Recommendation That the allegations against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer 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 Neil P. Linden, Esquire 17071 West Dixie Highway North Miami Beach, Florida 33160
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent was the owner of Palm Beauty Salon located at 5084 N.E. 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent Fanfan was licensed to operate Palm Beauty Salon as a cosmetology salon, having been issued Florida Cosmetology salon license number CE 0038205. Respondent Fanfan was not licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida at any time. On August 19, 1985, Sharon Banks Geter (Geter), inspector for the Petitioner, inspected the Palm Beauty Salon and was accompanied by another inspector, Anthony Destro (Destro). At the time of the inspection on August 19, 1985, Adelaide Baltazar (Baltazar) and Myrtha Janvier (Janvier) were found to be performing cosmetology services in the Palm Beauty Salon. However, the evidence was insufficient to prove that Baltazar and Janvier were employed by Respondent Fanfan. Neither the Respondent nor Marie Herard (Herard) the manager of Palm Beauty Salon, were present when Geter and Destro inspected the Palm Beauty Salon on August 19, 1985. At all times material to this proceeding, Baltazar and Janvier were not licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order DISMISSING the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Fanfan. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 16th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jane Shaeffer, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, F1 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, F1 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, F1 32301 Bernard D. Fanfan Palm Beauty Salon 1323 NE 178 Street North Miami Beach, FL 33162 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 APPENDIX 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 Petitioner in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Respondent Did Not Submit Any Proposed Findings of Fact
The Issue Whether Respondent Margrea Hudson allowed a nonlicensed person to practice cosmetology in her salon d/b/a Margrea's Beauty Salon in Lakeland, Florida.
Findings Of Fact A copy of the Administrative Complaint with Election of Remedies, Salon License No.l 6766, and the receipt for certified mail were received into evidence without objection and marked Composite Exhibit 1. Respondent admitted that she was guilty of the violation charged.
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Rules 21F-3.02, 3.03 and 3.07, Florida Administrative Code. During the course of the hearing, counsel for Petitioner withdrew the alleged violations of Rule 3.03 and 3.07, F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Corporation operates a cosmetology salon at 1626 South Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida under Certificate of Registration Number 11579 issued by Petitioner on May 14, 1971. Petitioner's Inspector visited Respondent's salon on February 27, 1976 for a routine inspection. She discovered hair and soiled towels in cabinets at the various stations and observed that the carpeting was littered with hair. In addition, soft drink bottles and coffee cups were found in the area. Respondent's salon has been issued warnings in the past due to unclean conditions. The shop is now in a clean state. (Testimony of Padgett) Respondent's manager testified that some of the employees are natives of Puerto Rico and Cuba and are unaccustomed to the sanitary requirements of the United States thus making it difficult to control conditions. He conceded that the shop was not in proper condition on the date in question merely because that day was a Friday and the shop was quite busy. (Testimony of Wellmann)
Recommendation That Respondent be issued a formal written reprimand for violation of Rule 21f-3.02, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida R. Basil Rutter, President Steppe's of Florida, Inc. Box 788 Athens, Ohio
The Issue The issue at the hearing was whether Respondent's cosmetology salon license was subject to discipline for alleged violations of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated thereunder.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Hattie Nesbit, is licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. The Respondent also holds a Florida cosmetology salon license for her beauty salon, Nesbit's Beauty Salon. 1/ Ms. Nesbit works part-time at her salon. She employs two to three other very experienced licensed cosmetologists. The salon has four beauty stations. Ms. Nesbit's beauty station is the first station after entering the salon premises. The other employees occupy the other stations. They are aware of the Board's rules for the operation and sanitation of a beauty salon. Additionally, Respondent has the Board's sanitation rules posted on the wall of the salon. The salon in general is clean and well-kept. Eileen Thomas, the Petitioner's inspector, conducted a random inspection of the Respondent's salon on February 21, 1989. Ms. Nesbit was not present during the inspection. While there the inspector observed that the container for the deposit of hair was a garbage can located in the back room. The room was closed off from the beauty salon. At the time of the inspection the container had hair in it. The garbage can cover was not on the container and the lid was not located at the time of the inspection. The Board's rules provide that a lid must be kept on the container for the deposit of hair. Respondent's receptacle for the deposit of hair was not maintained in such a manner. Therefore, Respondent is subject to discipline under the Board's rules governing the maintenance of container for the deposit of hair. The inspector, also, observed Ms. Blount, one of the beauticians employed by Respondent, apply chemicals to a patron's hair without using a spatula. Since Ms. Nesbit was not present at the salon she was unaware of the employee's disregard of the Board's rule that all chemicals be applied with a spatula. However, the salon owner is the person responsible for the operation of the salon and is responsible for violations committed by the employees of the salon. Respondent's lack of knowledge only goes to mitigate the penalty which should be imposed for the employee's failure to observe the Board's rules. The evidence showed that Respondent had reasonably instructed her employees on sanitary procedure and required them to follow that procedure. Respondent posted the sanitation rules on the wall of the salon as a reminder of those rules. Respondent's violation is nominal. In light of these facts Respondent should receive a nominal penalty. A letter of reprimand would be an appropriate penalty for this type of violation. Additionally, the inspector observed that the wet sanitizers located in four of the stations at the salon were only one third to one half full of a sanitizing solution. A wet sanitizer is any type of container that is large enough to hold a sanitizing solution in which a comb or brush can be completely immersed for proper sanitation. In this case, the containers provided by Respondent were large enough to allow for the complete immersion of a comb or brush in a sanitizing solution. There were combs and brushes in the wet sanitizers at the four stations. Those combs and brushes were not completely immersed in the sanitizing solution because the solution was low. The Rule on the provision of wet sanitizers does not require that the containers be filled all the time. The rule only requires that the containers be large enough to allow for immersion. The Rule requires only that a comb or brush be immersed prior to its use. The Rule does not require that a comb or brush be immersed all of the time. In this case Respondent provided containers of the correct size. However, no evidence was presented that the Respondent's operators were using the combs or brushes in the wet sanitizers without first properly sanitizing them. The fact that the jars were low in solution at the limited point in time of the inspection does not clearly and convincingly support a conclusion that Respondent's operators were not utilizing proper sanitation procedures before the combs and brushes were used on a customer. Without evidence of such use Respondent cannot be guilty of a violation of the Board's rule on the provision of wet sanitizers and the sanitation of combs or brushes before their use.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order reprimanding Respondent for violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes and imposing a $25 fine. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 19th day of December, 1989.
The Issue Whether the licenses of Evelyn Moten d/b/a Evelyn's Beauty Salon should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto,to wit: 21F-3.08; 21F-3.01, Florida Administrative Code, in that the Respondent Evelyn Moten did operate a cosmetology salon without a salon license and the equipment of the salon did not include a wet sterilizer.
Findings Of Fact The inspector for the Petitioner Board of Cosmetology, Ardie Smiley Collins, entered the salon of Respondent on or about December 17, 1975 at which time the Respondent Evelyn Moten did not have a salon license and the salon was not equipped with a wet sterilizer. Respondent received notice of this hearing and is present and has applied for a salon license in a different location than the location in which the violation notice was written. Respondent Evelyn Moten admits that she was operating a salon at the time of inspection without a salon license and that her salon was not equipped with the required wet sterilizer.
Recommendation Suspend the personal and salon license of Respondent Evelyn Moten for a period of thirty (30) days. 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 Evelyn Moten 560 2nd Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32014
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Secret de Femme d/b/a Secret de Femme Hair Sculpture, operates a cosmetology salon at 65 Northwest 54th Street, Miami, Florida. It is the holder of cosmetology salon license number 0040317 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology (Board). Respondent, Gaston Eugene, does not hold any licenses issued by the Board. On or about November 5, 1987, a Board investigator, Frank Hautzinger, made a routine inspection of respondent's salon. 1/ When he entered the premises, he found a few persons in the salon, including one seated in a barber's chair. According to Hautzinger, respondent, Gaston Eugene, was "finishing up" the person seated in the chair. By this, Hautzinger meant that Eugene was brushing around the person's neck and collar as if he had just given that person a haircut. However, he did not actually see Eugene cutting hair, and Eugene received no compensation for his "services." Because Eugene speaks little or no English, Hautzinger was unable to carry on a meaningful dialogue with Eugene. He did learn that Eugene did not have a cosmetology license. A short time later, one of the owners, Amantha Jean-Joseph, returned to the salon. When questioned by Hautzinger about Eugene, she described Eugene as a temporary employee obtained through a local employment service. However, at hearing she denied making this statement. Both owners emphatically denied that Eugene was authorized to cut hair. Instead, they described his role as being limited to cleaning up the working area, cleaning barber tools, and opening and closing the shop. According to Amantha, on the day that Hautzinger visited the shop, Eugene had simply agreed to cut a nose hair of a friend and nothing more.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges be DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 22nd day of April, 1988.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Lawrence R. Crawford was licensed as a cosmetologist by DPR, having been issued License No. CL 0081100. By Final Order dated December 31, 1985, Respondent was found guilty of practicing cosmetology without being properly licensed and fined $450 with suspension of license until the fine was paid. (Exhibit 1) Respondent paid $225 of this fine in February 1986, but has made no subsequent payment nor has he renewed the cosmetology license which expired June 30, 1984. An inspection of Respondent's salon at 1383 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida, was conducted March 11, 1987, and Respondent was observed working on a client of the salon. At this time he had no active license. By Final Order dated August 12, 1983, the Board of Cosmetology found Respondent guilty of operating as a cosmetologist without an active salon license, assessed a fine of $50, and suspended his license until the fine was paid. (Exhibit 1). The record (Exhibit 1) fails to disclose whether this fine was paid; however, no current license was issued to Respondent. On October 2, 1987, Petitioner's inspector passed the address of Respondent's salon on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and noticed all equipment had been removed as well as the sign containing the name of the salon.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's licenses as a cosmetologist and cosmetology salon owner in the State of Florida, should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for the alleged violations of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, 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. The Respondent is a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida, holding license number CL 141038. From April 13, 1987 until October 31, 1990, Respondent also held a license as a cosmetology salon owner, license number CE 0044081. The salon license expired on October 31, 1990 and was not renewed for the 1990-1992 period because the check submitted for payment of the renewal fee was dishonored by the bank for insufficient funds. This case is related to a separate administrative proceeding brought against Veronica Bonani, DPR Case Number 90-4671. In that case, Ms. Bonani was found by the Florida Board of Cosmetology to have been employed by the Respondent as a cosmetologist without a Florida license from January 3, 1990 to March, 1990. After conceding the allegations in that case, Ms. Bonani was fined one hundred dollars ($100). Petitioner has suggested that the complaint against Veronica Bonani was initiated by Respondent, apparently in retribution for Ms. Bonani's terminating her employment with Respondent to take another job. At the hearing in this cause, the Respondent denied that she reported Ms. Bonani to the Department. While this dispute has little bearing on the main issues in this proceeding, the more persuasive evidence was that Respondent reported Ms. Bonani to Petitioner after Ms. Bonani left her employment. The evidence established that the Respondent employed Veronica Bonani as a cosmetologist without a Florida license from January 3, 1990 to March, 1990. Veronica Bonani began seeking licensure by endorsement in Florida sometime in the Fall of 1989. Because of some problems in obtaining the necessary documentation, she experienced delays in obtaining a license. Her formal application for licensure in Florida is dated February 6, 1990 and was filed with Petitioner on February 15, 1990. Veronica Bonani did not receive authorization to practice as a cosmetologist in Florida until April 13, 1990. However, as indicated above, Ms. Bonani began working for Respondent in early January, 1990. Prior to beginning work for Respondent, Ms. Bonani advised Respondent that she was in the process of obtaining a Florida license, but was not yet licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Respondent encouraged her to begin work anyway. When an inspector employed by Petitioner entered the Respondent's salon on February 22, 1990, the Respondent instructed Ms. Bonani to hide. However, Ms. Bonani openly revealed her status to the inspector. The inspector indicated during his February 22, 1990 visit that there was no problem with Ms. Bonani's employment since her application was pending and approval seemed imminent. This conclusion was erroneous. Respondent contends that she believed Ms. Bonani was entitled to begin work in Florida since she was in the process of obtaining licensure. However, there was no justifiable basis for Respondent to believe it was legal to employ Ms. Bonani in January, 1990. Indeed, the evidence and circumstances in this case indicate that Respondent was well aware that Ms. Bonani should not have been practicing prior to issuance of her Florida license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 477.0265(1)(b)(2), 477.0265(1)(d), 477.029(1)(c) and 477.029(1)(h), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine of three hundred dollars ($300) and allowing the Respondent to pay this amount in three (3) payments. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1992, 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 18th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Only Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact. The following constitutes my rulings on those proposals. 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. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 1. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 2. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4, 5, 6 and 7. Copies furnished: Renee Alsobrook, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Steven Lulich P.O. Box 1390 Sebastian, Florida 32978 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Cosmetology Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
