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
Findings Of Fact By stipulation, the parties agreed that at all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, AJL Enterprises, was licensed by the State of Florida to operate a cosmetology salon under license Number CE0020026, and under that license, operated the Rendezvous Beauty Salon at 5804 28th Avenue South, Gulfport, Florida 33707. Petitioner was and is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology in Florida. On February 26, 1986, Marjorie May, an inspector for the Department of Professional Regulation, entered the Rendezvous Beauty Salon for the purpose of conducting a routine inspection of the premises. She found the shop to be generally in "pretty good condition". However, in the back room where supplies were kept, she saw two or three live roaches. She also noted that one of the operators on duty, Albert Brewer, was not using a wet sanitizer for the brushes and combs he used. At that time, other employees in the shop were. She also noted that there was no soap in the bathroom. All ot these deficiencies, identified under the pertinent rules of the Board, were, at that time, brought to the attention of Loretta Chaffin, the shop manager, but Ms. Chaffin does not recall the conversation. On February 24, 1987, Ms. May again inspected the salon and again, the condition of the shop was "generally good." However, clean towels, stored on a shelf, were not covered so as to protect them from dust as is required. She also noted that at least one of the operators, Edith Diamond, failed to have a current picture affixed to her license. On this visit, Ms. May noted no roach infestation. She brought the discrepancies identified to the attention of Barbara Shaw, a stylist, in the absence of the manager. Ms. May went back to the salon on August 18, 1987 for a follow-up inspection. On this occasion, she again saw one or two roaches in the back room and in general, the condition of the shop was not as good as it had been previously. She noted, for example, that the upholstery on the back of nearly half the nine styling chairs had split three or four inches and the foam stuffing was visible. Towels on an open rack were uncovered again, and wet sanitizers were not being used by any operator at any station. The only person present in the salon at the time was Michael Gaudette, a new employee, (stylist), and Ms. May briefed him as to the discrepancies. Mr. Gaudette could give no reason for not using a sanitizer indicating instead that the combs and brushes were sanitized in the rear of the shop by being immersed in a cleansing solution contained in a plastic tub. The use of a coverable plastic tub is acceptable, however, the cleansing solution must be a bactericide and fungicide such as Barbacide. Mr. Gaudette, according to Ms. May, indicated that he was using Seabreeze, an astringent. At the hearing, Mr. Gaudette denied this as did Ms. Chaffin, who indicated that the procedure followed was to thoroughly comb out all brushes to remove any loose hair, wash them thoroughly in soap and water, and then immerse them in a solution of Barbacide for 10 minutes. It is found that though a tub was being used, it had no cover and Mr. Gaudette's spontaneous statement about using Seabreeze is more credible than that of the manager, made in a disciplinary hearing, almost a year later. Ms. May also noted that Ms. Diamond's picture was still not current. However, each time she saw them, all licenses were current and appropriate. The only difficulty regarding the licenses was the failure by Ms. Diamond, and perhaps others, to have the required current picture. Ms. May went back to the Rendezvous Beauty Salon the day of the hearing and found that all discrepancies, with the exception of Ms. Diamond's picture, had been corrected. Evidence indicates as well, that an order had been entered on June 18, 1987, several months before the August inspection, to have the stylist chairs repaired and the delay was caused by the upholsterer. The salon is located in between a grocery store on one side and a delicatessen on the other. It is because of this that control of roaches on the premises is difficult. Efforts to control them, however, in place and operative, include monthly spraying by both Ms. Chaffin and monthly pest service by a professional exterminator. Though roach infestation may occur from time to time, it is not heavy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, AJL Enterprises, d/b/a Rendezvous Beauty Salon, be assessed an administrative fine of $250.00. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of August, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 88-3075 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein FOR THE RESPONDENT None submitted COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald L. Jones, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-075O Ruth E. Lucido Secretary, AJL Enterprises 666 East Welch Causeway Madeira Beach, Florida 33708 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed against Licensee Nannette Harnage charging.: "That you, said NANNETTE HARNAGE on Janu- ary 13, 1977 did work on a patron without license number and without the supervision of a master cosmetologist at Nannette's Hay Balers, Middleburg, Florida." The Respondent, Nannette Harnage, said that she was guilty of working in her salon without the presence or supervision of a master cosmetologist. She stated that she now has a master cosmetologist in the salon at all times. The issue as to working on a patient without a license number was dropped.
Recommendation Issue a letter or reprimand to the Respondent, Nannette Harnage. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Nannette Harnage Nannette's Hay Balers 2504 Blanding Boulevard Middleburg, Florida 32068
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case was whether Respondent, Nikki Gamber, should be disciplined by the Board of Cosmetology for the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact On December 14, 1990, Frank Paolella, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation, went to Booth 85 in a Flea Market in Fort Myers, Florida, to investigate a complaint of unlicensed activity purportedly going on there. When he arrived, he asked for the owner, Ms. Gamber, who was present with an employee. He told her why he was there and since she was then working on someone's nails, waited for her to finish. While he was waiting, he observed Respondent's employee, Nikkae Jurgens, applying false nails to another customer. This involved sanding and buffing the client's natural nails before applying the false ones. When he brought all this to the attention of the Respondent, she freely admitted she was engaged in unlawful activity but claimed she was not aware that Ms. Jurgens, who was only two feet away from her, was also doing it. When he brought it to her attention, Respondent said she would tell Ms. Jurgens to stop. Ms. Jurgens indicated that she did not have any identification on her but that Respondent had it all. When Mr. Paolella asked Respondent for it, she said she would provide it later. When she did do so later, by phone, she also said that Ms. Jurgens had been working for her for about 7 to 10 days. Mr. Paolella checked on the licensure status of both Respondent and Ms. Jurgens and determined that neither had a license to do this type or work, nor did either hold a salonlicense. The operation was a booth in a flea market - a counter with two chairs for clients. There was no sanitary equipment there, no disinfectant for implements, and no closed compartments for storing clean supplies and equipment. Mr. Paolella's investigation revealed that Respondent's booth is open for business only on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, but whenever he went there before December 14, 1990, she was never there. As of August 22, 1991, the owner of the Flea Market where Respondent had operated indicated she was no longer in business there. Records of the Department show that Ms. Gamber held neither a cosmetologist's license or a cosmetology salon license during the time in question, nor did Ms. Jurgens, her employee. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be issued by the Board of Cosmetology imposing a fine of $500.00 for each of the two violations established as outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of September, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 September, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark E. Harris Paralegal Specialist Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nikki Gamber P.O. Box 8155 Sarasota, Florida 34278 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kaye Howerton Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee. Florida 32399-0792
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 issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the violations as alleged, and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Lenny Layland owns the cosmetology salon located at 1935 Aloma Avenue in Winter Park, Florida. The salon was licensed effective August 13, 1987, under his ownership and the name, Contemporary Hair Design, license number CE-0044980. The same salon was previously licensed under the ownership of his sister, Lorrie Layland, as "Blazing Scissors." The shop has been in the family for several years. When Lenny Layland acquired ownership, no actual sale took place. His sister did not have time to run the shop, so he took it over in order to protect the family investment. He did not know that a new license was required until Valarie Flowers, the DPR inspector, visited the premises on July 22, 1987. As soon as she told him he needed a license, he acquired one. Lenny Layland also had purchased another salon that was not in his family and had properly acquired a license for it. At the time of Ms. Flowers' inspection, no other violations were found, nor is there evidence of prior violations by the Respondent.
Recommendation It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final Order be entered by the Board, finding Respondent violated Chapter 477, F.S., as alleged, and imposing an administrative fine of $50.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 25th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lenny Layland, Esquire Contemporary Hair Designs 1935 Aloma Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32792 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a State of Florida-licensed cosmetologist (license number CL 0127356) and the owner and operator of Marie's Beauty Salon, a State of Florida-licensed cosmetology salon (license number CE 0040980) located in Fort Lauderdale. Leonard Baldwin is an inspector with the Department. Baldwin has conducted various inspections of Marie's Beauty Salon. His last inspection was conducted on April 24, 1992. 2/ Nancy Victor is not now, nor has she ever been, licensed to practice cosmetology, or any specialty area thereof, in the State of Florida. Victor was hired by Respondent to work as a shampooist in Respondent's salon. Her first day of work was April 24, 1992. At around noon on that day the mother of a young customer walked into the salon to pick up her daughter. The daughter, however, was not ready to leave. She still had rollers in her hair. The mother was in a hurry. She approached Victor and asked her to remove the rollers from her daughter's hair. Victor obliged the mother and began removing the rollers. Respondent, who was working on the hair of a customer seated in the chair next to the one in which the daughter was seated, overheard the discussion between the mother and Victor. Respondent was aware that it was unlawful for a person to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida without a license. Furthermore, she knew that Victor did not have a license to practice cosmetology in this state. Nonetheless, inasmuch as she was busy with another customer and Victor did not have any shampooing that she needed to do, Respondent allowed Victor to remove the rollers from the daughter's hair. As Victor was removing the roller's from the daughter's hair, Baldwin entered the salon to conduct a routine inspection. When Respondent saw Baldwin, she instructed Victor to stop what she was doing and leave the area. Victor did what she was told and went to the rear of the salon. Respondent then went over to the daughter and finished removing the rollers from her hair.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order finding that Respondent violated Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and fining her $75.00 for having committed said violation. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of September, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1992.
