The Issue Whether the Respondent violated Chapter 477, Florida Statutes and the rules and regulations of the Florida Administrative Code promulgated pursuant there to by allowing a beautician who is not a master beautician with a master's license to practice cosmetology in Respondent's salon when a master cosmetologist was not present.
Findings Of Fact Ardie Smiley Collins, an inspector for the Petitioner State Board of Cosmetology, entered Mae's Magic Mirror, a shop owned and operated by Respondent Shellie M. Mays on July 8, 1975 at about 5:00 p.m. A Mrs. Annette Yoeman was practicing cosmetology in the salon without a master cosmetologist being present. Mrs. Yoeman holds a license to practice cosmetology but is not a master cosmetologist.
Recommendation Suspend the salon license of Shellie M. Mays, d/b/a Mae's Magic Mirror, for a period of one month from the date of the final order herein. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of August, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida Shellie M. Mays 108 9th Avenue East Bradenton, Florida ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-1101 SALON LICENSE NO. 14455 SHELLIE M. MAYS, d/b/a MAE'S MAGIC MIRROR, Respondent. / FINAL AGENCY ORDER The Florida State Board of Cosmetology adopts as part of the Agency's Final Order the conclusions of law, interpretation of administrative rules and findings of fact dated August 18, 1976, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The State Board of Cosmetology has additionally reviewed the recommended penalty of the Hearing Examiner and feels that the recommended penalty would be unduly harsh under the circumstances of this case since the violation is a first offense, and therefore reduces the recommended penalty in the Hearing Examiner's Order of a thirty-day suspension of the Respondent's salon license and substitutes instead a letter of reprimand. That the entry and publication of this Final Order shall constitute a reprimand or warning to the Respondent not to engage in a course of conduct in the future which would violate the Florida Cosmetology Law, Section 477, Florida Statutes, or the Rules and Regulations of the Florida State Board of Cosmetology. A copy of this Final Agency Order, including the reprimand contained herein, shall become a part of the Respondent's permanent files. ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1976. Violet Llaneza, Chairman Florida State Board of Cosmetology Copies Mailed To: Shellie M. Mays 108 9th Avenue East Bradenton, Florida Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should receive credit for answers given to certain specified questions on the Cosmetology Examination administered in December 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation and the Board are responsible for developing and administering the cosmetology examination to candidates who seek licenses to practice cosmetology in Florida. Sections 455.217 and 477.022, Florida Statutes (2002). Ms. Ross sat for the cosmetology examination on December 12, 2002. She received a scaled score of 72 points, which is a failing score. Had Ms. Ross answered two more questions correctly on the examination, she would have achieved a passing scaled score of 75 points. The Candidate Information Booklet provided to candidates for the Cosmetology Examination administered in December 2002 included an explanation of the examination and a list of textbooks and other reference sources, among which were Milady's Standard Textbook of Cosmetology-2000 ("Milady's") and Salon Fundamentals: A Resource for Your Cosmetology Career ("Salon Fundamentals"). It was suggested in the booklet that the textbooks might be useful to the candidates and that the candidates might want to review them because the books include information that is "very appropriate for measuring minimum competency on the Cosmetology Licensure Examinations." According to the Board, the correct answer to question 55 is "A"; Ms. Ross chose answer "D." Question 55 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer, while not set forth word-for-word, can be derived from information contained in Milady's and Salon Fundamentals and is also consistent with the practice of the two experts testifying on behalf of the Board. Ms. Ross should not receive credit for her answer to question 55 because the answer she gave is not the correct answer. According to the Board, the correct answer to question 4 is "C"; Ms. Ross chose answer "D." Question 4 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer, while not set forth word-for-word, can be derived from information contained in Milady's and Salon Fundamentals. Ms. Ross's attempt to distinguish between "very curly hair" and "curly ethnic hair" for purposes of the answer to this question is not convincing; the technique that is described in the answer the Board deems correct would, according to the sources, apply to very curly hair, regardless of the ethnicity of the client. Ms. Ross should not receive credit for her answer to question 4 because the answer she gave is not the correct answer. According to the Board, the correct answer to question 45 is "C"; Ms. Ross chose answer "A." Question 45 is clear and unambiguous, and one correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer, while not set forth word-for-word, can be derived from information contained in Milady's and Salon Fundamentals. Ms. Ross's rationale for selecting answer "A" indicates that she was not focusing on the specific procedure identified in question 45. Ms. Ross should not receive credit for her answer to question 45 because the answer she gave is not the correct answer. According to the Board, the correct answer to question 21 is "C"; Ms. Ross chose answer "A." Question 21 is clear and unambiguous, and one correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer, while not set forth word-for-word, can be derived from information contained in Milady's and Salon Fundamentals. Ms. Ross's rationale for selecting answer "A" indicates that she was not focusing on the specific information elicited by question 21. The question requires the candidate to respond with the proper "sequence of steps" for the procedure, and the answer deemed correct by the Board includes the most logical sequence of steps, given the information contained in Milady's and Salon Fundamentals. Both of the Board's expert witnesses agreed that the answer deemed correct by the Board was, in fact, the correct answer to question 21. One of the Board's expert witnesses testified, however, that she would not shampoo and dry the hair of a black man as part of the sequence of steps for the procedure that is the subject of question 21. This testimony is not sufficient to render the question ambiguous or the selection of answers misleading: First, question 21 does not include reference to the ethnicity of the client, and, second, the answer that the Board deems correct is the only answer that, excluding the reference to shampooing and drying the hair, contains the proper sequence of steps for the specified procedure. Therefore, even if it were inappropriate to shampoo and dry the hair as one of the steps for the procedure that is the subject of question 21, Ms. Ross's answer to question 21 does not correctly identify the sequence of the other steps that should be followed in performing the procedure. Ms. Ross should not receive credit for her answer to question 21 because the answer she gave is not the correct answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, issue a final order finding that Angelica Ross is not entitled to credit for her answers to questions 4, 21, 45, and 55 of the Cosmetology Examination administered in December 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 25th day of June, 2003.
Findings Of Fact On February 2, 1989, an inspector from the Department of Professional Regulation visited the Main Street Salon in Tampa and observed Patricia Shields, Respondent, alone in the salon practicing cosmetology. When he asked to see her license, Respondent presented the application for licensure which she had previously submitted to the Petitioner on September 2, 1988, and which was stamped received September 6, 1988. This application was returned to Respondent with notation that she had to get a confirmation from the state officials in Massachusetts that she held a valid cosmetology license in Massachusetts. After two attempts, Respondent received confirmation from Massachusetts that she held a valid cosmetology license in that state, and after November 15, 1988, Respondent submitted this information to the Department. This completed her application, including prescribed fees. Subsequent to November 15, 1988, Respondent inquired of a local cosmetology school if she could work as a cosmetologist after submitting a completed application, but before receiving a Florida license, and was told that she could. She was told that graduates from the beauty school could lawfully work as cosmetologists after graduating and applying for license, but before receiving a valid Florida license. Since Respondent had more training (1000 hours) than did graduates from this cosmetology school and had actually practiced cosmetology since 1984, she did not deem it necessary to contact Petitioner to confirm her qualifications to work as a cosmetologist--and did not do so. On February 3, 1989, license CL-0160553 was issued and mailed to Respondent licensing her to work as a cosmetologist in Florida (Exhibit 1). She received this license February 6, 1989, four days after the inspector had visited the Main Street Salon. At the time of the inspector's visit, February 2, 1989, Respondent, at the instigation of the investigator, signed a Cease and Desist Agreement in which she agreed to cease and desist from any future violations of Chapters 455 and 477, Florida Statutes (Exhibit 3). No evidence was presented that Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Agreement. Respondent frankly admitted that she had worked as a cosmetologist some five or six weeks before February 2, 1989, under the misapprehension that she could legally do so. Her primary objection here is to Petitioner's insistence that she pay a $500 penalty to retain her license.
Recommendation It is recommended that Patricia Shields be found guilty of practicing cosmetology without a valid license and that she be issued a written admonition. ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 30th day of October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack L. McRay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Patricia Shields 5607 21st Street Tampa, Florida 33610 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent for alleged violations of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, (1979)
Findings Of Fact Wilfred's Romar Hairstyling Academy is a cosmetology school, which has been issued license #CT0000228. In March of 1980 Ardie Collins, an investigator for Petitioner Board of Cosmetology, found teacher trainee Sumner instructing a theory class in Respondent school without direct supervision by a certified cosmetology instructor. On April 17, 1980 Collins found student instructor Bra noon teaching a theory class in Respondent school without direct supervision of a certified cosmetology instructor. On April 29, 1980 Collins found that nine (9) students of Respondent school had been enrolled in the school without student permits. On September 18, 1980 Collins observed a student teacher trainee teaching students basic training on mannequins in Respondent school without direct supervision of a licensed instructor. Respondent did not dispute the foregoing facts and suggested in its memorandum that a penalty, if any, should be a "written reprimand." Insufficient evidence was produced to show that Respondent had violated requirements as to size and accessibility of the dispensary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that a final order be entered by the agency which reprimands Respondent school and places it on probation for a period of time not to exceed two (2) years with semiannual inspections. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND 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 September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas Utke, General Manager Wilfred's Romar Hairstyling Academy 1013 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32807 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-1576 81-1577 WILFRED'S ROMAR HAIRSTYLING ACADEMY, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 477.21(1); 477-15(8) and 477.02(4), Florida Statutes, by operating a cosmetology salon on at least three different occasions to-wit: January 23, 1975, January 24, 1975 and January 30, 1975, without the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact Notice of this hearing was served on Respondent. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the proceeding. Respondent holds a current cosmetology salon license No. 14954 and cosmetologist license No. 68986 Respondent, by her own written admission, has, on January 23, January 24 and January 30, 1975, operated her salon without the supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact Toni M. Farmer, presently holds an active cosmetology license issued by Petitioner, License No. CL0062662, for the period July 19, 1982, through June 30, 1984. Between May 6, 1980, and July 6, 1981, Farmer worked as a cosmetologist in a salon operated by Shear Pleasure, Inc., in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. Shear Pleasure, Inc., is the holder of License No. CE0027634. Beginning July 13, 1981, to the present, Farmer has worked as a cosmetologist in the salon, Josef and Charles, Inc., d/b/a Josef and Charles Styling Salon, License No. CE0022674, located in Orange Park, Florida. When Farmer began her employment with Shear Pleasure she had a current and valid cosmetology license issued by Petitioner, which license expired June 30, 1980. Around August 18, 1980, Farmer forwarded a cashier's check made payable to the Board of Cosmetology for purposes of renewing her delinquent cosmetology license. Subsequent to the action on the part of Farmer and in the course of a routine inspection, Jewel Walker, an inspector for Petitioner, noted the fact of expiration of Farmer's license. This took place in 1980. When told that Petitioner had not responded to the renewal request, Walker instructed Farmer to post the indicia of payment of fees, i.e., a copy of the cashier's check of August, 1980, at Farmer's work station in the interim and to check the post office for any return of that cashier's check, due to the fact that Farmer had changed her mailing address following the transmittal of the cashier's check. Farmer made other contacts with the Tallahassee, Florida, office of Petitioner to determine the status of her renewal in 1980. In the beginning of 1981, Farmer spoke with Walker about the renewal, having failed to receive any notification confirming license renewal. (In the course of these matters, Walker had indicated certain logistical problems that were taking place, reference license renewal for cosmetologists.) The owner of Shear Pleasure, Inc., Fontaine LeMaistre, was aware of the efforts on the part of Farmer to obtain license renewal and allowed her to continue as an employee during her tenure. When Farmer took a position with Josef and Charles, her employer was made aware of the fact that she did not have the license document and the employer was made aware of the efforts which Farmer had made to obtain the license. On August 11, 1981, Farmer requested the Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville, which had issued the August 18, 1980, cashier's check to stop payment on that check, based upon the fact that the payee, Petitioner, had not cashed the check. This request was honored and on August 13, 1981, a cashier's check was issued to Toni M. Farmer in the like amount of thirty-five dollars ($35.00), which check was subsequently cashed by Farmer. On May 12, 1982, Charles Coats, an investigator with Petitioner, made an inspection of the Orange Park business of Josef and Charles and discovered that Farmer was without a license. At that time, a copy of the original thirty- five dollar ($35.00) check written to the Board of Cosmetology was shown to Coats. Farmer related the circumstances involving efforts which she had made to obtain the license. Following this conversation, and specifically in June, 1982, Farmer maid the necessary fees and offered required credentials which allowed her license to be renewed, effective July 19, 1982.
Recommendation Based upon a full consideration of the facts found, conclusions of law reached and being otherwise informed, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which suspends the license of Respondent for a period of fifteen (15) days based upon the violation found in Count I and dismisses Count II. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 29th day of December, 1982.
