The Issue Whether the certificate of registration of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for the reason that Respondent, Arguster Jackson, did work as a master cosmetologist without a valid certificate of registration.
Findings Of Fact A copy of the Complaint with attached license, the certificate, and receipt for certified mail were entered into evidence as requested and marked Exhibit 1 without objection. Respondent entered a guilty plea, a copy of which was entered into evidence as requested without objection and marked Exhibit 2. Respondent Jackson did operate without a current registration required by Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. Respondent secured her master cosmetologist certificate within a time laps after the filing of this Complaint.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 477.029(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2007),1/ regulating licensure as a cosmetologist by the State of Florida, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 477, Florida Statutes (2015). The Board is the professional licensing board charged with disciplinary final agency action against cosmetologists pursuant to chapters 455 and 477. Ms. Jorge was issued Florida cosmetology license number CL 1196463 on April 9, 2008. The Florida license was issued based upon the submission of an application for initial cosmetology license by endorsement. Supporting licensure by endorsement, the application submitted to the Board included a certification dated February 15, 2007, purporting to have been issued by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. That certification indicated that Tania Jorge2/ had completed 1200 hours of study and had been duly licensed as a certified cosmetologist since January 26, 1989. It indicated that her Puerto Rican license number was 71770. Ms. Jorge's application file also contained a transcript purportedly issued by the Academia de Belleza Maruggie in Puerto Rico indicating that her studies began on August 7, 1988, and were completed on May 30, 1989, reflecting the completion of 18 courses totaling 1200 hours of study, and the name, number, and grade received by Ms. Jorge for each course taken.3/ Puerto Rican cosmetology license number 71770 was never issued to Ms. Jorge. Ms. Jorge came to the United States from Cuba in 1980. She testified at hearing that she had never attended cosmetology school in Puerto Rico, had never lived there, and in fact had only visited there once for a few hours on a cruise. Ms. Jorge testified that she went to Specialized Beauty Center (SBC) in Kissimmee in order to prepare for and complete the Florida cosmetology licensure examination. She testified that she paid SBC for a week-long review course to prepare for the examination and that the following week SBC sent her to a different place to take the examination. She testified that she took the examination on a computer, in Spanish. She could not recall the address. Ms. Jorge testified that prior to the examination, she submitted documentation to SBC at its request showing that she had completed 1200 hours of study and completed a course on HIV. She testified that she thought she had completed all of the coursework necessary to obtain cosmetology licensure by examination. Ms. Jorge testified that she did not know that SBC had submitted an endorsement application and not an examination application. The only document introduced at hearing indicating completion of 1200 hours of study is the transcript from the Puerto Rican beauty school in Ms. Jorge's application file. The only document showing completion of an HIV course in her file is a Certificate of Completion for a four-hour course entitled "HIV/Aids 104" and dated March 17, 2008, indicating by heading and signature that it was issued by SBC. Ms. Jorge admitted that she did take that course at SBC. It was not clear why SBC would have required her to take another HIV course if she had submitted documentation showing that she had already met that requirement. Ms. Julie Roland, government analyst with the Department, credibly testified that the cosmetology exam is given at 22 locations around the state by a vendor company called Pearson VUE. She testified that Pearson VUE specializes in developing and administering various types of examinations, has had the state contract at least since 2002, and always gives the examinations at their facilities. There was no documentation in Ms. Jorge's application file from Pearson VUE indicating that Ms. Jorge had taken or passed their cosmetology examination. As Ms. Roland testified, endorsement candidates do not take the examination. Ms. Jorge's application file maintained by the Department contains some documents that do not belong there, although they are all marked with her application number. Her file contains duplicate "Attest Statement" pages: one is signed by Ms. Jorge; the other appears to contain the signature of a Katia (with no letter "h") Mathelier. It similarly contains two "Affirmation Statement" pages: one containing the signature of Ms. Jorge; the other containing a signature reading Katia Mathelier. Curiously, the Affirmation Statement page from the cosmetology license application file of Kathia (with an "h") Mathelier and the Mathelier Affirmation Statement page in Ms. Jorge's file are not identical. Not only is the first name spelled differently, the signatures appear to be in different handwriting, and they display different dates. Similarly, the two Mathelier Attest Statement forms are not simply duplicates. The name is spelled and written differently. It is not clear why the Department did not become aware of these anomalies at the time Ms. Jorge's application was submitted, when it did become aware of them, or what action, if any, was taken when it was discovered.4/ Licensing information records of the Department indicate that Kathia Mathelier is an Orlando cosmetologist who was initially licensed on April 9, 2008. Her application also contains a certificate from SBC showing completion of the HIV/AIDS 104 course. Her application also contains a certification dated February 15, 2007, purporting to have been issued by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico indicating that Kathia Mathelier was the holder of a Puerto Rican cosmetology license. Her application also contains a transcript purportedly issued by the Academia de Belleza Maruggie in Puerto Rico showing the completion of the same 18 courses totaling 1200 hours of study, the same beginning and ending dates of enrollment, exactly the same grade received in every course, and the same typographical errors as the transcript in Ms. Jorge's file. Ms. Jorge testified at hearing that she had no knowledge of Ms. Mathelier and that she did not submit any documents to SBC that were not her own. She testified that SBC prepared and organized all of the application paperwork for her and that she just signed where they told her she needed to sign. The remainder of the application was not in her handwriting. Ms. Jorge signed her application everywhere a signature was required prior to its submission to the Board, and she acknowledged that signing a document places liability on the signee for the contents of that document. There was no deposition or live testimony from Ms. Mathelier at the hearing. There was no testimony from SBC. There was none from the Academia de Belleza Maruggie. No evidence was introduced as to the roles that Academia de Belleza Maruggie or SBC may have played in the fraud, or the relationship between these entities. The inconsistencies and questions about the application are not fully explained on this record, and any complicity on the part of the schools is only a matter of speculation. Ms. Jorge's testimony is not at all credible, however. No evidence in the record supports Ms. Jorge's testimony that she completed 1200 hours of study at a school other than the Puerto Rican school. It is simply not reasonable that SBC discarded school transcripts she provided to it and unilaterally substituted a different forged transcript and a false licensure certification from Puerto Rico without the knowledge or cooperation of Ms. Jorge. The only reasonable inference is that Ms. Jorge paid SBC to submit her licensure application on her behalf, that she was aware that it contained false information, and that she knew she was not licensed as a cosmetologist in any jurisdiction. The evidence is clear and convincing that false documents were submitted to obtain Ms. Jorge's license and that she personally intended for that false application to be submitted. Ms. Jorge is a single mother of two children, one of whom is in college. Revocation of her license will greatly impact her livelihood. Other than the present action, she has practiced cosmetology without complaint since she was licensed in 2008, and no previous discipline has been imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation finding Tania Jorge in violation of section 477.029(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2007), as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; imposing an administrative fine of $500; and revoking her license to practice as a cosmetologist in the State of Florida. It is further recommended that should the board establish, by rule, requirements for reapplication by applicants whose licenses have been revoked, that Tania Jorge be permitted to apply for re-licensure upon satisfying then-current requirements for an initial license. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 22nd day of July, 2016.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida to practice cosmetology, having been issued license number CL 0030044. On September 27, 1966, the Respondent was issued a cosmetology salon license numbered CE 0009517 authorizing the operation of a cosmetology salon called "Bonnie's Boutique," located at 426 South Pineapple Avenue, Sarasota, Florida, owned by the Respondent. The petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, as that relates to licensing and regulation of the activities and practices of cosmetologists and cosmetology salons. After assuming ownership of, and obtaining licensure for the operation of a cosmetology salon, the Respondent began operating Bonnie's Boutique, She operated Bonnie's Boutique as a cosmetology salon until approximately June 30, 1980, when her cosmetology salon license became ripe for renewal. She was leasing the premises in which she operated her business, which lease continued through August of 1983. The Respondent failed to renew her cosmetology salon license number CE 0009517 after it expired on June 30, 1980. From that time until August, 1983, when the lease on the premises expired, the Respondent operated Bonnie's Boutique, albeit on a limited basis due to health problems, performing cosmetology services primarily for friends and relatives. Sometime in January, 1983, in the course of an investigation of the Respondent's activities with regard to the salon premises, it was discovered by petitioner's investigator that the Respondent was operating the cosmetology salon at the above address on at least an intermittent basis without a current cosmetology salon license. Due to health problems, the Respondent has never sought to operate a fully active cosmetology salon business since the expiration of her salon licensure on June 30, 1980. Aside from the subject action there has never been any other disciplinary proceeding instituted against the Respondent with regard to her licensure status.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the evidence of record, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered imposing the penalty of a reprimand on the Respondent Bonnie J. Wagoner. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 20th day of February, 184. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bonnie J. Wagoner 1714 Devanshire Sarasota, Florida 33577 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 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 Respondent violated Sections 477.21(1); 477-15(8) and 477.02(4), Florida Statutes, by operating a cosmetology salon on at least three different occasions to-wit: January 23, 1975, January 24, 1975 and January 30, 1975, without the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact Notice of this hearing was served on Respondent. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the proceeding. Respondent holds a current cosmetology salon license No. 14954 and cosmetologist license No. 68986 Respondent, by her own written admission, has, on January 23, January 24 and January 30, 1975, operated her salon without the supervision of a master cosmetologist.
The Issue Whether Respondent's Deloris Overstreet license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for the reason that she failed to have or to display a certificate of registration.
Findings Of Fact At the time of the inspection by Ms. Artie Mitchell, Respondent had no certificate of registration. Ms. Mitchell left an application form with Respondent and Respondent procured the certificate of registration within fifteen (15) days thereafter. Ms. Overstreet, Respondent, has secured her certificate of registration and has it on display in the beauty shop owned by Respondent doing business as Dee's Beauty Boutique.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 477.02(6); 477.15(8); 477.27(1), Florida Statutes by allowing an unlicensed person to practice cosmetology in the Respondent's salon. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner-manager of the salon doing business as Hairworks, 600 East Business Hwy. 98, Panama City, Florida. Respondent appeared and admitted the fact of the two violations with which the Florida Board of Cosmetology had charged him and which were the subject of this hearing. Respondent admitted allowing Mary Whitfield to practice cosmetology in his salon with a valid cosmetology license. Said Mary Whitfield, has, as of the date of this hearing, a current Florida Cosmetology License No. 19649.
Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1968, the Respondent, Elke H. M. Richey, was issued cosmetology license number CL 0060439 by the Florida Board of Cosmetology. The Respondent renewed this license as required until June 30, 1982. However, during the period from July 1, 1982, through January 10, 1983, the Respondent did not hold an active license to practice cosmetology. On November 18, 1982, Agostino Lucente, an inspector employed by the Department of Professional Regulation, went to the premises of a business named Hair Fashions by Elke, located at 1790 State Road 13, Switzerland, Florida to conduct an inspection. This business was selected for inspection because it appeared on a list of cosmetology salons whose licenses were not current. The Respondent was present during this inspection, and she admitted that she was the owner of the salon. Although the Respondent was not actually observed performing any cosmetology services, the inspector observed the Respondent make appointments for such services by telephone and with persons who came in. In addition, there was on the premises equipment used in the practice of cosmetology such as hair dryers and shampoo stations, hair rollers, creams and lotions. There was an exterior sign advertising Hair Fashions by Elke, there were business cards available for distribution inside the premises, the salon was open for business and there was displayed an occupational license with the Respondent's name on it. This evidence supports a finding that the Respondent was engaged in the practice of cosmetology. On November 24, 1980, the Florida Board of Cosmetology issued to the Respondent license number CE 0030890 for a cosmetology salon named Hair Fashions by Elke, located at 1790 State Road 13, Switzerland, Florida. This license expired on June 30, 1982, and it was not in effect when the Respondent's salon was inspected on November 18, 1982. After the inspection of November 18, 1982, the Respondent attempted to renew her cosmetology license number CL 0060439 and her cosmetology salon license number CE 0030890. On January 11, 1983, the Board of Cosmetology issued a renewal of the Respondent's cosmetology license number CL 0060439, but it did not issue to the Respondent a renewal of her cosmetology salon license number CE 0030890, and the Respondent eventually sold Hair Fashions by Elke in August of 1983.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Elke H. M. Richey, be found guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and that license number CL 0060439 be suspended for one year as penalty for count one, and that the Board of Cosmetology issue a reprimand to the Respondent, Elke H. M. Richey, as penalty for count two. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 9th day of December, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 9th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Elke H. M. Richey 1790 State Road 13 Switzerland, Florida 32043 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation - Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues here concern an Administrative Complaint brought by Petitioner against Respondent alleging that Respondent is guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Subsection 477.028(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and has violated Subsection 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by allowing an employee to practice cosmetology without being duly licensed as provided by Chapter 477, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Toni M. Farmer, presently holds an active cosmetology license issued by Petitioner, License No. CL0062662, for the period July 19, 1982, through June 30, 1984. Between May 6, 1980, and July 6, 1981, Farmer worked as a cosmetologist in a salon operated by Shear Pleasure, Inc., in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. Shear Pleasure, Inc., is the holder of License No. CE0027634. Beginning July 13, 1981, to the present Farmer has worked as a cosmetologist in the salon, Josef and Charles, Inc., d/b/a Josef and Charles Styling Salon, License No. CE0022674, located in Orange Park, Florida. When Farmer began her employment with Shear Pleasure she had a current and valid cosmetology license issued by Petitioner, which license expired June 30, 1980. Around August 18, 1980, Farmer forwarded a cashier's check made payable to the Board of Cosmetology for purposes of renewing her delinquent cosmetology license. Subsequent to the action on the part of Farmer and in the course of a routine inspection, Jewel Walker, an inspector for Petitioner, noted the fact of expiration of Farmer's license. This took place in 1980. When told that Petitioner had not responded to the renewal request, Walker instructed Farmer to post the indicia of payment of fees, i.e., a copy of the cashier's check of August, 1980, at Farmer's work station in the interim and to check the post office for any return of that cashier's check, due to the fact that Farmer had changed her mailing address following the transmittal of the cashier's check. Farmer made other contacts with the Tallahassee, Florida, office of Petitioner to determine the status of her renewal in 1980. In the beginning of 1981, Farmer spoke with Walker about the renewal, having failed to receive any notification confirming license renewal. (In the course of these maters, Walker had indicated certain logistical problems that were taking place, reference license renewal for cosmetologists.) The owner of Shear Pleasure, Inc., Fontaine LeMaistre, was aware of the efforts on the cart of Farmer to obtain license renewal and allowed her to continue as an employee during her tenure. When Farmer took a position with Josef and Charles, her employer was made aware of the fact that she did not have the license document and the employer was made aware of the efforts which Farmer had made to obtain the license. On August 11, 1981, Farmer requested the Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville, which had issued the August 18, 1980, cashier's check to stop payment on that check, based upon the fact that the payee, Petitioner, had not cashed the check. This request was honored and on August 13, 1981, a cashier's check was issued to Toni M. Farmer in the like amount of thirty-five dollars ($35.00), which check was subsequently cashed by Farmer. On May 12, 1982, Charles Coats, an investigator with Petitioner, made an inspection of the Orange Park business of Josef and Charles and discovered that Farmer was without a license. At that time, a copy of the original thirty- five dollar ($35.00) check written to the Board of Cosmetology was shown to Coats. Farmer related the circumstances involving efforts which she had made to obtain the license. Following this conversation, and specifically in June, 1982, Farmer paid the necessary fees and offered required credentials which allowed her license to be renewed, effective July 19, 1982.
Recommendation Based upon a full consideration of the facts found, conclusions of law reached and being otherwise informed, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered authorizing the issuance of a letter of reprimand to the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 29th day of December, 1982.
