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 Respondent's alleged violations of Section 477.02(6), 477.15(8) and 477.27, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns Kathy's Colonial Curl and Comb, Ocean Ridge, Florida and was issued Certificate of Registration No. 21533 to operate a cosmetology salon by petitioner on April 15, 1975. On November 12, 1975, Petitioner's Inspector visited Respondent's place of business and discovered LaVerne Beres giving a shampoo and set to a customer. Beres informed the Inspector that she had just graduated from school and believed that the school would give her a permit to act as a cosmetologist, but that she did not have a license at that time. (Testimony of Padgett). Respondent testified Beres had told her that she had applied for a permit and that it would come in the mail shortly. Respondent's reason for hiring Beres without a license was because it was the busy season and she needed an operator. Respondent normally insists on her employees having licenses prior to hiring them. Beres is now licensed. (Testimony of Kight).
Recommendation That a letter of reprimand be issued to the Respondent for violation of Section 477.02(6), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Ms. Luddy Gene Kight 5011 N. Ocean Boulevard Ocean Ridge, Florida 33444
The Issue Whether Respondent's cosmetology license should be disciplined for the alleged violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all pertinent times, Respondent, Maureen Mitchell, was a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida having been issued License No. CL0079246 in accordance with Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. At all pertinent times, Respondent was employed at Barry's Place for Hair, a cosmetology salon located in Tamarac, Florida (the "Salon"). On January 22, 1990, Karen Olszewski went to the Salon for a permanent. Ms. Olszewski had previously had permanents without any problems or complications. Respondent was the cosmetologist who gave Ms. Olszewski the permanent on January 22, 1990. After Respondent rolled Ms. Olszewski's hair, she applied the permanent solution in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Within a minute after applying the solution, Ms. Olszewski complained that it was burning her scalp. Respondent told her that the solution was heat activated and there was nothing wrong. Ms. Olszewski complained at least two other times while the solution remained in her hair. Respondent did not take any actions to relieve the discomfort. Barry Barton, the owner of the Salon, looked under the bag that had been placed on Ms. Olszewski's head and stated that he did not see any problems. The chemicals remained on Ms. Olszewski's head and scalp for approximately 5 to 10 minutes in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. When the recommended time had expired, Respondent shampooed Ms. Olszewski's hair. During the rinse, Ms. Olszewski again complained of pain. Barry Barton applied cold cream to the customer's scalp. The application of cold cream to an irritated scalp is not an accepted precaution or remedy for a chemical burn. Respondent did not properly respond to the client's continued complaints of discomfort. Respondent should have immediately stopped the procedure being performed and checked for redness or irritation of the scalp. If the search revealed any indications of a chemical irritation or a burn or if the complaints of discomfort continued, the chemical should have been immediately rinsed with cool water and a neutralizer applied. After leaving the Salon, Ms. Olszewski continued to experience discomfort. She called the Salon and the owner advised her that there was nothing that he could do. Ms. Olszewski went to a dermatologist who treated her for chemical burns on her scalp which were the result of the permanent. Ms. Olszewski experienced some temporary hair loss and had headaches for a couple of weeks following the permanent. There is no scarring or long term damage to her scalp. Respondent's conduct falls below the minimally accepted standards of a licensed cosmetologist. While there is no evidence that Respondent misapplied the chemicals or otherwise failed to follow the manufacturer's instructions, Respondent should have reacted more promptly to the customer's complaints of discomfort and terminated the procedure at an earlier point. Respondent did not make voluntary restitution to Ms. Olszewski for the cost of the permanent or the cost of the medical bills incurred. Ms. Olszewski initiated an action in small claims court for the sums. No evidence was presented as to the results of that legal action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 477.028, Florida Statutes, imposing a $200 fine and requiring Respondent to complete an advanced training course on the use of chemicals in the practice of cosmetology. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of September, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 9th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2659 The Petitioner has submitted a Proposed Recommended Order. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 - 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. Addressed in the Conclusions of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Harris Qualified Representative Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Maureen Mitchell, pro se 8100 Northwest 73rd Terrace Tamarac, Florida 33321 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure by examination to practice cosmetology within Florida after having completed 600 hours of instruction in cosmetology. Petitioner took the examination in Winter Haven, Florida, on August 27, 1981. The examination consists of two parts, written and practical, each of which must be passed to obtain licensure. The passing grade on each portion of the examination is 75. Petitioner received a grade of 85 on the written and 73.5 on the practical examination. The practical examination of August 27, 1981, was graded by Virginia Stolz and Kathryn Clymer, both of whom are licensed cosmetologists who have been employed by the Department of Professional Regulation as examiners for cosmetology examinations during the past six years. The practical examination is an opportunity for examinees to demonstrate their competence by performing several cosmetology services within a given amount of time. The services performed, the given time for each service, and the number of points assigned each service are defined by Board rule and incorporated into the grading score sheet for the practical examination. During the hair shaping portion of the practical examination, the Petitioner informed an unidentified examiner of problems with her model's hair which included gaps in the hair from a recent tint and haircut. The Petitioner was informed by the unidentified examiner that she should skip over the gaps since they could not be shaped into the haircut and corrected. Notwithstanding this, two points were deducted frog Petitioner's score due to gaps in her model's hair. When deficiencies are reported, it is the normal procedure for an examiner to make notations in writing; however,. the examiner's notes pertaining to the examination of August 27, 1981 have been destroyed. If an examiner is informed of deficiencies in a model's hair prior to the start of the examination, points for the deficiency are not deducted when the problem is noted by the examiner. In Petitioner's case, however, the timer had already started before she was given the opportunity to point out the gap problem with the model's hair and no notes exist to confirm that the examiner did not deduct points for the preexisting problem. It is possible to lose time by reporting deficiencies because they are reported after the timer is started. The amount of time normally lost in such a situation is 2-3 minutes out of the 30 minutes allocated for hair shaping. Following the 30 minutes allocated for hair shaping, the Petitioner was to clean the station where she performed the haircut. The clean up time was in addition to the 30 minutes given for the shaping procedure and had no maximum time set for the procedure to be completed. When she finished the hair shaping procedure, the Petitioner waited for a broom and dust pan to clean her station. Since she was fartherest away from available cleaning materials, Petitioner was among the last examinees to get access to the cleaning tools. Due to her concern that points would be deducted if she stayed in the station area too long waiting for cleaning tools, Petitioner did not clean her station and instead went to the area where other examinees were sent. When the examiners realized that Petitioner had joined the other examinees and not cleaned her station, she was sent back to her station to sweep her model's hair. However, points were deducted from her test score for failing to clean her station despite no time limit being attached to the cleaning portion of the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner be given a passing grade on the practical portion of the August 27, 1981 cosmetology examination based on deductions which were erroneously made on the hair shaping and station cleaning portion of her practical examination. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 26th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: George Waas, Esquire SLEPIN SLEPIN LAMBERT & WAAS 1114 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan Tully, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1601 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Florida Board of Cosmetology Old Courthouse Square Building 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 violated Section 477.02(6); 477.15(8); 477.27(1) and (2), F.S. by allowing a person to practice the art of cosmetology in her salon without said person being a registered cosmetologist by the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Marlene Fletcher, d/b/a the Beauty Parlour, did allow one Victoria Kane to practice the art of cosmetology, to-wit: the giving of a permanent wave to a customer in Respondent's salon at a time in which she held no Florida license. Respondent discussed by long distance telephone the circumstances attending the giving of said permanent wave by the said Victoria Kane. The said Victoria Kane was not in the employ of the Respondent; however, said Victoria Kane was under the control of the Respondent inasmuch as the practice of the art of cosmetology was in the salon of Respondent and at a time in which the Respondent was present.
The Issue Whether the certificate of registration No. 866914 should be revoked, annulled, suspended or withdrawn for violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, for practicing without a license.
Findings Of Fact Receipt for certified mail notifying Respondent of this hearing was offered into evidence as Exhibit 1 and marked without objection. The Election of Remedies, a composite exhibit marked Exhibit 2, was entered as requested without objection. Respondent was charged for practicing cosmetology without a license. Respondent admitted the violation and submitted such plea to the Board which was included in the Board's Exhibit 1. After the violation for which Ms. Gould was noticed and for which this hearing is held, Respondent took the examination for master cosmetologists, passed the examination, and was issued a Florida license.
Recommendation Suspend the certificate of registration Respondent now holds for a period of one (1) week. August 29, 1975 DATE Delphine C. Strickland Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ms. Gertie Campbell 7409 Huntley Avenue Tampa, Florida Ms. Rose Gould 1904 Bruce Street Kissimmee, Florida 32741 Ms. Mary Alice Palmer Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Post Office Box 9087 Winter Haven, Florida 33880 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY State Board of Cosmetology, Complaintant, vs. CASE NO. 75-1016 LICENSE NO. 86691 Rose Gould, Respondent. /
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.
