Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Bruce E. Jarman, graduated from the cosmetology program of Orlando Vocational-Technical Center in December 1992. The school is an institution accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Mr. Jarman's grades were primarily A's in both practical competency and theory, with a few B's and two C's. Mr. Jarman sat for the January 21, 1993 cosmetology licensure examination and passed two of the three required parts. He did not pass the written clinical part, which required a score of 75. Mr. Jarman's score was initially 71; after his challenge, he was given credit for one additional item and his total scaled score was amended to 72. At the hearing Mr. Jarman narrowed his challenge to four written questions, #2, #41, #44 and #59. He also presented testimony and argument regarding the scoring and the over-all validity of the examination questions. Question #2 concerned the specific point at which a cosmetologist must commence timing for the processing of semi-permanent color. The process timing must commence after completing application of the color, since hair length, porous quality and other individual properties affect the time required for application. The textbook does not specifically furnish the right answer to the question; instead, it references the need to follow the product manufacturer's directions. The correct answer is found in those directions and in the understanding that if timing is commenced prior to the completion of application, the processing time might not be long enough. Mr. Jarman answered the question incorrectly. Question #41 concerned the qualities of over-processed curls. Frizzy hair is distinct from wavy hair. Frizzy hair is straight and very dry-looking due to being damaged. It has no waves when it is dry, and narrow waves when wet, as depicted in the textbook. Mr. Jarman chose the wrong answer. Question #44 concerned the action to be taken by a cosmetologist who is in the process of bleaching a client's hair when the client exclaims that he likes the color he sees prior to the completion of processing. The proper answer requires an understanding of procedures for lightening hair. Those procedures, including the need to conduct a series of strand tests, are described in the textbook. Mr. Jarman's answer was incorrect as he mistakenly concentrated on the preliminary strand test. Question #59 concerned the disadvantage of foil frosting versus cap frosting. The cap technique involves pulling clean strands of hair through a perforated cap with a hook. The foil technique requires taking alternating strands from a subsection and wrapping those strands individually in a foil packet. Foil frosting allows the better placement of streaks; it generally is preferred for sensitive scalp and for longer hair. However, the foil technique takes about twice as long as the cap technique. Although the textbook does not specifically state the relative merits of one technique over another, anyone who has performed the two techniques should recognize the proper answer. Mr. Jarman concentrated on the effect of chemicals on the scalp and selected the wrong answer. Each question provided four possible multiple choice answers. Selecting the proper answer required a process of elimination and a choice of the "best" answer. The questions were not ambiguous. Nor, as suggested by Mr. Jarman, did they require experience beyond the "entry-level". As part of their program of instruction, cosmetology students are given practical experience in the techniques to be tested. The examination taken by Mr. Jarman and his colleague, Mr. Sparrow, was a new examination and the pass rate was substantially lower than for prior examinations. This fact itself does not invalidate the examination. It was devised by a national professional testing firm; it was validated statistically through a mathematical process and was validated for content through a process which relies on the use of anchor items that have appeared in other examinations. The written clinical portion of the examination was designed to take the place of a practical examination requiring the use of live models. The clinical portion requires candidates to apply theory and judgement learned in their practicing laboratory in school. That is why the answers are not all found verbatim in the textbooks. In the credible opinions of the Board's several experts, including a psychometrician and an educator/practitioner with almost forty years' cosmetology experience, the January 1993 examination was valid and proper. The process of achieving scaled scores was also valid and proper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the petition of Bruce E. Jarman, challenging his cosmetology examination score be denied. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 14th day of December, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Bruce E. Jarman 1133 38th Street Orlando, Florida 32805 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Suzanne Lee Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the license of the Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a cosmetology salon not under the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on May 31, 1977, against Barbara Hagan d/b/a Hair Fashion Wig Craft by B & B charging: "That you, said BARBARA HAGAN d/b/a Hair Fashion Wig Craft by B & B on January 11, 1977 did operate a cosmetology salon without the direct supervision of a master cosme- tologist; at Hair Fashion Wig Craft by B & B, Lakeland, Florida." The Respondent, Barbara Hagan, is a master cosmetologist who had left the beauty shop she operated to make a trip to the hospital. The cosmetologist who works in Respondent's shop and who was working at the time of the notice of violation had finished school but was not a master cosmetologist at the time of the violation. The Respondent admitted that he did not have a master cosmetologist license at the time of the violation but asserts that he now is a master cosmetologist.
Recommendation Suspend the license of the Respondent for a period of not more than thirty (30) days inasmuch as this was the second time the statute was violated. The first time no written violation notice was entered but the inspector orally warned the Respondent of the violation. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of October, 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: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Barbara Hagan Hair Fashion Wig Craft by B & B 1336 North Florida Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33802 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed by the State of Florida as a cosmetologist, having been issued license number CL200634. At all times material hereto, her business, Karline's Beauty Spa of the Palm Beaches, has been a licensed cosmetology salon, having been issued license number CE74123. On Friday, September 26, 2003, the Department's inspector Yvonne Grutka performed an inspection of Karline's Beauty Spa from 3:24 to 4:35 p.m. When she arrived, she noticed a pregnant woman styling a female client's hair with marcel irons. When the pregnant woman saw Grutka, she left her client and left the salon. Grutka asked Respondent the identity of the pregnant woman, and Respondent told her the woman was Venus Pope. Respondent then showed Grutka a license with Venus Pope's photograph on it, but the picture did not look like the woman who had been styling the client's hair. At first, Respondent represented that Venus Pope had gone to lunch and would return. Later, Respondent said the Pope had gone to pick up her children and would not return until the following Wednesday. However, Grutka checked the computer at the front desk and learned that Pope was scheduled to work the following day, Saturday, September 27. Grutka subsequently returned to the salon when Pope was working. She asked the woman her name, and the woman identified herself as Venus Pope. Pope was not the pregnant woman who had been styling the female client's hair. Grutka concluded that Respondent was interfering with her inspection by not properly identifying the pregnant woman who was styling hair. Grutka noticed that various personal items and papers were located in the same open drawer in which sanitized combs and brushes were being stored. A blow dryer was also resting on the open drawer. The salon's license and previous inspection sheet were not displayed within view of the front door, as required. In addition, the stylists' licenses with their photographs were not displayed at their workstations, as required. These violations were admitted by Respondent during the final hearing. When Grutka arrived at the salon on September 26 Respondent was in her office in the back of the salon and was not "on the floor."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,600 to be paid within 30 days of the date the final order is entered. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 17th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Malone, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Karline Ricketts, pro se 1900 Okeechobee Boulevard, South 8A West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
The Issue Whether Respondent, a cosmetology salon, permitted an unlicensed person to perform cosmetology services as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, dated April 24, 2007, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are found: At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed and regulated by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, as a cosmetology salon owned by Immacula Evans. Respondent is a licensed cosmetology salon, license number CE9966208, whose address of record with Petitioner is 11329 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33612. At all times material hereto, John R. Miranda was employed by the Petitioner as an Inspector. On or about March 8, 2006, Miranda conducted an inspection of Respondent's establishment located at 11329 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Miranda observed that an unidentified male was practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was personally issued to Respondent's owner. On or about March 17, 2006, Miranda conducted a re- inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of this inspection, Miranda observed that Pierre Elionze was practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was issued to Respondent. On or about March 24, 2006, Miranda conducted another inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of this inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet, Christine Marc, and Moveta S. Swalters were each practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was issued to Respondent. On or about June 7, 2006, Miranda conducted a further inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet was again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. On or about July 29, 2006, Miranda conducted another inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet yet again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. On or about August 11, 2006, Miranda conducted an inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet was again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. Respondent has engaged in the unlawful and repeated violations of Subsection 477.0265(1), Florida Statutes, between March 8 and August 11, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order revoking Respondent's cosmetology establishment license number CE 9966208, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 11th day of September, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should be sanctioned for providing services as a cosmetologist without holding an appropriate license as required by Subsection 477.0265(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact Vega is a native of Puerto Rico and has been a hair stylist since 1984. She was employed at the Beauty Gallery and Spa Salon (the "Salon") as a shampoo girl and receptionist at all times relevant to this proceeding. English is a second language to Vega, and she does not speak, read, or write the language well. At the final hearing in this matter, Vega testified through an interpreter or translator, Carmen Rodriquez. DBPR is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, the licensure of cosmetologists and cosmetology establishments in Florida. Daniel Hogan, JD, LLM, is a regional program administrator for DBPR, a position he has held for three years. He received training from his employer in order to perform inspections of cosmetology businesses and barbershops as part of his duties. He is responsible for the Orlando office and supervises the inspections of cosmetology and barber establishments conducted by that office. The Orlando office conducts about 3,500 such inspections each year, of which Hogan has involvement in approximately 500. On or about March 29, 2005, Hogan conducted a routine annual inspection of the Salon. During the inspection, Hogan noted two individuals working at the Salon: Vega and a Mr. Torres. Torres was sitting at the front part of the Salon. Hogan identified himself to Vega and Torres as an inspector for DBPR. Neither Vega nor Torres could produce a cosmetology license for review by Hogan when asked. Hogan saw Vega at a workstation, actively engaged in cutting a customer's hair. His efforts to question Vega concerning this matter were thwarted by Vega's inability to converse in English. Vega did produce for Hogan a cosmetology license, which had been issued in Puerto Rico. She also produced a copy of a letter from DBPR wherein Vega's application for licensure had been denied. The purpose of showing those documents to Hogan was to show him that she was a legal resident. She had initially perceived him as an immigration officer. During the course of Hogan's inspection, Ms. Matos, owner of the Salon, appeared. She confirmed to Hogan that Vega had been employed at the Salon for about twelve months. Matos did not appear at the final hearing. There was no testimony by the owner as to Vega's employment position at the Salon. Upon completion of his inspection, Hogan issued an inspection report and a Citation against Vega for practicing without a license. He gave Vega a copy of the citation, which Vega signed in his presence. The citation states that Vega was practicing cosmetology without a license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation upholding the fine assessed in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 22nd day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Raquel Santiago Vega 523 Delido Way Kissimmee, Florida 34758 Drew F. Winters, Esquire Matt Yeager Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 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
The Issue Respondents' alleged violation of Sections 477.02(4), 477.15(8) & 477.27(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Corporation operates the Get Your Head Together Cosmetology Salon at 687 N.E. 79 Street, Miami, Florida, under Certificate of Registration Number 15219 issued by Petitioner on February 15, 1971. On April 7, 1975, Petitioner's Inspector visited Respondent's place of business and found two cosmetologists, Sergio Ruiz Calderon and Silvia Gonzalez, engaging in the practice of cosmetology without the presence of a master cosmetologist. Calderon was drying a customer's hair with a blower and Gonzalez was providing another customer with frosting and a hair cut. (Testimony of Patrick). Respondent's President, Geno Tranchida, testified that his brother, a master cosmetologist, was due to arrive at the salon at noon on April 7, and that he therefore left for lunch about 11:45 after instructing his employees not to perform any work while he was gone. The employees disregarded these orders and when Geno Tranchida returned his brother called and informed him that he was ill. (Testimony of Geno Tranchida).
Recommendation That Respondent be issued a written reprimand for the violation of Section 477.02(4), Florida Statutes 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 P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Geno and Peter Tranchida c/o Get Your Head Together, Inc. 687 N.E. 79 Street Miami, Florida
