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: On October 26, 1991, Respondent was employed as a nail technician/manicurist at Tropical Nails and Skin (Tropical), a cosmetology salon located in Lauderhill, Florida. At the time, she did not hold a license authorizing her to engage in the practice of cosmetology, or any specialty area thereof, in the State of Florida. Leonard Baldwin is an inspector with the Department of Professional Regulation. On the morning of October 26, 1991, Baldwin conducted an inspection of Tropical. Upon entering the salon, Baldwin observed Respondent at her station applying polish to a customer's nails. Prominently displayed at Respondent's station was a cosmetology license that bore Respondent's name and photograph. The license was forged and actually belonged, not to Respondent, but to E. Sgroi. It had been given to Respondent by a former coworker, who had altered the license by removing Sgroi's name and typing Respondent's name in its place. Respondent had affixed her photograph to the license after the license was given to her. No changes had been made to the address on the license. Shortly after entering the salon, Baldwin went to Respondent's station. He examined the license and asked Respondent if it was hers. She replied in the affirmative. Baldwin suspected otherwise. He therefore took possession of the license. He then left Respondent's station and went to another area of the salon. Approximately ten or fifteen minutes later, after Respondent had finished with her customer and the customer had paid and left the salon, Baldwin again approached Respondent and asked her about the license. This time Respondent acknowledged that the license was not really hers and that she was not licensed by the Department to practice cosmetology. Baldwin then presented to Respondent a Cease and Desist Agreement, which Respondent signed. The agreement, which was also signed by Baldwin, provided as follows: I, Gloria Torres, have been informed by a representative of the Department of Professional Regulation that I am under investigation on allegations that I have engaged in the practice of "Nails" Cosmetology without being a holder of an appropriate license or permit. Without admitting these allegations, I hereby agree to cease and desist from engaging in this activity until and unless properly licensed or permitted. I execute this agreement without receiving any representations in regard to the final disposition of the investigation. Respondent abided by the terms of the Cease and Desist Agreement. She enrolled in classes at the Academy of Beauty Arts and Sciences in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On or about November 7, 1991, the school issued her a certificate of completion in the speciality area of manicuring/pedicuring/nail extensions. On December 11, 1991, Respondent was licensed by the Board of Cosmetology to practice in this specialty area. She still holds this license. Respondent is presently in a precarious financial situation. She has recently had to bear the cost of her husband's funeral. In addition, she has had other expenses that have depleted her financial resources.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent did not violate Section 477.029(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint; (2) dismissing this charge; (3) finding that Respondent violated Section 477.029(1)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint; and (4) imposing upon Respondent, for having committed these violations, an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 ($250.00 for each violation), to be paid in monthly installments of $25.00 the first four months and $50.00 the next eight months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24 day of August, 1992. 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 24 day of August, 1992.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed sexual misconduct in the practice of massage, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent’s license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in the state of Florida, pursuant to chapters 20, 456, and 480, Florida Statutes (2013).1/ At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a massage therapist in Florida, having been issued license number MA 69679 on or about July 26, 2012. In the short period of time since Respondent has been licensed, no prior disciplinary action has been taken against her license. On December 11, 2013, Respondent was working at Lulu’s Massage in West Palm Beach, Florida. That same day, Department of Health investigator/ inspector Kevin Lapham conducted an inspection of Lulu’s Massage, to determine licensure status of individuals working there and to determine compliance with licensure requirements. Mr. Lapham entered one of the massage rooms at Lulu’s Massage, without knocking first. Mr. Lapham observed the following upon entering the room: A completely nude male customer was lying on his back on a massage table. Respondent was standing next to the male, with her hand on his groin and her face near his groin. Respondent was uncovered from her waist to her ankles, with her shorts and underwear pooled around her ankles. When Mr. Lapham entered the room, Respondent reacted by putting her body over the nude male customer’s crotch. At hearing, Mr. Lapham positively identified Respondent, without question or hesitation, as the exposed woman he saw with the nude male customer, as described above, at Lulu’s Massage on December 11, 2013. Mr. Lapham’s testimony was credible, clear, and convincing. Respondent admitted to the intrusion of the Department inspector into the massage room where she was with a male customer on December 11, 2013. Respondent also admitted that when Mr. Lapham entered the room, both her shorts and her underwear were not in place covering her, because they had been pulled down her legs. Respondent blamed her male customer for pulling down her shorts and her underwear so that they were around her ankles, and claims that she objected to his behavior. Respondent’s claim was not credible. Respondent did not step away from the table out of his reach, leave the room, or even pull up her underwear and shorts. Instead, Respondent testified that in reaction to him pulling down her shorts and her underwear, she “tried to comfort him, asking him don’t move.” While Respondent was comforting her nude male customer, the Department inspector entered the room. Respondent denied that she touched the nude male customer on his groin, but offered no reasonable explanation for Mr. Lapham’s contrary testimony. Respondent was arrested by the Juno Police Department on December 11, 2013, and charged with committing, engaging in, or offering to commit prostitution. Respondent testified that the police did not provide her with an interpreter that afternoon, and she did not understand why she was arrested. However, no evidence was offered to prove that the matter was later cleared up, once Respondent had representation and/or an interpreter to assist her in connection with the criminal charges. No evidence was offered to prove the status or disposition of those charges. While no adverse inferences are drawn from the fact of criminal charges, Respondent’s attempt to explain away those charges is not credited. Respondent’s testimony characterizing her actions on December 11, 2013, as lawful and legitimate massage therapy was not credible. Instead, Respondent’s partial verification of the facts observed by Mr. Lapham adds more weight to his clear and convincing testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order imposing a fine of $2,500.00 against Respondent, Hong Yang, and revoking her license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Paula Joan Thigpen, known also as Paula Thigpen, is licensed by the State of Florida, Barbers' Board, to practice as a barber in the State of Florida. Her license number is BB 0025059. Respondent had been married to one William Mann on two occasions, ending in divorce. In addition, Respondent had worked as a barber in a barbershop owned by her former husband. That shop is located at 465 Kingsley Boulevard, Orange Park, Florida. This arrangement allowed her to act as a manager in fact related to the financial aspects of that barbershop, during Mann's absence. In the summer of 1983, a discussion was entered into between the Respondent and her former husband on the topic of opening a barbershop in Middleburg, Florida. It was contemplated that Mann would own the shop and that the shop would be managed by the Respondent. Should the Respondent leave the community due to the duties of her present husband who was serving in the United States Navy, Respondent and Mann understood that the Respondent would be reimbursed for the money she invested in the shop in Middleburg. It was discussed that the Respondent would be guaranteed a salary at the beginning of the shop operation in Middleburg. Finally, it was discussed that should Mann wish to dispose of his ownership of the Middleburg barbershop, Respondent would pay him for his interest in the shop and become the owner. Both Mann and the Respondent spent money in trying to establish the barbershop in Middleburg, to include equipment, supplies, advertising and other related costs. Respondent also devoted labor to establishing the shop in Middleburg. To this end, space was leased in a building in early September, 1983, with Respondent representing herself to the lessor as a partner with Mann. On September 16, 1993, Mann traveled to Tallahassee and obtained a barbershop license for the Middleburg operation, No. BS 0007886. He listed himself as the owner of the shop and paid a $25 licensing fee. The barbershop license came into the hands of the Respondent following its issuance. This occurred sometime between September 16, 1983, and September 21, 1983. The barbershop in Middleburg opened on September 19, 1983, a week earlier than had been anticipated by Mann. On that same date he contacted the Respondent and indicated that he did not wish to pursue the business venture of opening the barbershop. He stated on that occasion that he felt that it would cost too much money and the he was not in a position to guarantee the salary for the Respondent and another person who would be working in the shop. Mann offered to have the Respondent return to his business in Orange Park, Florida. Respondent declined this opportunity. Discussion was then entered into on the possibility of the Respondent buying out Mann's ownership interest. Mann did not accept that disposition. He simply stated that he wanted the shop closed. There was a further conversation on September 20, 1983, in which Mann indicated his willingness to sell the shop based upon the amount of money he had invested in the equipment and supplies and a fee which he thought he was entitled to based upon the aggravation caused by the venture. On September 21, 1983, Mann appeared at the barbershop in Middleburg and told the Respondent that he no longer wished to sell his ownership of the shop. He told her that he wished to have the shop closed and wanted the license which had been issued for the barbershop. Respondent told him that she did not know where the license was. In fact, she had it at her home. Following this exchange Mann sought the assistance of law enforcement and after discussion between a law enforcement officer and the Respondent and her former husband, Mann left the licensed premises in Middleburg, Florida. He departed in view of the fact that the lease was signed by the Respondent, accepting the officer's suggestion that he leave given the indicia of control which the lease seemed to place in the hands of the Respondent, in the eyes of the officer. Before the September 21, 1983, exchange, Respondent had prepared a document which would settle the transfer of ownership from Mann to her. That document was never executed. Nonetheless, Respondent was of the opinion that she was entitled to the ownership interest in the barbershop and she traveled to Tallahassee, Florida, on that date and sought and obtained a barbershop license for the Middleburg, Florida shop for which an initial license had been issued to Mann. The license issued to Respondent for that barbershop was BS 00078887. In the application for that license she indicated that she was the sole owner of the shop and the equipment in the shop. This request for transfer was not authorized by Mann, the shop license holder. Following the issuance of the barbershop license for the same barbershop in Middleburg, Florida, as had been licensed for the benefit of Mann, her former husband offered to sell her his interest in the shop. This offer was made in January, 1984. The offer was only open for a couple of days and the parties were unable to come to an agreement on the purchase. That sale has yet to occur. Under the circumstances of this case, as shown in the course of the hearing, Mann has remained the owner of the barbershop licensed for the Middleburg, Florida operation. This is a fact understood by the Respondent. Although there have been occasions in which Mann seemed willing to sell his ownership and associated license, that purchase was never consummated.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which revokes the barbershop registration No. BS 00078887 issued in the name of Paula Thigpen, imposes a civil penalty in the amount of $500 pursuant to Section 476.204, Florida Statutes, and declines the imposition of further penalties as might be allowed by Section 476.214(1), Florida Statutes, and Section 455.227(1), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 10th day of October 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 L. J. Arnold, III, Esquire Post Office Drawer "D" Green Cove Springs, Florida 32043 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Barber's 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
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent’s barbershop license, based on violations of s. 476.194(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CL-0135324. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of a barbershop which operates under the name Olga’s Beauty and Barber Shop. It has been issued license number BS-0009349 and is located in Ft. Pierce, Florida. Leonard Baldwin is an inspector for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. As part of his statutory duties, he conducts routine inspections of barbershops. As part of his statutory duties, he conducted a routine inspection of Olga’s Beauty and Barber Shop on April 20, 1996. During the course of that inspection, Olga’s Beauty and Barber Shop was open for the business of performing barbering services to members of the public. The time of inspection was approximately 11:30 a.m. He observed an elderly man getting out of the barber’s chair with a fresh haircut. The customer paid Respondent for the service. The person behind the chair was given a tip. He also observed a man, subsequently identified as Javon Stewart, Respondent’s husband, standing behind the chair and placing the clippers in a drawer. The clippers were later determined to be warm. Javon Steward is not licensed to cut hair in Florida. During the course of the inspection, Mr. Baldwin prepared and presented a “Cease and Desist Agreement” to Javon Stewart. Javon Stewart signed the Cease and Desist Agreement and agreed not to engage in the practice of barbering until and unless he was licensed. On May 23, 1996, a reinspection was conducted. During the course of that inspection, Baldwin observed a customer seated in a barber chair inside the barbershop. He saw Javon Stewart with a pair of clippers in his hand standing directly behind the seated customer using the clippers on the customer’s neck. He observed the person “finishing up his customer, cleaning off the bottom of his neck.” The phrase “cleaning off the bottom of a neck” is a barbering term that refers to a person using a set of hair clippers to cut or trim a person’s hair from the back hairline to below the collar line. In this instance, “cleaning off” actually means “cutting or trimming” the hair. During the course of the second inspection, Baldwin observed the customer getting out of the chair, paying the Respondent for the haircut and giving Stewart a tip. Javon Stewart then put the clippers into a drawer. Baldwin immediately walked over to the drawer where the hair clippers were placed and picked them up. The clippers were warm, having just been used.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 476.194(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by employing an unlicensed individual to engage in barbering services. It is further recommended that the Respondent be fined $500.00 (five hundred dollars) and issued a Cease and Desist Order. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of September, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: James E. Manning, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Barbers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ms. Olga Gibb Olga’s Beauty & Barber Shop 1236 Avenue D Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Joe Baker Executive Director Board of Barbers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of barbering and the inspection of barbershops in the state of Florida pursuant to chapter 476, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Archibald was licensed as a barber in the state of Florida under license number BB8890016. At all times material hereto, Fresh Cut Barbershop ("barbershop") was licensed as a barbershop in the state of Florida under license number 1077801. At all times material hereto, Archibald was an owner and operator of the barbershop. On February 9, 2012, the barbershop was located within a shopping plaza at 6574 Northwest Selvitz Road, Port St. Lucie, Florida. On February 9, 2012, a routine inspection of the barbershop was conducted by Ms. Yvonne Grutka, a trained and experienced inspector employed by Petitioner. Ms. Grutka has been employed by Petitioner as an Environmental Health Specialist for approximately 17 years, performing approximately 1,200-1,400 annual inspections. Due to the nature of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, the physical layout of the barbershop, including the specific locations of the front entrance, work stations, and waiting area, is important to a clear understanding and resolution of the issues. However, insufficient evidence was presented at hearing in this regard. Moreover, insufficient evidence was presented as to the number of barbers who worked at the barbershop (and thus number of personal licenses); the identities of the barbers; where specifically within the barbershop they worked; and whether the barbers who worked at the barbershop were independent contractors or employees of the business. The scant evidence presented at hearing demonstrates that on February 9, 2012, the premises upon which the barbershop was physically located was leased from the owner of the shopping plaza. A separate beauty supply business, which was owned by Archibald's ex-wife, was located at the front of the leased premises. The barbershop was located in a smaller area at the back of the leased premises. Both businesses were accessible to customers through a single entry door at the front of the leased space where the beauty supply store was located. Petitioner failed to clearly and convincingly establish that the barbershop was open for business during the February 9, 2012, inspection. During Ms. Grutka's February 9, 2012, inspection, the only persons present at the barbershop were Archibald and another unidentified barber. No evidence was presented that this "other barber" was affiliated with the barbershop in any way. No physical description of this person or his/her clothing was provided. It could be that this barber was just visiting, and was unaffiliated with the barbershop. No customers were present. The time of commencement and duration of the inspection is unknown. On the date of the February 9, 2012, inspection, the property upon which the barbershop was located was in foreclosure. As a result, Archibald was planning to vacate the premises and move the barbershop to another location. During the inspection, boxes of items were on the floor, and other items were removed from walls, evidencing Archibald's intent to vacate the premises. Archibald was present on the date of the inspection. Archibald testified he is unsure whether the barbershop was open for business on February 9, 2012, because of his intent to vacate the building. On rebuttal, Ms. Grutka did not "recall" whether she "saw boxes or not." When asked specifically whether she recalled Archibald saying that he was in the process of moving, Ms. Grutka merely replied: "No. He may have. I really don't recall."1/ With respect to the allegation regarding the improper display of personal licenses, Ms. Grutka testified on direct examination that during the February 9, 2012, inspection, she did not observe personal licenses posted with both the photograph and lamination. She testified that the licenses had the photograph or the lamination on "it, but one of the items was missing." However, no evidence was presented by Petitioner on direct examination as to the specific location of the alleged lack of personal licenses, or the number or identities of the licensees for which personal licenses were purportedly not properly displayed. It was only on cross-examination that Ms. Grutka referred to Archibald's personal license, at which time she testified merely that she recalled seeing his personal license located in the "back" of the premises. Archibald testified that he believes the license was displayed in the barbershop area, which was located in the "back end" of the building. Importantly, Ms. Grutka never testified specifically that Archibald's license was improperly displayed in any way. In sum, Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's personal license, or, for that matter, the personal licenses of any other barbers who worked at the barbershop were improperly displayed. With respect to the issues of the display of the barbershop license, rules of sanitation, and most recent inspection report, Ms. Grutka testified that during the February 9, 2012, inspection, she did not observe a barbershop license displayed visibly within view of the "front door," or the rules of sanitation, health, and safety visibly within view of the "front door" or "waiting area." Nor did Ms. Grutka observe the most recent inspection form prior to the February 9, 2012, inspection displayed within view of the "front entrance" or the "waiting area." According to Ms. Grutka, she did not observe the barbershop license and rules of sanitation, health, and safety, anywhere at the barbershop on the day of the inspection. However, Ms. Grutka's testimony is unreliable and cannot be credited because of insufficient evidence of the physical layout of the premises. In fact, Ms. Grutka testified that she could not recall whether the "waiting area" was in the front of the building, the back of the building, or in both areas. Moreover, Ms. Grutka did not "recall" if the most recent inspection report was posted anywhere else in the barbershop. The unreliability of Ms. Grutka's testimony is further demonstrated through the following exchange, which occurred during Archibald's cross-examination of her: Q: Questions for - - You said you never seen any of our license or anything in the back end? A: Yes, they were up - - not in the back. Your personal licenses I remember, you know, were in the back, but I don't recall the inspection sheet and stuff being moved to the back of the shop " Further undercutting the reliability of Ms. Grutka's testimony is her statement that the rule regarding the display of a barbershop license requires that the license be visibly within view of the front door. Contrary to Ms. Grutka's testimony, rule 61G3-19.009(2) states that "[t]he shop license shall be displayed within view of the front entrance or in the waiting area." Apparently, Ms. Grutka did not even consider whether the license was displayed in the "waiting area," because she could not identify the location of the "waiting area." Moreover, Ms. Grutka testified that she wrote in the report that the shop license was not "anywhere to be found in the shop." However, a review of the inspection report does not support her testimony. In fact, a section within the inspection report titled: "Remarks," was left blank. Nothing was written in the inspection report indicating that the shop license was nowhere in the barbershop. In sum, there is insufficient clear and convincing evidence to conclude that the barbershop license, rules of sanitation, or most recent inspection report were not properly displayed. Finally, during the February 9, 2012, inspection, Ms. Grutka testified she did not observe a recent sticker on the portable fire extinguisher indicating that it had been inspected. According to Ms. Grutka, portable fire extinguishers must be inspected on an annual basis, "as per the Fire Marshall, and they would have a sticker on them indicating that they had been inspected." At hearing, Archibald did not admit to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rather, Archibald persuasively explained that if personal and business licenses and the rules of sanitation and most recent inspection report were not displayed during the February 9, 2012, inspection, it was because the property was in foreclosure, items had been removed from the walls, items were placed in boxes, and he was planning on moving the barbershop to another location. In fact, the barbershop vacated the premises sometime in 2013, and relocated to another shopping plaza. At the conclusion of the February 9, 2012, inspection, Ms. Grutka prepared and signed an inspection report indicating the violations noted in the report, and she informed Archibald of the alleged violations. Archibald acknowledged his receipt of the report. No evidence was presented indicating that a follow-up inspection of the barbershop was ever scheduled or occurred. No citation has ever been issued for the February 9, 2012, inspection. No evidence was presented establishing a prior history of persistent or flagrant violations of the same nature as those alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The evidence at hearing established that even if personal and business licenses, the rules of sanitation, and the most recent inspection report were not properly displayed on the date of the February 9, 2012, inspection, it was an isolated incident.2/ Importantly, the facts adduced at hearing do not clearly and convincingly establish that Archibald personally engaged in any misconduct resulting in the five charges which are the subject of the Administrative Complaint. The evidence failed to establish, clearly and convincingly, that Archibald personally committed, or is personally culpable for, a disciplinary offense which is the subject of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty on all counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 2014.
