Findings Of Fact Paula Joan Thigpen, known also as Paula Thigpen, is licensed by the State of Florida, Barbers' Board, to practice as a barber in the State of Florida. Her license number is BB 0025059. Respondent had been married to one William Mann on two occasions, ending in divorce. In addition, Respondent had worked as a barber in a barbershop owned by her former husband. That shop is located at 465 Kingsley Boulevard, Orange Park, Florida. This arrangement allowed her to act as a manager in fact related to the financial aspects of that barbershop, during Mann's absence. In the summer of 1983, a discussion was entered into between the Respondent and her former husband on the topic of opening a barbershop in Middleburg, Florida. It was contemplated that Mann would own the shop and that the shop would be managed by the Respondent. Should the Respondent leave the community due to the duties of her present husband who was serving in the United States Navy, Respondent and Mann understood that the Respondent would be reimbursed for the money she invested in the shop in Middleburg. It was discussed that the Respondent would be guaranteed a salary at the beginning of the shop operation in Middleburg. Finally, it was discussed that should Mann wish to dispose of his ownership of the Middleburg barbershop, Respondent would pay him for his interest in the shop and become the owner. Both Mann and the Respondent spent money in trying to establish the barbershop in Middleburg, to include equipment, supplies, advertising and other related costs. Respondent also devoted labor to establishing the shop in Middleburg. To this end, space was leased in a building in early September, 1983, with Respondent representing herself to the lessor as a partner with Mann. On September 16, 1993, Mann traveled to Tallahassee and obtained a barbershop license for the Middleburg operation, No. BS 0007886. He listed himself as the owner of the shop and paid a $25 licensing fee. The barbershop license came into the hands of the Respondent following its issuance. This occurred sometime between September 16, 1983, and September 21, 1983. The barbershop in Middleburg opened on September 19, 1983, a week earlier than had been anticipated by Mann. On that same date he contacted the Respondent and indicated that he did not wish to pursue the business venture of opening the barbershop. He stated on that occasion that he felt that it would cost too much money and the he was not in a position to guarantee the salary for the Respondent and another person who would be working in the shop. Mann offered to have the Respondent return to his business in Orange Park, Florida. Respondent declined this opportunity. Discussion was then entered into on the possibility of the Respondent buying out Mann's ownership interest. Mann did not accept that disposition. He simply stated that he wanted the shop closed. There was a further conversation on September 20, 1983, in which Mann indicated his willingness to sell the shop based upon the amount of money he had invested in the equipment and supplies and a fee which he thought he was entitled to based upon the aggravation caused by the venture. On September 21, 1983, Mann appeared at the barbershop in Middleburg and told the Respondent that he no longer wished to sell his ownership of the shop. He told her that he wished to have the shop closed and wanted the license which had been issued for the barbershop. Respondent told him that she did not know where the license was. In fact, she had it at her home. Following this exchange Mann sought the assistance of law enforcement and after discussion between a law enforcement officer and the Respondent and her former husband, Mann left the licensed premises in Middleburg, Florida. He departed in view of the fact that the lease was signed by the Respondent, accepting the officer's suggestion that he leave given the indicia of control which the lease seemed to place in the hands of the Respondent, in the eyes of the officer. Before the September 21, 1983, exchange, Respondent had prepared a document which would settle the transfer of ownership from Mann to her. That document was never executed. Nonetheless, Respondent was of the opinion that she was entitled to the ownership interest in the barbershop and she traveled to Tallahassee, Florida, on that date and sought and obtained a barbershop license for the Middleburg, Florida shop for which an initial license had been issued to Mann. The license issued to Respondent for that barbershop was BS 00078887. In the application for that license she indicated that she was the sole owner of the shop and the equipment in the shop. This request for transfer was not authorized by Mann, the shop license holder. Following the issuance of the barbershop license for the same barbershop in Middleburg, Florida, as had been licensed for the benefit of Mann, her former husband offered to sell her his interest in the shop. This offer was made in January, 1984. The offer was only open for a couple of days and the parties were unable to come to an agreement on the purchase. That sale has yet to occur. Under the circumstances of this case, as shown in the course of the hearing, Mann has remained the owner of the barbershop licensed for the Middleburg, Florida operation. This is a fact understood by the Respondent. Although there have been occasions in which Mann seemed willing to sell his ownership and associated license, that purchase was never consummated.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which revokes the barbershop registration No. BS 00078887 issued in the name of Paula Thigpen, imposes a civil penalty in the amount of $500 pursuant to Section 476.204, Florida Statutes, and declines the imposition of further penalties as might be allowed by Section 476.214(1), Florida Statutes, and Section 455.227(1), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 L. J. Arnold, III, Esquire Post Office Drawer "D" Green Cove Springs, Florida 32043 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Barber's 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
Findings Of Fact Joanne Fletcher answered the telephone the day Eddie Dingler called The Summit Men's Hair Barbershop (Summit I) asking for work. He said he was Roffler- and Sebring-trained and that he held barber's licenses both in Alabama and in Florida. Ms. Fletcher relayed this message to respondent Donald C. Allgood. At the time, Mr. Allgood was half-owner of The Summit IV, and respondent Don Pettis owned the other half. Mr. Allgood had no ownership interest in Summit I, which was licensed to Mr. Pettis. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Allgood acted as a sort of manager at Summit I the two or three days of the week he spent there, even though he was technically an independent contractor, working on commissions. Respondents had worked with each other for some seven years. The parties stipulated that respondent Donald C. Allgood "is a barber having been issued license number BB 0021833" and that respondent Don Pettis "is a barber having been issued license number BB 0011546." One Monday morning Eddie Dingler appeared in person at Summit I and talked to respondent Allgood about employment. Mr. Allgood called respondent Pettis, then took Dingler to respondent Pettis's house, where Ron Pettis was also present. Dingler told this group that he was licensed both in Florida and in Alabama and that he was conversant with the Roffler and Sebring tonsorial techniques. He was specifically asked whether he had a Florida license, and he answered affirmatively. He was not asked to produce the license certificate itself or the wallet-sized card that licensed barbers are issued. Barbers are under no requirement to carry this card on their persons. Respondent Pettis asked respondent Allgood to observe Dingler cutting hair and to hire him if he cut hair satisfactorily. Dingler was engaged as a barber on a commission basis. He proved to be a highly competent hair stylist, and "excellent barber," from a technical standpoint. Posted in is station at Summit I was what appeared to be a valid Florida barber's license with Dingler's name and photograph: he was wearing eye, glasses and a yellow shirt. Aside from the respondents, five witnesses saw this barber's license, which was counterfeit. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Respondent Pettis remembered noticing a number of plaques on the wall at Dingler's station in Summit I, including something that looked like Dingler's license. Mr. Allgood was unable to say that he had specifically seen Dingler's barber's license at any time before Dingler gathered up his things to leave after being discharged from employment. After Dingler had worked at Summit I for about three months respondent Allgood asked him if he would like to work Mondays (when Summit I was closed at Summit IV. Dingler was Interested and reported for work at Summit IV the following Monday. Michael NcNeill let him in the barbershop ,and noticed what appeared to be an official Florida barber's license among Dingler's effects. After Mr. McNeill had left the Summit IV premises, Dingler allegedly sexually assaulted a 17-year-old patron. When respondent Allgood learned of this, he told victim's father that he would fire Dingler and do what he could to see that Dingler's barber's license was revoked. Dingler was discharged the day after the alleged assault. In discussing the matter with a law enforcement officer, respondent Allgood suggested that the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) be notified so that proceedings to revoke Dingler's barber's license could be instituted. On November 24, 1980, Mr. Allgood voluntarily presented himself for an interview by Charles Deckert, an investigator for DPR. He assumed Mr. Deckert was developing a case so that action against Dingler could be taken. He learned in the interview for the first time that Dingler had never been licensed in Florida as a barber or a registered barber's assistant, according to DPR's records. In preparing the foregoing findings of fact, petitioner's proposed findings of fact and memorandum of law and respondents' proposed order have been considered, and the proposed statement and findings of fact have been adopted in substance.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner refrain from taking action against respondents on account of this technical violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 28th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia Grinsted, Esquire Post Office Drawer 915 Shalimar, Florida 32579 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Barbars Board 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of barbering and the inspection of barbershops in the state of Florida pursuant to chapter 476, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Archibald was licensed as a barber in the state of Florida under license number BB8890016. At all times material hereto, Fresh Cut Barbershop ("barbershop") was licensed as a barbershop in the state of Florida under license number 1077801. At all times material hereto, Archibald was an owner and operator of the barbershop. On February 9, 2012, the barbershop was located within a shopping plaza at 6574 Northwest Selvitz Road, Port St. Lucie, Florida. On February 9, 2012, a routine inspection of the barbershop was conducted by Ms. Yvonne Grutka, a trained and experienced inspector employed by Petitioner. Ms. Grutka has been employed by Petitioner as an Environmental Health Specialist for approximately 17 years, performing approximately 1,200-1,400 annual inspections. Due to the nature of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, the physical layout of the barbershop, including the specific locations of the front entrance, work stations, and waiting area, is important to a clear understanding and resolution of the issues. However, insufficient evidence was presented at hearing in this regard. Moreover, insufficient evidence was presented as to the number of barbers who worked at the barbershop (and thus number of personal licenses); the identities of the barbers; where specifically within the barbershop they worked; and whether the barbers who worked at the barbershop were independent contractors or employees of the business. The scant evidence presented at hearing demonstrates that on February 9, 2012, the premises upon which the barbershop was physically located was leased from the owner of the shopping plaza. A separate beauty supply business, which was owned by Archibald's ex-wife, was located at the front of the leased premises. The barbershop was located in a smaller area at the back of the leased premises. Both businesses were accessible to customers through a single entry door at the front of the leased space where the beauty supply store was located. Petitioner failed to clearly and convincingly establish that the barbershop was open for business during the February 9, 2012, inspection. During Ms. Grutka's February 9, 2012, inspection, the only persons present at the barbershop were Archibald and another unidentified barber. No evidence was presented that this "other barber" was affiliated with the barbershop in any way. No physical description of this person or his/her clothing was provided. It could be that this barber was just visiting, and was unaffiliated with the barbershop. No customers were present. The time of commencement and duration of the inspection is unknown. On the date of the February 9, 2012, inspection, the property upon which the barbershop was located was in foreclosure. As a result, Archibald was planning to vacate the premises and move the barbershop to another location. During the inspection, boxes of items were on the floor, and other items were removed from walls, evidencing Archibald's intent to vacate the premises. Archibald was present on the date of the inspection. Archibald testified he is unsure whether the barbershop was open for business on February 9, 2012, because of his intent to vacate the building. On rebuttal, Ms. Grutka did not "recall" whether she "saw boxes or not." When asked specifically whether she recalled Archibald saying that he was in the process of moving, Ms. Grutka merely replied: "No. He may have. I really don't recall."1/ With respect to the allegation regarding the improper display of personal licenses, Ms. Grutka testified on direct examination that during the February 9, 2012, inspection, she did not observe personal licenses posted with both the photograph and lamination. She testified that the licenses had the photograph or the lamination on "it, but one of the items was missing." However, no evidence was presented by Petitioner on direct examination as to the specific location of the alleged lack of personal licenses, or the number or identities of the licensees for which personal licenses were purportedly not properly displayed. It was only on cross-examination that Ms. Grutka referred to Archibald's personal license, at which time she testified merely that she recalled seeing his personal license located in the "back" of the premises. Archibald testified that he believes the license was displayed in the barbershop area, which was located in the "back end" of the building. Importantly, Ms. Grutka never testified specifically that Archibald's license was improperly displayed in any way. In sum, Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's personal license, or, for that matter, the personal licenses of any other barbers who worked at the barbershop were improperly displayed. With respect to the issues of the display of the barbershop license, rules of sanitation, and most recent inspection report, Ms. Grutka testified that during the February 9, 2012, inspection, she did not observe a barbershop license displayed visibly within view of the "front door," or the rules of sanitation, health, and safety visibly within view of the "front door" or "waiting area." Nor did Ms. Grutka observe the most recent inspection form prior to the February 9, 2012, inspection displayed within view of the "front entrance" or the "waiting area." According to Ms. Grutka, she did not observe the barbershop license and rules of sanitation, health, and safety, anywhere at the barbershop on the day of the inspection. However, Ms. Grutka's testimony is unreliable and cannot be credited because of insufficient evidence of the physical layout of the premises. In fact, Ms. Grutka testified that she could not recall whether the "waiting area" was in the front of the building, the back of the building, or in both areas. Moreover, Ms. Grutka did not "recall" if the most recent inspection report was posted anywhere else in the barbershop. The unreliability of Ms. Grutka's testimony is further demonstrated through the following exchange, which occurred during Archibald's cross-examination of her: Q: Questions for - - You said you never seen any of our license or anything in the back end? A: Yes, they were up - - not in the back. Your personal licenses I remember, you know, were in the back, but I don't recall the inspection sheet and stuff being moved to the back of the shop " Further undercutting the reliability of Ms. Grutka's testimony is her statement that the rule regarding the display of a barbershop license requires that the license be visibly within view of the front door. Contrary to Ms. Grutka's testimony, rule 61G3-19.009(2) states that "[t]he shop license shall be displayed within view of the front entrance or in the waiting area." Apparently, Ms. Grutka did not even consider whether the license was displayed in the "waiting area," because she could not identify the location of the "waiting area." Moreover, Ms. Grutka testified that she wrote in the report that the shop license was not "anywhere to be found in the shop." However, a review of the inspection report does not support her testimony. In fact, a section within the inspection report titled: "Remarks," was left blank. Nothing was written in the inspection report indicating that the shop license was nowhere in the barbershop. In sum, there is insufficient clear and convincing evidence to conclude that the barbershop license, rules of sanitation, or most recent inspection report were not properly displayed. Finally, during the February 9, 2012, inspection, Ms. Grutka testified she did not observe a recent sticker on the portable fire extinguisher indicating that it had been inspected. According to Ms. Grutka, portable fire extinguishers must be inspected on an annual basis, "as per the Fire Marshall, and they would have a sticker on them indicating that they had been inspected." At hearing, Archibald did not admit to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rather, Archibald persuasively explained that if personal and business licenses and the rules of sanitation and most recent inspection report were not displayed during the February 9, 2012, inspection, it was because the property was in foreclosure, items had been removed from the walls, items were placed in boxes, and he was planning on moving the barbershop to another location. In fact, the barbershop vacated the premises sometime in 2013, and relocated to another shopping plaza. At the conclusion of the February 9, 2012, inspection, Ms. Grutka prepared and signed an inspection report indicating the violations noted in the report, and she informed Archibald of the alleged violations. Archibald acknowledged his receipt of the report. No evidence was presented indicating that a follow-up inspection of the barbershop was ever scheduled or occurred. No citation has ever been issued for the February 9, 2012, inspection. No evidence was presented establishing a prior history of persistent or flagrant violations of the same nature as those alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The evidence at hearing established that even if personal and business licenses, the rules of sanitation, and the most recent inspection report were not properly displayed on the date of the February 9, 2012, inspection, it was an isolated incident.2/ Importantly, the facts adduced at hearing do not clearly and convincingly establish that Archibald personally engaged in any misconduct resulting in the five charges which are the subject of the Administrative Complaint. The evidence failed to establish, clearly and convincingly, that Archibald personally committed, or is personally culpable for, a disciplinary offense which is the subject of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty on all counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 26th day of February, 2014.
The Issue Should the Petitioner be licensed in Florida as a barber as a result of the examination for licensure given in December of 1987?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner took the examination for licensure as a barber in December of 1987. Although she achieved a passing score on the written portion of the examination, she did not obtain a passing score on the practical portion of the examination. The practical portion of the examination is divided into five parts. The Petitioner challenges the grade she received in the scoring of the haircut. The maximum number of points a licensure candidate can receive on a haircut is 45 points. A review of Respondent's Exhibit B shows that the Petitioner received 18 points for her performance on Sections 2-k, 2-o, and 2-p of the exam. She does not contest the examiners' ratings on Sections 2-j and 2- m. She is concerned only with the scores she received on Sections 2-l and 2-n. When the Petitioner took the examination, John E. Lewis was the model she used to demonstrate her ability to give a "styled" haircut. During the hearing, John E. Lewis explained the following characteristics of his head and scalp line: Mr. Lewis' ears are not symmetrically located. One ear is placed significantly higher on his head than his other ear, which gives them different heights in relation to his facial features. In addition, the hair on the left side of his head grows much thicker than the hair on the right side of his head. As a result of these characteristics, an optical illusion is created which makes hair of identical length on both sides of the head appear to be longer on the left side. During the barber examination, two examiners checked the style line of the haircut under Section 2-l. On the criteria rating sheets, they commented that the left side of the style line appeared longer. In rating the hair on each side as to evenness and balance (Section 2-n), the examiners each noted that the left side was either longer or fuller. Because of these evaluations, the Petitioner did not receive any points in categories 2-i or 2-n in the examination. Cathy Maynard Frank, a Florida licensed barber who was awarded a silver medal in the 1986 World Championship of Barbers and who has placed second nationally, testified as an expert witness on behalf of the Petitioner. Ms. Frank had an opportunity to observe and professionally review the haircut a few hours after the examination. In her opinion, the hair on both sides (under Section 2-n) was as close as a barber could get them. If the Petitioner had cut the left side shorter to avoid the optical illusion of unevenness, the thicker hair on the left side would have stuck straight out. Ms. Frank generally agreed with the examiners' evaluations in the other categories which contributed to her credibility as an expert witness. Ronald Max Young testified as an expert witness on behalf of the Respondent. Mr. Young is a barber who has been licensed in Florida since 1972. He is a lead examiner for the state and has participated in the examination process for the last five years. Mr. Young testified that the examination contains the standard criteria necessary to meet the minimum requirements for licensing. The examiners look for an even haircut, evenly balanced all the way around. If a model is not fitting, that is the candidate's problem, not the examiners' problem. Mr. Young did not have an opportunity to examine the haircut given by the Petitioner during the practical examination. He was unable to comment on the specifics which had been commented upon by Ms. Frank. However, he did vouch for the qualifications and abilities of the two examiners who independently rated the Petitioner's performance.
Findings Of Fact Victor Bosciglio and Marioe Guerra are not and never have been parties Respondent before the Division of Administrative Hearings, since no election of a Section 120.57(1) hearing has ever been filed by either of them. Respondent Robert L. Perez, Jr. is and at all times material has been the holder of a Florida barber license. At all times material hereto Perez was one of the owners of a barbershop called, "Tiffany's Hair Designers," hereafter, "Tiffany's." Tiffany's was originally owned by Perez, Bosciglio, and Guerra. The three initially applied for and obtained a barbershop license for establishment of Tiffany's in a house located at 1205 Hillsborough Avenue in Tampa, Florida, in December, 1980. Although there is some suggestion in Ms. Denchfield's testimony that barbershop license applications are normally accompanied by a proposed floor plan, neither application nor the license itself for Tiffany's was offered in evidence and so no condition of non-expansion or evidence of any other condition for granting the initial barbershop license has been established. The original Tiffany's Hair Designers was located in the house at that address and had ten ""stations" for shampoos, cuts, etc. Sometime in October 1984, the trio converted a loft area above what previously had been a freestanding building housing a downstairs garage and located at the same street address as the house. After the conversion, the loft accommodated 4 additional barber "stations." The house and garage are technically separate buildings which share a common street address, driveway, and parking area. They are on the same electric, water, and telephone bills and occupy a single parcel of land. The going through the original house building which continues to shelter the original 10 barber stations. The two buildings are operated as a single business entity, Tiffany's Hair Designers. At all times material, Tiffany's original barbershop license remained in full force and effect. It is unclear whether a series of DPR inspectors regularly inspected the two portions of Tiffany's between October 1984 and October 1985. Petitioner wishes the inference to be made that there may have been a legitimate gap in inspection schedule so that no inspector was aware of the loft conversion until October 1985. Respondent desires the inference to be drawn that a series of inspections of both portions of Tiffany's during this time period turned out favorably and no inspector found any violation by way of the three owners' failure to notify the Barber's Board of the loft conversion and failure to apply for a new barbershop license during that year. There is no conclusive proof to establish either theory. Ms. Denchfield was not the local inspector during this period, and Mr. Perez was not regularly on the premises since he was working at another shop during most of this period but it seems entirely clear that inspectors for the state were allowed complete and total access to both buildings, the loft was certainly not hidden from view, and no sanitation violations were discovered in either building. A routine inspection in October, 1985 resulted in the administrative complaint herein. Neither this inspection nor a subsequent one in March 1986 revealed any sanitary violations in either building. The parties concur that the purpose of initial and subsequent inspections of licensed barbershops is to protect consumers by ensuring adequate sanitary conditions. Inspector Denchfield found in March 1986 that the loft has all the equipment necessary under statutes and rules she administers to qualify as a separate shop without reliance on the main building. Perez knew that he was required to apply for a barbershop license to open a new shop or to relocate a shop "down the street," i.e. from one address to another, but he was initially under the belief that because the converted loft was located on the same parcel of land with the main building that a second barbershop license was not mandated. The Administrative Complaint was served in January, 1986. Respondent Perez purchased the entire premises and business venture by buying out Bosciglio and Guerra in January 1986, and immediately applied for a new barbershop license which would cover both portions of Tiffany's. It is admitted that prior to this new application no one affirmatively notified the Barber's Board of a new building or obtained a separate license for the loft building.
Recommendation That the Barber's Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint as against Robert L. Perez Jr., and if it has not already done so, dispose of the charges against Marioe Guerra, Jr. and Victor Bosciglio in accord with Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee Florida 32301. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 18th day of July, 1986.
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 Whether the Master Barber Certificate and the City Barber Shop Certificate of Registration held by the Respondent W. R. Griffis should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on the 22nd day of November, 1976, by P. W. Barker, Executive Director, Florida Barber Sanitary Commission, alleging: That Respondent allowed a dog in the barber shop in violation of Section 476.22(1)(g), Florida Statutes. The Respondent's shop had dirty floors in violation of Section 476.22(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The laboratories were dirty in violation of Section 476.22(1)(i), Florida Statutes. The supply storage room was dirty in violation of Section 476.22(1)(j). The shop was being operated with dirty neck dusters in violation of Section 476.22(1)(1)(6) and (8). Inspector Gordon N. Patterson, an employee of the Florida Barber Sanitary Commission had warned the Respondent on previous occasions that he must clean up his shop. The Administrative Complaint alleged that during the period July, August and September, 1976, the Respondent had been drinking intoxicating beverages and had performed unsatisfactory haircuts on customers as a result of this drinking. An affidavit of the Chief of Police confirms the allegations. At the hearing the Respondent admitted that he does drink, but that he never goes to the barber shop until several days after he has been drinking. The Respondent admitted that he had been ill and that his shop floors, laboratories and storage room had been dirty at times but that he intends to and at present is keeping his place very clean. The Respondent denied that he allowed a dog in his shop stating that a dog ran into his shop but was ejected shortly thereafter.
Recommendation Suspend the Master Barber Certificate No. 8195 and Shop Certificate of Registration of the City Barber Shop No. 2096 held by the Respondent for a period of time not to exceed six (6) months. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of May, 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: A. Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32304 P. Wayne Barker, Executive Director Barber Sanitary Commission 108 West Pensacola Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Warren R. Griffis c/o City Barber Shop 127 West Broadway Fort Meade, Florida 33841
The Issue Whether Respondent, David Blake (Respondent), violated Subsection 476.194(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), by engaging in the practice of barbering without a license, and, if so, what disciplinary action 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. Respondent's last known address of record was 4144 Geranium Lane, Apartment 102, Sanford, Florida 32771. The Division of Administrative Hearings mailed the Notice of Hearing in this case to Respondent on May 10, 2006, at his address of record. That notice was not returned to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At all times material hereto, the barbershop named Just Blaze Barbershop, located at 2451 East Semoran Boulevard, Apopka, Florida, was licensed by the Florida Board of Barbers. Michelle Peterson is and, at all times relevant to this proceeding, has been employed by the Department as an investigator specialist. Ms. Peterson's job responsibilities include conducting inspections of barbershops. On October 8, 2005, the Department, through its employee, Ms. Peterson, inspected the premises of Just Blaze Barbershop. During the inspection, Ms. Peterson observed Respondent performing barbering services on a customer. Specifically, Respondent was cutting a customer's hair. At Ms. Peterson's direction, another Department inspector who was at the inspection took a photograph of Respondent while he was cutting the person's hair. During the inspection, Ms. Peterson issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation to Respondent for the unlicensed activity. The citation was signed by both Ms. Peterson and Respondent.
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 (1) finding that Respondent, David Blake, engaged the unlicensed practice of barbering, an act proscribed by Subsections 476.194(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), and (2) imposing an administrative fine of $500.00 for the violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 1st day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Nicole M. Webb, Certified Law Clerk Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 David Blake 4144 Geranium Lane, No. 102 Sanford, Florida 32771 John Washington, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
