The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Sections 477.02(6), 477.15(8), 477.27(1) & (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Clodoaldo and Olimpia Linares operate the Alinas Beauty Salon, a partnership, at 754 East 1st Avenue, Hialeah, Florida under Certificate of Registration to operate a cosmetology salon number 20143 issued by Petitioner on August 21, 1974. Petitioner's Inspector Miller, accompanied by Inspector Padrick, visited Respondent's salon on October 31 1975, to investigate a report that Respondent had an operator at their shop who was practicing cosmetology without a license. At that time the inspectors discovered Carmen Salvador giving a manicure to a patron. Salvador stated to the inspectors that although she did not have a Florida license to practice cosmetology, she was not employed in the salon. (Testimony of Miller and Padrick) Respondent Olimpia Linares testified that Salvador was her cousin and that while she was waiting for Linares to leave the salon for the evening she filed a patron's nails while Linares was working on the patron's hair. The patron was a friend of Salvador. (Testimony of Linares)
Recommendation That Respondent, Olimpia Linares, be issued a written reprimand for violation of Section 477.27(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Clodoaldo and Olimpia Linares c/o Alinas Beauty Salon THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 754 East 1 Avenue Hialeah, Florida
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: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of Beauty Salon Mayelin Unisex (Salon), a cosmetology salon located at 1442 Northeast 163rd Street in North Miami Beach, Florida. The Salon was first licensed by the Department on December 19, 1990. Respondent has never been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Her application for licensure is currently pending. Charles E. Frear is an inspector with the Department. On May 16, 1990, Frear went to 1442 Northeast 163rd Street with the intention of inspecting a licensed cosmetology salon operating under the name "Hair to Hair." When he arrived at the address, Frear noticed that the sign outside the establishment reflected that Beauty Salon Mayelin Unisex now occupied the premises. The Salon was open for business. Upon entering the Salon, Frear observed Respondent removing curlers from the hair of a customer who was seated in one of the chairs. 1/ Frear asked Respondent to show him her license to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Respondent responded that she did not have such a license yet, but that she was scheduled to take the cosmetology licensure examination later that month. After learning from Respondent that she was the owner of the Salon, Frear asked to see the Salon's license. Respondent thereupon advised Frear that the Salon had not been licensed by the Department. Although she told Frear otherwise, Respondent was aware at the time that a Department-issued cosmetology salon license was required to operate the Salon. Frear gave Respondent an application form to fill out to obtain such a salon license. Respondent subsequently filled out the application form and submitted the completed form to the Department. Thereafter, she received License No. CE 0053509 from the Department to operate the Salon.
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 committed the violations of law alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint; and (2) imposing upon Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 for having committed these violations. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of April, 1991. 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 24th day of April, 1991.
The Issue The Respondent is charged in a two count amended administrative complaint. Count I alleges a violation of Section 477.029(1)(a) F.S., practicing cosmetology without a current active license. Count II alleges a violation of Sections 477.029(1)(i) and 477.0263(1) F.S., engaging in cosmetology services in areas other than in a licensed cosmetology salon.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology. Respondent Cathy Runkle has never been a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida. She has learned her hair cutting/trimming skills from books and video tapes borrowed from the public library. At all times material hereto, Cathy's Place, Cathy Runkle, and Cathy's Hair Design have been unlicensed as cosmetology salons. Sometime during "the Christmas holidays" (between December 25, 1990 and January 1, 1991) Respondent, her daughter, and two women friends, one of whom was Mildred Schwarz, were gathered socially at Respondent's home in Daytona, Florida. Because Respondent had just given her daughter an attractive "home permanent" and hair trim, the subject came up of whether or not the four women could start a business doing the same thing for others in their own homes and in the homes of prospective customers. Respondent prepared a sample advertising flyer in pencil on an 8 1/2 by 11-inch piece of paper that read, "Cathy's Hair Designs, Perms $40.00, Cut $10.00, Hair styling in your home." Respondent's name, home address, and telephone number were also on the sample flyer. Mildred Schwarz traced over some of the pencilled lettering on the sample flyer. The next day, Respondent gave a copy of the sample flyer to each of the three other women who had been part of the discussion. She did this so that they could decide if they wanted to be involved in such a project with her. Later during the holiday period, Respondent and her daughter visited another friend, Pam Rendon, in Mrs. Rendon's home, also in Daytona, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Rendon had been friends of Mr. and Mrs. Runkle for at least two years prior to this occasion. Mrs. Rendon runs a motel which is attached to her home. The office of the motel is also in the home. During this particular visit, a copy of the sample flyer was shown to Mrs. Rendon. Mrs. Rendon cautioned against any such business venture because it was too much hassle for Respondent, a housewife. Mrs. Rendon explained some of the pitfalls of running one's own business, including the need to purchase insurance. When Respondent and her daughter went home, the copy of the flyer brought by Respondent and her daughter was inadvertently left on Mrs. Rendon's office desk. It was never re- copied or distributed at the motel, and it was never even posted on the motel bulletin board. Mr. and Mrs. Rendon testified that it must have been thrown out in the trash. Respondent thought about the proposed project and decided against going into business. Mildred Schwarz confirmed that the business idea was never seriously considered in the first place and that Respondent never approached her about it again. Ms. Schwarz does not know what became of her copy of the flyer. There is also no evidence as to what became of the remaining two copies of the flyer. Respondent never created or distributed any more copies. Petitioner received a copy of the flyer in the mail as part of an anonymous complaint and presented no evidence that other copies were ever publicly circulated by anyone. On one occasion either before or after the creation of the original flyer but still at a time material to the period of March 1, 1990 through March 6, 1991, the dates alleged in the amended administrative complaint, Respondent had a prearranged date for lunch with Mildred Schwarz. When Respondent arrived to pick up Ms. Schwarz at Ms. Schwarz' Daytona, Florida home, Ms. Schwarz asked Respondent to trim her hair. Respondent complied with the request. Later, Ms. Schwarz picked up Respondent's lunch check, but not as a quid pro quo for the hair trim. There is no reasonable monetary correlation between the price of this particular shared meal and the cost of a hair cut as listed on the flyer. In fact, Ms. Schwarz testified that she had "owed" Respondent the meal before and apart from the hair cut. On another occasion, Respondent used a home permanent kit on Ms. Schwarz in Ms. Schwarz' home. Later, Ms. Schwarz also administered a home permanent to Respondent at Respondent's home. Both women apparently followed the directions for laymen included in the kits. These events were a courtesy exchange of favors between the two women without any disparity of cost in the permanent wave kits, which were not purchased from a cosmetology supply house. Neither Respondent nor Ms. Schwarz was ill or incapacitated at any material time. Respondent never held herself out to be a licensed cosmetologist, and Ms. Schwarz never thought she was one. Either before or after the creation of the original flyer, but still at a time material to the dates alleged in the administrative complaint, Respondent trimmed the hair of Pam Rendon and of her husband, Frank Rendon. She did this for each of them on several occasions. The Runkles and the Rendons play tennis together regularly and regularly visit in each others' homes. Respondent often invites herself or is invited by Mrs. Rendon to have coffee and sun herself beside Mrs. Rendon's motel pool. Respondent frequently babysits for Mrs. Rendon. No witness remembers exactly when or how the hair cutting occasions arose but each was spontaneous. Sometimes they occurred during a pick-up lunch when the families were gathered in the Rendons' kitchen. Sometimes they occurred when just Respondent and Mrs. Rendon were together and Mrs. Rendon asked Respondent to "do something" with Mrs. Rendon's hair. Once, at Mrs. Rendon's request, Respondent left what she was doing in her own home and came to Mrs. Rendon's house and "finished" a bad haircut Mrs. Rendon had started on herself. Respondent did not expect to be compensated for her helpfulness. Mrs. Rendon never offered Respondent compensation for her services. Mr. Rendon offered to pay Respondent on at least four separate occasions when she trimmed his hair, and Respondent consistently refused to take any money. Neither Mr. or Mrs. Rendon was ill or incapacitated during any of these events. Respondent never held herself out to be a licensed cosmetologist, and the Rendons never thought she was one. Neither the Schwarz home nor the Rendon home is a licensed cosmetology salon. Petitioner also established that on a single occasion within the time frame of the amended administrative complaint Respondent's husband took her out to dinner at a Daytona, Florida restaurant in exchange for her stopping what she was doing (presumably preparing their dinner) so as to cut and permanent his hair. Respondent's husband knew she was not a licensed cosmetologist. On one other occasion, Respondent had a prearranged social visit with an old friend elsewhere in Florida. The friend telephoned and asked Respondent to buy a home permanent kit on the way. Respondent bought the kit at a Pic'N'Save for approximately $7.00 and used it on the friend when she visited with the friend. After Respondent refused the friend's offer to reimburse her for the permanent wave kit and her gas, the friend secretly slipped a $10.00 bill into Respondent's purse to cover the monies expended by Respondent. The Respondent did not return the $10.00 because she did not look in her purse until she got home. This event occurred during the time frame alleged in the amended administrative complaint. Petitioner also established that at a social luncheon Respondent and other women guests, mostly Respondent's relatives by marriage, did various things to one another's hair. As a result, the bottle of wine and the food which were already on the hostess' table were dedicated to Respondent for her skill and efforts. Petitioner did not affirmatively prove that this event took place in Florida, and therefore jurisdiction of it has not been proven. Petitioner also established that while in New Mexico, Respondent gave her mother a home permanent and trimmed her mother's hair and that Respondent's mother bought Respondent lunch on a quid pro quo basis. New Mexico is outside Petitioner's jurisdiction. Neither of these incidents clearly occurred during the time frame alleged in the amended administrative complaint.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 26th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1-3, 5-7, 9 Accepted. 4, 8, 10, 15, Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. 11-14, 17-19 Rejected as stated because not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole or rejected as containing legal argument. Covered in FOF 5-11. 16 Accepted that this is a direct quotation from an exhibit but it is out of context and misleading from the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. Respondent's PFOF: COUNT I 1-2, 4 Rejected as legal argument. 3 The first sentence is rejected as legal argument. The second sentence is accepted. 5, 10-15 Accepted in substance but otherwise is rejected as incomplete or subordinate or as mere recitation of testimony. Legal argument is also rejected. 6-9 What is not legal argument on credibility issues or is not subordinate to the facts as found has been accepted. COUNT II 1-2 Rejected as legal argument but covered in substance. Copies furnished to: Herbert Runkle 2075 South Halifax Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Lois B. Lepp, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ms. Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine against the Respondent by reason of statutory violations described in an Administrative Complaint which are alleged to have taken place in the course of the operations of the Respondent's cosmetology salon.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent has been licensed as a Cosmetologist, having been issued license number CL205771. The Respondent's last-known business address is 2600 Hammondville Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069, at which location he operates a Cosmetology Salon named Cut Creation. At all times material to this case, Cut Creation has been licensed as a Cosmetology Salon, having been issued license number CE53077. On February 5, 2004, the Respondent's business premises were inspected by Norma Fishner, an Investigative Specialist employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. During the course of her inspection on February 5, 2004, Norma Fishner observed Christopher Mason cutting a customer's hair on the premises of Cut Creation. On that date Christopher Mason was not licensed as a Cosmetologist in the State of Florida. On February 5, 2005, Norma Fishner also observed an unidentified male cutting a customer's hair on the premises of Cut Creation. This unidentified male ran out the front door before he could be questioned or identified by Norma Fishner. Norma Fishner questioned the Respondent about the unidentified male who ran out the door and asked the Respondent to provide identifying information about that person. The Respondent refused to provide any information about that person. It was clear that the Respondent knew the identity of the unidentified male who ran out the door and that the Respondent knew that the unidentified male did not have a Cosmetologist license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing an administrative fine in the total amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 27th day of July, 2005.
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for the reason that Respondent's beauty salon was operated in an unsanitary manner.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on May 31, 1977, against Rosie L. Tillman and Sarah Flanders citing the licensees for operating Flanders & Tillman Beauty Salon: "That you, said ROSIE L. TILLMAN AND SARAH FLANDERS d/b/a Flanders & Tillman Beauty Salon on April 28, 1977 did after numerous warnings, operate with combs and brushes full of hair; with hair and dust all over floors, inside drawers and in roller trays. Personal equipment was not sanitized." Respondent, Rosie L. Tillman, filed an election of remedies pleading "not guilty." The inspector for the Board had inspected subject shop on numerous occasions and had given verbal warning to keep a clean salon. On the date of the last inspection hair was found in the drawer, cloths were dirty, dirty brushes were left near clean brushes, brushes were inside the roller trays, and dust was on the floor. The Board's inspector requested the Respondent to correct the unsanitary conditions and returned for a second inspection in ten days. The salon had not been cleaned and the unsanitary conditions had not been corrected. Respondent contended that there was no way to keep the cited conditions from occuring in a beauty salon.
Recommendation Suspend Respondents' licenses for not less than thirty (30) days. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rosie L. Tillman Flanders & Tillman Beauty Salon 955-F University Boulevard Melbourne, Florida 32901 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-1019 LICENSE NO. SALON 16888 ROSIE L. TILLMAN and SARAH FLANDERS, d/b/a FLANDERS & TILLMAN BEAUTY SALON, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed May 31, 1977, against Jack Diftler, owner of the Haircuttery, charging: "That you, said Jack Diftler on March 25, 1977 did allow a cosmetologist to practice in your salon without the supervision of a master cosmetologist at The Haircuttery, St. Augustine, Florida." The Respondent, Jack Diftler, is a master cosmetologist who had left the beauty shop he owned to make an emergency trip to Miami. The cosmetologist who works in his shop and who is not a master cosmetologist failed to obey his instructions which were to cease his cosmetology work and work repairing the shop while he, the master cosmetologist, was absent. The cosmetologist, Michael Diamond, failed to obey instructions and did perform cosmetology work in the absence of the master cosmetologist.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to the Respondent. The disobedience of an employee is an extenuating circumstance. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jack Diftler, Owner The Haircuttery 52 Spanish Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Adelina Portuondo, is the holder of License Number CL 0089302 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida State Board of Cosmetology. The license authorizes Respondent to perform cosmetology services. She has held the license since 1976. On or about December 24, 1982, a Department inspector visited the premises known as Delores Beauty Salon, located at 2214 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. The visit was prompted by the fact that the Delores Beauty Salon was delinquent in renewing its license with Petitioner. While conducting the inspection, the inspector observed two apparent employees working with customers in chairs. Before the inspector was able to check the license of one of them, a Latin male, who was performing cosmetology services on a client, the Latin male quickly departed the premises. The inspector was told the male's name was either "Jorge" or "Jose," but that no other information regarding that individual was available. Respondent was not on the premises when the inspection was made, but, after being called from her other shop, she arrived a short time later. Portuondo advised the inspector that the male's name was "Jose," that he was there for a "tryout," had just arrived from Cuba and had been referred by someone at her other beauty salon. She also advised that she had just purchased the salon and was in the process of transferring ownership to her name. At the time the inspection was made, Delores Beauty Shop held no current licenses to provide either cosmetology or barber services to the public. The inspector then visited Respondent's other salon, Lena's of New York, and learned that the Latin male's name was actually Jose Bahamonde. Respondent told the inspector that Bahamonde was only a manager of the salon, whose duties included opening and closing the shop, cleaning and the like, but that he performed no professional services. Lena's of New York was apparently licensed by the Board as a cosmetology salon. On April 5, 1983, a Department inspector again visited the beauty salon operated by Respondent at 2214 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach. Respondent had signs indicating the business was now being operated as Lina Beauty Salon II, Inc. The inspector found Bahamonde on the premises and told him it was illegal to practice cosmetology and barbering without appropriate licenses. Bahamonde told the inspector he had taken the examination and was awaiting the results. The inspector returned the next day, April 6, and found Bahamonde cutting a customer's hair. The Respondent was not present on the premises. After being called by telephone, Respondent arrived shortly thereafter and denied that Bahamonde was providing professional services. Instead, she claimed he was working as a cashier and cleaning up the premises. At that time, she also produced records to show she had purchased the salon on October 5, 1982. Official Department records reflect that Bahamonde was issued cosmetology License No. CL 0141942 on July 26, 1983. Those records also reflect that as recent as October 20, 1983, Lina Beauty Salon II, Inc., held no active cosmetology or barbershop licenses. The records do indicate, however, that Respondent applied for a cosmetology salon license for the establishment in April, 1983, but the application was denied on May 9, 1983, on the ground it was incomplete. No license has been issued to Delores Beauty Salon, Inc., since its purchase by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 477.029(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in December, 1982, and April, 1983; violating Subsection 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in December, 1982; and violating Subsections 477.028(2)(b) and 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in April, 1983. It is further RECOMMENDED that a $250 administrative fine be imposed on Respondent for each violation, for a total of $1,000, and that such fine be paid within thirty (30) days of the date of the final order entered in this cause. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1983.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Stanton M. Shapiro is and has been licensed to practice cosmetology and operate a cosmetology salon in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbers CL 0072012 and CE 0029409. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the owner of the cosmetology salon known as Mane Event located in North Miami, Florida. On January 20, 1988, Richard Braun, an inspector employed by Petitioner, visited the Mane Event for purposes of making an annual inspection. Respondent was not present at the salon during the inspection. No customers were present either. When Braun entered the salon through the front door which was standing open, he saw a cat in the front of the salon. The salon is located next to a trailer park, and cats and dogs will wander into the salon when the front door is left standing open. The only person in the salon while Braun was there was a lady named Louvenia. She is not an employee of the Mane Event or of Respondent. Rather, she is a person who for several months had come in to the salon on occasion to give manicures. Braun asked Louvenia where Respondent kept his sanitized instruments and she pointed at some open wicker baskets. He also saw some combs and brushes lying on towels in the back of the salon. Although Respondent's licenses were displayed in the salon, his photograph did not appear on them. Respondent keeps his clean brushes in a sanitized container and uses a separate sterilizer for his combs. He keeps his dirty brushes in wicker baskets. A few years ago Respondent was "cited" for his procedures regarding clean and dirty brushes and thereafter corrected his procedures to comply with the Board's requirements. He has had no other prior regulatory problems.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetoiogy Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Tobi C. Pam, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Stanton M. Shapiro c/o Mane Event 1987 N.E. 135th Street North Miami, Florida 33181 Bruce D. Lamb, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
