miranda briefly exited the barbershop in order to retrieve something from his vehicle. As Mr. Miranda was returning to the shop, he observed Respondent fleeing the premises. Mr. Miranda did not give chase, and Respondent did not return to the Barbershop prior to Mr. Miranda completing the inspection. Upon re-entry to the Barbershop, Mr. Miranda saw, at the work-station where he observed Respondent, a barber’s license displaying Respondent’s photographic image and the name Joseph Garcia. Respondent and Joseph Garcia are not the same person. Respondent publicly displayed the barber’s license of another as if it were his own. Respondent does not challenge the merits of the Administrative Complaint but instead defends against the action on the ground that he is the victim of mistaken identity. According to Respondent, he is not the person appearing in the photographs taken by Mr. Miranda on September 13, 2014. Mr. Miranda testified, without hesitation or reservation, that Respondent is the person that he observed in the Barbershop on September 13, 2014. His certainty as to Respondent’s identity is bolstered by the fact that he had dealings with Respondent prior to September 13, 2014, and, at the time of the inspection, was familiar with Respondent’s appearance. During the final hearing, Mr. Miranda, while sitting approximately five feet from Respondent, affirmed that Respondent is the person that he observed providing barbering services on September 13, 2014. Additionally, the person depicted in the photographs taken during the inspection by Mr. Miranda bears a definite physical resemblance to Respondent. The undersigned is convinced that Respondent is the person that Mr. Miranda observed performing barbering services at the Barbershop on the day in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Martin Rosales: Engaged in the unlicensed practice of barbering, an act proscribed by section 476.204(1)(a); Displayed as his own the barber’s license of another, an act proscribed by section 476.204(1)(d); and Imposing an administrative fine of $500 payable to Petitioner within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 2015.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent owned, operated, maintained, established, or conducted a barbering business and barber shop for purposes of the requirements delineated in Section 476.194, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with regulating the licensure of barbers, the licensure of barber shop establishments and the practice of barbering, and the operation of barber shops, pursuant to Chapter 476, Florida Statutes (2006). After investigation the Respondent, Chand Harris, was accused in the Administrative Complaint, with practicing barbering or operating, establishing, opening, or conducting a barber shop operation or business without proper licensure. Although properly served with a copy of the Notice of Hearing at his last known address of record, Mr. Harris failed to appear at the hearing. After waiting an appropriate period of time, the hearing was convened and the taking of evidence was initiated. Upon conclusion of the Petitioner's case the Respondent, Mr. Harris, had not yet appeared at the hearing and never did appear at hearing. Consequently, no evidence was adduced on behalf of the Respondent. There has been no communication with the Respondent either before or since the hearing and thus there is no known explanation for his failure to appear at the hearing. Robert M. Johnson is employed by the Department as an inspector. He has been thus employed for approximately three and one-half years. He has a four-year degree from Baptist College of Florida and is currently enrolled in basic law enforcement courses at Lake City Community College. He also received formal training from the Department upon beginning his employment and attends on-going training sessions. Mr. Johnson performs approximately 1,300 inspections annually. On November 3, 9, and 17, 2005, Mr. Johnson inspected the premises of a business known as "Trend Setterz." Mr. Johnson's investigation established, through his testimony, that the Respondent, Chand Harris, owned and controlled the establishment named Trend Setterz. It is located at 289 Marion Oaks Lane, Ocala, Florida 34473. Trend Setterz was not licensed as a barber shop by the Florida Barbers Board, but was operating as a barber shop. Mr. Johnson observed a substantial number of people having hair cuts performed in the Trend Setterz shop. During those inspections, Mr. Johnson observed Mr. Giscard Rousseau performing barbering services inside the Trend Setterz establishment. He specifically observed Mr. Rousseau cutting hair for compensation. He also overheard Mr. Rousseau telling at least one customer not to pay him in the presence of Mr. Johnson so he could not be accused of barbering for compensation without a license. Mr. Rousseau was not licensed as a barber by the Florida Barber's Board at the time of the inspections and with regard to the time period represented by the charges in the Administrative Complaint against the shop owner and operator, Mr. Harris. Later, after the pertinent time period represented by the charges in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Rousseau indeed achieved licensure as a barber by the Florida Barber's Board, on September 12, 2006. That license is current and active through July 31, 2008. Chand Harris, however, as well as Trend Setterz, is not and never has been licensed by the Barber Board respectively as a barber or as a barber shop.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Department of Business and Profession Regulation, Board of Barbers, finding the Respondent guilty of the charges in the Administrative Complaint and assessing an administrative penalty in the amount of $1,000.00, due and payable to the Barber Board, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 calendar days of the date a final order herein is filed with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Tiffany A. Harrington, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Chand Harris 16330 Southwest 17th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34473 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
