The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly determined that Petitioner did not pass the February 2003 Restricted Barber Practical Examination.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 17, 2003, Petitioner completed the Restricted Barber Practical Examination. He received a score of 69 on the examination. A total score of 75 was required to pass the examination. A maximum of 45 points was available on the haircut portion of the test. Petitioner received 28.5 points for that portion. Two examiners, who are licensed barbers, observed Petitioner performing the haircut on a live model. They are not supposed to begin grading and evaluating the haircut until it is complete. Therefore, it was not necessary for the graders to watch every move that Petitioner made during the haircut in order to properly assess his performance. Petitioner specifically challenged the following test sections related to the haircut: (a) the top is even and without holes, C-1; (b) the haircut is proportional, C-4; (c) the sides and back are without holes or steps, C-5; (d) the sideburns are equal in length, C-7; (e) the outlines are even, C-8; and (f) the neckline is properly tapered, C-11. Regarding section C-1, Examiner 106 found that the top of Petitioner's haircut was uneven. Examiner 501 did not find fault with the top of the haircut. As to section C-4, Examiner 106 found that the haircut was proportional. Examiner 501 determined that the haircut was not proportional because the sides were unequal; the left side was shorter than the right side. Examiner 106 did not give Petitioner full credit for C- 5 because the examiner saw holes/steps in the back and the right side of the haircut. Examiner 501 did not observe these problems and give Petitioner full credit for C-5. Examiner 106 did not give Petitioner credit for C-7 because the sideburns were unequal in length, i.e. the right sideburn was shorter than the left sideburn. Examiner 501 did not observe a problem with the sideburns. As to C-8, Examiner 106 determined that the outlines of the haircut were uneven on the left and right sides. Examiner 501 found that the outlines of the haircut were even. Regarding C-11, Examiner 106 found that the neckline was properly tapered. Examiner 501 determined that the neckline was improperly tapered, i.e. uneven. Both examiners have served in that capacity for several years. They have attended annual training sessions in order to review the exam criteria and to facilitate the standardization of the testing process. They are well qualified to act as examiners. The examiners evaluated Petitioner's performance independently. They marked their grade sheets according to what they actually observed about the completed haircut. The scores of the two graders were averaged together to produce a final score. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the examiners accurately recorded their individual observations regarding Petitioner's performance on the haircut. If one of the examiners did not observe a particular part of the haircut, Petitioner was given credit for that section. The examiners do not have to reach the same conclusion about each section of the test in order for the test results to be valid and reliable. Petitioner did not offer any persuasive evidence to dispute the manner or method by which Respondent accrues and calculates examination points. Petitioner would have failed the test based on either grader's independent scores. Therefore, Petitioner would not have passed the examination even if Respondent had not used one of the grade sheets in calculating Petitioner's final score.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order confirming Petitioner's examination score and dismissing his challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 16th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Smith, III 5603 Silverdale Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Gus Ashoo, Bureau Chief Bureau of Education and Testing Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0791 Julie Malone, Executive Director Board of Barber Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent, Francisco Portes, violated Subsections 476.194(1)(a), 476.194(1)(e)1., and 476.194(1)(e)2., Florida Statutes (2003), and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was unlicensed as a barber by the Department's Barbers' Board of the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, the name of the business located at 1447 North Pine Hills Road, Orlando, Florida (North Pine Hills address), was "Still Keeping It Real." That business was not licensed by Florida Barbers' Board.1/ The Department, though its employees, conducted a compliance sweep, and/or inspection, of the facility named "Still Keeping It Real" on February 7, 2004, after Petitioner received information that there was a "possible unlicensed barber shop or cosmetology salon" operating at that location. David Hogan, a regional program administrator with the Department, and two of the Department's employees participated in the compliance sweep and inspection. Mr. Hogan has been employed with the Department for approximately ten years, during which he has attended numerous training sessions provided by the Department. At all times material hereto, Mr. Hogan was certified as an investigator by the Council on Licensure Enforcement and Regulation by Eastern Kentucky University. On February 7, 2004, Mr. Hogan and the two inspectors initially conducted surveillance of the establishment located at the North Pine Hills address from a parking lot across the street from the establishment. There was a sign on the front of the building that said "Michael J's Still Keeping It Real" or "Michael J's Keeping It Real." During the 15 to 20 minutes that Mr. Hogan and the inspectors observed the establishment, there were a number of cars parked in the establishment's parking lot and a number of people were observed coming and going from the establishment. Based on the foregoing observations, Mr. Hogan and the inspectors believed that they had sufficient cause to enter the building. Once inside the establishment, Mr. Hogan conducted an inspection of the premises of "Still Keeping It Real." During the inspection, Mr. Hogan observed approximately four to six work stations, all of which had barbering and/or cosmetology implements set up at them. In a separate room at the establishment, there were also two more cosmetology stations. Mr. Hogan conducted an inspection of each of the work stations at the establishment. Although there were individuals at some of the work stations performing various barbering services on customers in the chairs in the work stations, no barber or cosmetology licenses were posted in any of the work stations. Upon request, with one exception, the individuals working at the various work stations would not produce identification. Moreover, none of the individuals working in the work stations produced either a cosmetologist license or barber license issued by the Department. Within five to ten minutes of Mr. Hogan's entering the establishment, all but one of the individuals working there and their customers left the premises. The only remaining individual working in the establishment completed the haircut he was giving his customer. After the haircut was completed, the customer paid the person who cut his hair and then left the establishment. As of February 7, 2004, the date of the inspection, Respondent had owned and operated the business establishment at the North Pine Hills address for approximately three months. The name of the business establishment located at the North Pine Hills address, immediately prior to Respondent's becoming the owner and operator of the business, was "Michael J's Keeping It Real." However, when Respondent took over the business, he named it "Still Keeping It Real." During the February 7, 2004, inspection, Respondent gave Mr. Hogan one of Respondent's business cards. Imprinted on the business card was the name of the business establishment, "Still Keeping It Real"; the address of the business, "1447 N. Pine Hills Road, Orlando, Florida"; and Respondent's name, "Frank Portes." The word "barber" was imprinted on the business card immediately below Respondent's name. Respondent testified that he performed services at "Still Keeping It Real" and that he did not have a barber's license at the time of the inspection. Although not licensed as a barber, Respondent mistakenly believed that because he had completed cosmetology school and registered for the cosmetology examination, he could work under the supervision of someone with a license. Respondent testified that he was working under the supervision of Michael J., the previous owner of the establishment, who, at the time of the inspection, still worked at the establishment. However, at the time of the inspection, Michael J. was not on the premises of the establishment. Furthermore, no evidence was presented at this proceeding to establish that Michael J. was licensed as either a barber or cosmetologist by the Department. Under limited circumstances, individuals who have graduated from cosmetology school may cut hair and perform other services included within the statutory definition of cosmetology prior to obtaining their cosmetology license, if they are supervised by a licensed cosmetologist. See §§ 477.013(4) and 477.019(4), Fla. Stat. (2003). However, graduates of cosmetology schools who have failed the cosmetology examination twice may not practice under the supervision provision in Subsection 477.019(4), Florida Statutes (2003). Respondent graduated from cosmetology school about two and a half years ago. After completing cosmetology school, Respondent took the cosmetology licensure examination twice, but failed to pass the examination. Because he was unsuccessful in passing the examination, Respondent planned to go back to cosmetology school for 200 more hours and then re-take the cosmetology licensure examination. A person who is licensed as a cosmetologist or properly working under the supervision of a licensed cosmetologist, may cut hair and perform other services included within the definition of both "barbering" and "cosmetology." (See Subsections 476.034(2) and 477.013(4), Florida Statutes (2003), which reflect that the definition of "cosmetology" encompasses many of the services also included in the definition of "barbering.") Respondent was ineligible to provide barbering services under either of the qualifying circumstances described in paragraph 18. First, based on Respondent's testimony, he was not licensed as either a barber or a cosmetologist. Second, despite Respondent's mistaken belief to the contrary, even if it is assumed that Michael J. was licensed and present on the premises at the time of the inspection, Respondent was ineligible to perform services under the supervision of a licensed person pursuant to Subsection 477.019(4), Florida Statutes (2003), because he had failed the licensure examination twice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent, Francisco Portes, engaged in acts proscribed by Subsections 476.194(1)(a), 476.194(1)(e)1., and 476.194(1)(e)2., Florida Statutes (2003); and (2) imposing an administrative fine of $500 for each violation for a total of $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2005, 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 18th day of July, 2005.
The Issue The issue in the proceeding is whether Respondent, Felix Robaina, violated provisions of the "Barbers' Act", Chapter 476, Florida Statutes, by operating a barbershop without a current active barbershop license. Background and Procedural Matters This proceeding commenced with an Administrative Complaint by Petitioner on September 18, 1985, and by Respondent, Robaina's timely request for a formal hearing. At the hearing Petitioner presented its evidence through the testimony of investigator, Jean Robinson, Felix Robaina and three exhibits. Respondent submitted one exhibit. All exhibits were admitted without objection. By stipulation of the parties, Vivian Lerma served as translator for Mr. Robaina. She was placed under oath for this purpose in accordance with Section 90.606, Florida Statutes. The parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. These have been considered and, where appropriate, have been incorporated into this Recommended Order. Specific rulings on each proposed finding of fact are found in the Appendix attached hereto.
Findings Of Fact Felix Robaina was born in Cuba and came to the United States in May, 1980. He cannot read, write or speak English and understands English very little. He took the barber's exam in Spanish and has been continually licensed as a barber by the Florida Barber's Board since June, 1983. On July 15, 1983, he opened his shop, Chosen Barber Shop, in Belle Glade, Florida. The shop had previously been owned by Antonio Garcia but was closed when Mr. Garcia died in 1982 or early 1983. Mr. Robaina has continually worked alone in the shop since he opened it and regular hours are 9 am to 7 pm, Tuesdays through Saturdays. Jean Robinson, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, noticed that the shop was reopened on a trip through the area and on June 1, 1985, she conducted an inspection. She found Mr. Robaina's barber license and occupational licenses were displayed on the wall. With a customer serving as interpreter, Jean Robinson asked Mr. Robaina for his shop license. de was confused and showed her the occupational license. Ms. Robinson explained the requirement of the law regarding a separate shop license and left an application for. Respondent, Robaina, promptly applied for a shop license, and has held license number BS0008668-since July 1985. Although part of the Barber exam course includes the legal requirement for licensing, Mr. Robaina said he did not know his shop required a separate license until Ms. Robinson visited and informed him. She confirmed that his confusion when she asked for the license was consistent with that ignorance. According to Ms. Robinson people commonly feel that the occupational license is all that is needed for a shop. Between July 1983 and July 1985, Felix Robaina operated his barbershop without a shop license.
Findings Of Fact Redman is licensed to own a barbershop in the state of Florida, holding license No. BS-0001690 for Don's Sportsman Barber Shop at 1814 Dean Road, Jacksonville, Florida. Redman is licensed to practice barbering in the state of Florida, holding license No. BB-0018729. On November 25, 1988, Eileen Thomas, an inspector for DPR, made a routine inspection of Don's Sportsman Barber Shop. During the inspection, Ms. Thomas found an excessive amount of hair on the shop's floor and baseboards, around the barbering stations and chairs, and in the shampoo bowls. An extremely large amount of hair was found accumulated in the ultraviolet sanitizing cabinets; also, at least one of these cabinets was not closed. Ms. Thomas found that a grey-white buildup covered the black shampoo bowls and their faucets and that the shampoo bowls had hair in them. Ms. Thomas found that dust and grime was accumulated on the baseboards and on the containers of shampoo and tonic. Further, the clean towels were stored in an open container under a chair in the shampoo area and a bird was being kept in a cage in an opened room adjacent to the shampoo area. DPR presented testimony regarding inspections performed on May 23 and July 19, 1989. The Administrative Complaint contains no allegations of fact regarding these subsequent inspections and Redman was not charged with any violation for these inspections. Hence testimony regarding these subsequent inspections is irrelevant and no findings of fact are or can be made from this testimony. Jimmy Hicks and Glen Lowe are barbers who work in Redman's shop. They acknowledged that they do not sweep up the hair on the floor after each customer. Lowe acknowledged that there is hair in at least one of the shop's Barbercyde containers. Hicks acknowledged that he may leave brushes lying out instead of being in a closed clean container. Redman stated that he had kept a bird in the back room of the shop until this inspection, at which time he removed the bird. Redman also acknowledged that the doors to the ultraviolet sanitizing cabinets are not always closed and that the sinks in his barbershop contains a tremendous amount of buildup from the minerals in the water. Redman recognized that clean towels were kept in an open box under the shampoo chair until after this inspection, at which time he moved them to a closed container. When Redman and the other barbers in his shop sweep hair up from the floor, they place it in a box in the back room of the barbershop. Redman has been previously disciplined by the Barbers' Board in Case No. 0092898 (DOAH Case No. 88-1811) for failure to meet the sanitary requirements for a barbershop. That Final Order incorporated the Recommended Order wherein it was noted that Redman had a dog on the premises and that a rule prohibited pets in a barbershop.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Barbers' Board, enter a Final Order and therein Find Roy D. Redman guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and Assess an administrative fine of $500.00 against Roy D. Redman. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-1518 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-7(1-7); 16- 20(9-13); 21(13); 24(14); and 25(15). Proposed findings of fact 8-15, 22, and 23 are rejected as being irrelevant to any charges contained in the Administrative Complaint. Proposed finding of fact 26 is unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff Chief Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Roy D. Redman 1814 Dean Road Jacksonville, FL 32216 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Barbers' Board Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the Petitioner's witness and his demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: During times material herein, Respondent was a licensed barber and the holder of license number BB 0006222. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2) During November of 1982, Petitioner's inspector, Steven Granowitz, made a routine inspection of barbershops with delinquent licenses. During the course of these routine inspections, Inspector Granowitz inspected the Broadway Barbershop which was being operated by the Respondent, Mary E. Smith. During the course of his inspection, Inspector Granowitz identified himself and asked to inspect the Respondent's current-active barber's license. Initially, Respondent related to Inspector Granowitz that her license had either been stolen or misplaced and that she could not keep track of the license. During the course of Inspector Granowitz's inspection, there were approximately four customers present and Inspector Granowitz's observation led him to believe that the Respondent had been continuously operating the barbershop without a license. It is so found. An examination of the documentary evidence introduced reveals that during 1979 Florida barbershop license number BS 0005766 was issued to the Respondent to operate the Broadway Barbershop located at 1133 NW 3rd Avenue, Miami, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) The Respondent did not timely renew Florida barbershop license number BS 0005766. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Following the inspection during November 30, 1982, by Inspector Granowitz, Respondent applied for a new barbershop license for the Broadway Barbershop and on December 13, 1982, Florida barbershop license number BA 0005766 was issued to the Respondent for the Broadway Barbershop. (Testimony of Granowitz and Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 6 and 7).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Barbers' Board impose an administrative fine of $500.00 on Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 8th day of February 1984.
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
Findings Of Fact Antonio Castellano has been a master barber for more than 30 years and has been continuously licensed as a barber in Florida since 1970 (Exhibit 1). The International Inn Barber Shop is located on the ground floor of the International Inn at 3705 Henderson Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, which is owned by William A. Watson. There are three barber chairs in this shop, and all fixtures in the barber shop are owned by Watson. The barber shop has been licensed by Watson since 1982. The last license issued to Watson for this shop was issued December 4, 1986 to expire September 30, 1988 (Exhibit 3). Since 1982, Watson has hired barbers to operate the shop on commission. However, this has not proved satisfactory, and Watson concluded to lease the shop and have the lessee responsible for the various licenses required. In carrying out this plan, a LEASE (Exhibit 5) was entered into between Watson and Respondent on July 31, 1987, which provided Castellano would be totally responsible for the operation of this shop and would obtain the necessary city and state licenses required. The lease commenced August 1, 1987. This barber shop was inspected on or about November 18, 1987, by Judy Denchfield, an inspector from the Department of Professional Regulation. When told by Respondent that he was the lessor, Denchfield, without looking at the lease and aware that the shop license issued to Watson was posted in the shop and had not expired, assumed Respondent was the owner of the shop for licensing purposes and cited Respondent for violating Sections 476.204(1)(b) and 476.194(1)(e)1, Florida Statutes. These proceedings duly followed.
Findings Of Fact Except to the extent consistent with the following findings of fact, all proposed findings of fact are rejected as either not supported by competent substantial evidence, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, or irrelevant. At all times between August 4, 1983, and March 2, 1984, Respondent was licensed to practice barbering in the State of Florida, having been issued barber License Number BD 0019428. Respondent was also licensed to own and operate Roney Plaza Barbershop in Miami Beach, Florida, during the same time period, having been issued barbershop License Number BS 0004727. During this time period, Respondent owned and was operating this barbershop. Both licenses expire July 31, 1984. On August 4 and 5, 1983, Respondent employed a person to engage in the practice of barbering at Roney Plaza Barbershop who did not hold a valid license as a barber or registered barber's assistant.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Barbers' Board require Respondent to pay an administrative fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00). DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 28th day of March 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Rosen, Esquire 420 Lincoln Road, Suite 320 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Myrtle S. Aase, Executive Director Barbers' 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
