Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Arled Corp., d/b/a Cadris Hair Design, has been licensed to operate a cosmetology salon in the State of Florida, having previously been issued license number CE 0046212. At all times material to this case, the Respondent corporation has been the owner and operator of a cosmetology salon known as Cadris Hair Design, which is located at 13635 Southwest 26th Street, Miami, Florida 33175-6377. On December 26, 1991, during the course of a routine inspection, an inspector employed by the Department of Professional Regulation discovered that Liliam de la Portilla was practicing a cosmetology specialty on the licensed premises without having a valid license to practice a cosmetology specialty. Further investigation revealed that Liliam de la Portilla had been practicing a cosmetology specialty on a regular basis on the licensed premises since approximately the middle of September of 1991. Liliam de la Portilla has previously been licensed to practice a cosmetology specialty, but her last license expired on June 30, 1990. During the period from the middle of September of 1991 through December 26, 1991, Liliam de la Portilla did not have a valid license to practice a cosmetology specialty in the State of Florida. Ms. Gladys Scheer is, and was at all material times, the president of and owner of Arled Corporation. Ms. Scheer granted permission for Liliam de la Portilla to practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design. Liliam de la Portilla was not an employee of Cadris Hair Design, but merely paid rent for the right to practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design. Ms. Gladys Scheer has known Liliam de la Portilla for approximately ten years. Ms. Scheer knew that Liliam de la Portilla had previously been licensed to practice a cosmetology specialty and assumed, but did not verify, that Liliam de la Portilla was still licensed. In September of 1991 when Ms. Scheer first allowed Liliam de la Portilla to practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design, she was not aware that Liliam de la Portilla's license had expired. Following the inspection on December 26, 1991, Ms. Gladys Scheer told Liliam de la Portilla that the latter could no longer practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design until such time as she was properly licensed.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order concluding that the Respondent is guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty consisting of a reprimand and an administrative fine in the amount of $100.00. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of August 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire N-607 Rhode Building Phase 2 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Bureau Chief Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Ms. Gladys Scheer, President Cadris Hair Design 13635 Southwest 26th Street Miami, Florida 33175-6377 Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact On May 5, 1953 Petitioner issued barbershop license number BS0007761 to Respondent for the operation of Mr. S. Haircuttery, a barbershop located at 17846 South Dixie Highway, Miami, Florida. Petitioner's letter to Respondent dated May 5, 1983 states, "All persons employed as barbers or barber assistants are required to have a current and valid license." Respondent has maintained his license and operated Mr. S. Haircuttery, as owner, at all times material hereto. On October 16, 1984 Bettye C. Rogers, an inspector employed by Petitioner, entered Mr. S. Haircuttery to inspect the premises. The barbershop was very clean and sanitary, and had all required equipment. Ms. Rogers observed a person, later identified as Marietta Thompson, cutting a customer's hair. Upon inquiry it was determined that Marietta Thompson was not licensed at the time by the Barbers' Board or the Board of Cosmetology. Respondent admits that Marietta Thompson was not licensed at the time of the inspection. He points out, however, that her employment of four days was immediately terminated, and that she had been referred to him by a cosmetology school as a person who had passed her cosmetology exam and was just waiting to receive her license. Respondent has been licensed as a barber in Florida for approximately twenty years and as a cosmetologist for approximately seven years. During that time he has owned and operated four licensed shops and employed approximately fifteen licensed employees at his shops. The evidence establishes that the incident involving Marietta Thompson is Petitioner's only violation of the applicable licensing laws during the time he has been licensed. Marietta Thompson was employed by Respondent from October 13 to October 16, 1984. In making the above findings of fact, proposed findings submitted by Petitioner pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, F.S., have been considered. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that petitioner issue a Final Order which imposes a reprimand against Respondent's barber shop license number BS0007761. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 2nd day of April, 1985
The Issue Whether the license, No. 1454, issued to licensee should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact The Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners filed an Administrative Complaint against licensee Stanley Turner, D.C., who holds license number 1454. Count I alleged Respondent made sexual advances toward four patients. Count II alleged that Respondent made improper sexual advances toward employees. Count III alleged that Respondent has been addicted to the habitual use of narcotics, stimulants, or other habit-forming drugs since July 1, 1975. Count IV alleged that Respondent made improper sexual advances on a patient under the guise of necessary chiropractic treatment. Count V alleged that Respondent offered and administered medicines and drugs to two patients. Count VI was dropped at the hearing. Count VII was dropped at the hearing. Count VIII alleged that the foregoing Counts constitutes unprofessional conduct. Respondent denied each of the allegations of the Petitioner. The testimony of the various women who testified against Dr. Turner, together with the testimony of the women who testified for Dr. Turner, does not establish the fact that "improper sexual advances" were actually made by the Respondent, Dr. Turner. The nature of the practice of acupuncture and of the practice of chiropractic is such that the procedures themselves could be misleading as to the intent of the practitioner. Testimony of six medical doctors and two dentists that they had filled prescriptions for the Respondent, Dr. Turner, which prescriptions were for various drugs, Valium, Darvocet, Milhouse, Percodan, Tylenol, Robaxin, was coupled with their testimony that they issued these drugs through "professional courtesy" without ordinary examinations of the patient and that in fact Dr. Turner did suffer from a variety of ills including a back injury, an accident with a horse, and "hangovers." The evidence submitted does not establish that the Respondent took all of these drugs himself or was addicted to the habitual use of narcotics, stimulants or the habit-forming drugs. It does establish that drugs were secured by Dr. Turner in a manner and amount that could be and perhaps was embarrassing to those doctors who wrote the prescriptions for Respondent. The evidence does not support a finding that drugs were offered or administered to patients and employees and other persons. The testimony does establish that the Respondent was guilty of unacceptable conduct inasmuch as the testimony as a whole establishes the fact that Dr. Turner did take advantage of the medical community in requesting prescriptions and that his conduct toward his clients and employees was casual and at times undignified.
Recommendation Give Respondent Stanley Turner a public reprimand then dismiss the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April, 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: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles F. Broome, Esquire Post Office Box 729 Titusville, Florida 32780 =================================================================
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
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology pursuant to Section 20.30, Chapters 455 and 477, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Nadine Alice Walker d/b/a Nadine's Styling Salon, is licensed to practice cosmetology and to operate a cosmetology salon, having been issued license number CL 0102000 and CE 0032562. During times material hereto, Respondent Walker has been the owner/operator of a cosmetology salon named "Nadine's Styling Salon" located at 1014 East Cass Street, Tampa, Florida 33602. Respondent Hunt, during times material, was not a licensed cosmetologist in Florida. During a routine inspection of Respondent Walker's salon on June 16, 1990, inspector Steve Yovino, who is employed by Petitioner to conduct routine inspection of, inter alia, cosmetology salons to determine their compliance with Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, observed Respondent Hunt using an electric dryer to "blow dry" a customer's hair which she had shampooed. Respondent Hunt was compensated for her services. On the day of the inspector's routine inspection of Respondent Walker's salon, it was the first day that Respondent Hunt had assisted Respondent Walker at Walker's styling salon. Respondent Hunt is presently enrolled in a cosmetology school to become trained and licensed as a cosmetologist in Florida. Respondent Walker engaged the services of Respondent Hunt to assist her in those duties in which an unlicensed cosmetologist can engage in, to wit, performing routine maintenance around the salon to include sweeping and cleaning the booth areas. Respondent Walker's aim was to assist Respondent Hunt in gaining experience in those areas of cosmetology which did not require a license. Neither Respondent Hunt nor Respondent Walker have been the subject of prior disciplinary action by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent Nadine Alice Walker in the amount of $100, payable to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the entry of its Final Order and issue Respondent Nadine Alice Walker a letter of guidance. Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent Tracy Hunt in the amount of $100, payable to Petitioner within thirty days of the entry of its Final Order and issue Respondent Tracy Hunt a letter of guidance. 1/ RECOMMENDED this 28th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 28th day of February, 1991.
