Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed cosmetologist in Florida and was so licensed at all times here relevant. In January, 1983, Respondent began employment as a cosmetologist at the Rose Unisex Hair Salon in Clearwater, Florida. This salon was owned by Rose Sousa, who had advertised the salon for sale. In response to that ad Respondent commenced working at the salon to learn if the salon would be a profitable purchase. In April, 1983, Respondent executed a chattel mortgage agreement in favor of Rose Sousa and her husband, Joe, in consideration of the transfer of the salon to her. An assignment of the lease was contingent on the payment of this chattel mortgage. The agreement further provided that Rose Sousa would continue working at the salon for one year. On May 2, 1983, Respondent gave Sousa a cashier's check for $7,000 which Respondent had borrowed from a friend, in satisfaction of the chattel mortgage. At this time the salon was licensed in the name of Rose Sousa and this license was due to expire in a few months. Respondent believed she could operate under that license until it expired and would then be required to put the salon license in her name. On June 21, 1983, an inspector from the Department of Regulations visited the salon and checked the license of Mary Carroll, who told him she owned the salon, and the salon license which still showed Rose Sousa as owner. Some three weeks after the closing Rose Sousa quit working at the salon and most of the customers left with her. Respondent testified that Rose Sousa had opened a salon in her garage and was servicing her customers there. Regardless of this allegation, the business dropped drastically, Respondent was unable to pay the rent, and the salon was padlocked by the owner of the building. Respondent subsequently declared bankruptcy. But for a friend who took her in as a houseguest, Respondent would, literally, have been out on the street.
The Issue Whether Respondent's cosmetology license should be suspended, revoked or whether Respondent should be disciplined for conduct, as a licensee, which will be set forth hereinafter in detail.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the proposed memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found: Noella C. Papagno (herein sometimes referred to as Respondent) is a licensed cosmetologist under the laws of the State of Florida and has been issued License Number CL 0107656, which license is current through June, 1984. Respondent has been practicing cosmetology for approximately twenty-five (25) years and, prior to being licensed in Florida, was licensed to practice in Rhode Island. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1.) Richard Gloss has been employed in the Building and Zoning Department for the City of Dania, Florida, for the past two (2) years. On or about October 12, 1981, Gloss received a complaint that Respondent was operating a salon at one of the ticket booths located at the flea market, 1930 North Federal Highway in Dania Florida. Gloss made a routine inspection through the flea market and observed a sign in front of a ticket booth occupied by the Respondent where upon he approached Respondent and identified himself as an employee of the City of Dania in the Building and Zoning Department. After identifying himself, Gloss inquired of Respondent whether she was properly licensed to conduct a beauty salon. Prior thereto, Respondent had offered to cut his hair. Respondent admits to having offered to cut Gloss's hair and related that she had been cutting hair at that location for approximately two and one half (2 1/2) years and that she charged customers from $.50 to $4.00, depending on the length of their hair and the amount of time it took to cut it. She also explained that she had two (2) licenses -- her cosmetology license and a Broward County Council license -- in order to carry on this business. Respondent described in a very detailed manner her method of water hair cutting and she explained that she used no chemicals and did not attempt to perform any kind of chemical services. Additionally, Respondent testified that she suffers from various allergies and her physician has cautioned her to stay away from dust in beauty salons. (Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 4 and 7.) In mitigation, Respondent offered the fact that she was providing a service which would not be otherwise available and that the equipment that she used is sanitized and that theme was no testimony offered by Petitioner of any ill effects by her operation at the subject facility. Finally, Respondent feels that the Board should grant her a specialty license, although she has not applied for a license based on her feelings that it would not be granted. [Testimony of Respondent and Edmund Gabler, a Broward County resident and customer of Respondent for approximately two (2) years.]
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year, during which time she must comply with all provisions of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder, specifically including the proviso that she not practice cosmetology in an unlicensed location. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 11th day of August, 1982.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case was whether Respondent, Nikki Gamber, should be disciplined by the Board of Cosmetology for the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact On December 14, 1990, Frank Paolella, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation, went to Booth 85 in a Flea Market in Fort Myers, Florida, to investigate a complaint of unlicensed activity purportedly going on there. When he arrived, he asked for the owner, Ms. Gamber, who was present with an employee. He told her why he was there and since she was then working on someone's nails, waited for her to finish. While he was waiting, he observed Respondent's employee, Nikkae Jurgens, applying false nails to another customer. This involved sanding and buffing the client's natural nails before applying the false ones. When he brought all this to the attention of the Respondent, she freely admitted she was engaged in unlawful activity but claimed she was not aware that Ms. Jurgens, who was only two feet away from her, was also doing it. When he brought it to her attention, Respondent said she would tell Ms. Jurgens to stop. Ms. Jurgens indicated that she did not have any identification on her but that Respondent had it all. When Mr. Paolella asked Respondent for it, she said she would provide it later. When she did do so later, by phone, she also said that Ms. Jurgens had been working for her for about 7 to 10 days. Mr. Paolella checked on the licensure status of both Respondent and Ms. Jurgens and determined that neither had a license to do this type or work, nor did either hold a salonlicense. The operation was a booth in a flea market - a counter with two chairs for clients. There was no sanitary equipment there, no disinfectant for implements, and no closed compartments for storing clean supplies and equipment. Mr. Paolella's investigation revealed that Respondent's booth is open for business only on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, but whenever he went there before December 14, 1990, she was never there. As of August 22, 1991, the owner of the Flea Market where Respondent had operated indicated she was no longer in business there. Records of the Department show that Ms. Gamber held neither a cosmetologist's license or a cosmetology salon license during the time in question, nor did Ms. Jurgens, her employee. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be issued by the Board of Cosmetology imposing a fine of $500.00 for each of the two violations established as outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of September, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 27th day of September, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark E. Harris Paralegal Specialist Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nikki Gamber P.O. Box 8155 Sarasota, Florida 34278 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kaye Howerton Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee. Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since November 26, 1990, licensed to operate the Bailey Unisex Barbershop (Barbershop), a barbershop located at 1412 N.W. 119th Street in Miami, Florida. She acquired the Barbershop from her father, Constantine Bailey. Bailey is a barber. He works for his daughter at the Barbershop. Charles E. Frear is an inspector with the Department. On December 22, 1990, Frear conducted an inspection of the Barbershop. Upon entering the Barbershop, Frear was greeted by Bailey, who told Frear that Respondent was out of town. Bailey appeared to be in charge of the establishment in Respondent's absence. During his inspection, Frear observed Edward Purcell and George Roberts cutting the hair of customers in the Barbershop. Purcell and Roberts were not at the time, nor have they ever been, licensed to practice barbering in the State of Florida. Accordingly, when Frear approached them and asked them to show him their barbering licenses they were unable to do so. The only violations found by Frear during his visit to the Barbershop related to Respondent's employment of these two unlicensed barbers. He noticed on display on the premises a temporary license authorizing Respondent to operate the Barbershop. Furthermore, it appeared to him that all sanitary requirements were being met. Ten days prior to the final hearing in this matter, Frear paid a return visit to the Barbershop. He was again met by Bailey upon entering the establishment. No one else was present in the Barbershop. Frear's inspection of the premises revealed no apparent violations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Barbers' Board enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent committed the violations of law alleged Counts II and III of the instant Administrative Complaint; and (2) imposing upon Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $750.00 for having committed these violations. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of September, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 17th day of September, 1991.
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
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated January 29, 2004, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence and the testimony of witnesses presented, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts were established: Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the operation of establishments providing cosmetology services, including hair care and styling, to the public. Petitioner's regulatory authority derives from Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. Respondent has at all times material to this case been subject to Petitioner's jurisdiction by virtue of its license to operate Mayelin Unisex Beauty Salon (Respondent or Mayelin), a hair salon located in North Miami Beach, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was under a legal duty to refrain from permitting unlicensed individuals to perform cosmetology services, including hair care, upon members of the public. On or about April 26, 2003, Abdel Cedeno (Cedeno), a duly-qualified inspector employed by Petitioner and whose job includes monitoring compliance with Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, went to Mayelin's during its regular business hours for the purpose of conducting a routine inspection. On that occasion, Cedeno observed one Yomaira Payero (Payero) performing cosmetology services on a customer. More specifically, Payero was observed styling or arranging the customer's hair, utilizing a blow-dryer and other cosmetology implements. Payero was not licensed to perform such services within Florida. At all times material to this case, Payero was a paid employee of Respondent. Payero's activities, which Respondent authorized and facilitated, constituted a violation by Respondent of Section 477.0265(1)(d), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued assessing Respondent an administrative penalty in the amount of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 8th day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Juana Blanco Mayelin Castillo Mayelin Unisex Beauty Salon 16551 Northeast 8th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1015 Julie Malone, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
