IBOL COMPLAINT MEMORANDUM

 

 

            DATE:            October 4, 2010

 

            TO:                  Idaho Board of Cosmetology

 

            SUBJECT:      Investigative Report

 

 

Fiscal Year 2011 (to date)

            Total Complaints received                                                                                               61

            Status:

                        Closed by Board action                                                                              1

                        Pending Legal Review                                                                                2

                        Pending IBOL disciplinary action                                                           20

                        Remaining under investigation                                                                32

                        Awaiting Board determination                                                                   6

 

            Inspections  612

                        Attempted  249

                        Completed  363

 

Fiscal Year 2010

            Total Complaints received                                                                                             290

            Status:

                        Closed by Board action                                                                            26

                        Closed following disciplinary action                                                      13

                        Pending Legal Review                                                                              12

                        Pending IBOL disciplinary action                                                         110

                        Remaining under investigation                                                              107

                        Awaiting Board determination                                                                 22

 

            Inspections  2779

                        Attempted  1027

                        Completed  1752

 

Fiscal Year 2009

            Total Complaints received                                                                                             123

            Status:

                        Closed by Board action                                                                            44

                        Closed following disciplinary action                                                      22

                        Pending Legal Review                                                                              14

                        Pending IBOL disciplinary action                                                           28

                        Remaining under investigation                                                                10

                        Awaiting Board determination                                                                   5

 

            Inspections  1246

                        Attempted  444

                        Completed  802

 

Fiscal Year 2008

            Total Complaints received                                                                                               92

            Status:

                        Closed by Board action                                                                            46

                        Closed following disciplinary action                                                      38

                        Pending Legal Review                                                                                8

 

            Inspections  1817

                        Attempted  788

                        Completed  1029

 

Fiscal Year 2007

            Total Complaints received                                                                                               65

            Status:

                        Closed by Board action                                                                            42

                        Closed following disciplinary action                                                      21

                        Pending Legal Review                                                                                2

 

            Inspections  750

                        Attempted  163

                        Completed  587

 

For Board Determination:

 

I-COS-2009-5, I-COS-2009-6 and I-COS-2009-7  During an inspection, the investigator found that Rs’ shop displayed a barber pole without a licensed barber employed at the shop.  In response to a letter from IBOL, R stated that the barber pole has been removed.  IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.

 

I-COS-2009-54  C alleged R acted in an unprofessional manner after receiving services that were not satisfactory to C.  Investigation revealed that C received a hair color treatment and after returning home became upset at the results of the hair color.  (According to C’s husband, C was told by someone that her hair color “made her look old.”)  The RC who provided the service informed the investigator that she had a consultation with C before the color, that she had shown C color swatches and that C had approved what the RC had suggested.  The salon owner offered to refund one-half of the service money and fix the color to C’s satisfaction, but was unable to work on C that day and would need to schedule C for the following day.  Four witnesses reported to the investigator that C became extremely argumentative and loud and stated that she would not leave until someone “redid her hair for free” or she received a full refund.  The owner spoke with C and her husband and, because C was creating a scene and would not leave, the owner informed the husband that he would have to call the police.  The husband asked the owner not to call the police and agreed to accept a one-half refund.  C and her husband then left the salon.  It appears that, short of providing a full refund, the salon owner did everything he could to please C.  IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.

 

I-COS-2009-83  During an inspection, the investigator discovered R, who is not licensed, performing nail services.  (A separate action is pending against the shop owner for allowing unlicensed practice.)  The Attorney General’s Office sent a cease and desist letter to the only address available for R (out of state), and that letter was returned “not deliverable as addressed” and “unable to forward.”  The AG’s Office is unable to locate R; therefore, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.

 

I-COS-2009-100 and I-COS-2009-101  During an inspection, the investigator found that R’s shop had “barber” in the title without a licensed barber employed at the shop.  The investigator explained that in order to advertise as a barber shop R must have a licensed barber employed.  R immediately submitted a change of name to the Board.  IBOL recommends the Board authorize closure with an advisory letter to R.  

 

I-COS-2009-120  During an inspection, the investigator discovered that the establishment license was expired.  Bureau records show that the establishment was owned by four licensed RCs, one of whom is R.  Investigation revealed that R moved out of state four years ago and that the three remaining owners failed to remove her as an owner from the license.  (Separate cases were opened against the establishment and each of the owners for operating and practicing in an establishment with an expired license.)  The day after the inspection, the three owners submitted a new application reflecting that R is no longer an owner.  IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.

 

I-COS-2010-7 and I-COS-2010-8  During an inspection, the investigator discovered a dog in the establishment while cosmetology services were being performed on the general public.  The investigator informed R that non-service dogs were not allowed in establishments.  Because this is the first offense, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure with a warning letter advising the owners that if dogs are found at the shop in the future, it will be grounds for disciplinary action.

 

I-COS-2010-9, I-COS-2010-10, I-COS-2010-11, I-COS-2010-12  During an inspection, the investigator discovered a dog in the establishment while cosmetology services were being performed on the general public.  The investigator informed R that non-service dogs were not allowed in establishments, and R indicated that it would not happen again.  Because this is the first offense, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure with a warning letter advising the owners that if dogs are found at the shop in the future, it will be grounds for disciplinary action.

 

I-COS-2010-17  During an inspection, the investigator discovered a non-service dog in the establishment.  R informed the investigator that she only stopped by the salon to check on her business books and because it was so hot outside did not want to leave the dog in the car.  The investigator informed R that non-service animals are not permitted in establishments, and R stated that it would not happen again.  No other inspections have noted a non-service animal in the shop.  IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure with a warning letter to R.

 

I-COS-2010-21 and I-COS-2010-22  During an inspection, the investigator discovered that R’s personal and contiguous licenses were expired.  R was not present, and the investigator did not observe R providing services to any customer.  The investigator contacted R, and R stated that she had only worked “a couple of times” since the licenses expired because she was pregnant with her fourth child and now had a 3-week-old baby.  Based on the fact that R admitted providing services “a couple of times” since her licenses expired but the investigator did not observe R providing services, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure with a warning letter to R.

 

I-COS-2010-49  C alleged establishment R failed to provide adequate ventilation in a room where nail services are provided.  Investigation revealed that the room in the establishment is approx. 10 X 12 and that the fan was not functioning properly.  The owner informed the investigator that a replacement fan was on order.  The investigator visited the salon 17 days later and found that the fan had been installed and was functioning properly.  IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.

 

I-COS-2010-82  During an inspection on 10/15/09, the investigator discovered that the establishment was not licensed.  Investigation revealed that Respondent had moved from a prior location and had submitted an application for the new establishment on 1/15/09, but the application was not processed.  On 10/20/09 the license for the new establishment was issued retroactively to 1/15/09.  IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.

 

I-COS-2010-148  C alleged R allowed unlicensed practice in R’s establishment.  Investigation revealed that the employee who was unlicensed had shown R what appeared to be a current license.  That license, however, had been voided because the employee’s check for renewal was returned to IBOL as NSF, and the employee never cleared it up.  Because R had checked with the employee for a current license, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure with an advisory letter to R reminding R that the status of employees’ licenses can be checked on the IBOL website.

 

I-COS-2010-149  R filed a complaint against a former employee (same employee as in I-COS-2010-148 above) for practicing in R’s shop without a license, which also meant that R allowed unlicensed practice.  R stated that she requested that the employee provide a copy of a current license, but the employee never provided it to R.  Investigation revealed that the employee’s license had been voided because the employee’s check for renewal was returned to IBOL as NSF, and the employee never cleared it up.  Because the investigator did not witness unlicensed practice occurring, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure with a warning letter to R reminding R that it is R’s responsibility to ensure that all employees have current licenses and that the status of employees’ licenses can be checked on the IBOL website.

 

I-COS-2010-204 and I-COS-2010-205     During an inspection on 1/15/10, the investigator discovered that the shop did not have a sink with hot and cold running water separate from the restroom facilities.  IBOL records show that R submitted an establishment application on 12/8/09 and signed the affidavit on the application stating that the establishment had “hot & cold running water & approved drainage system separate from the toilet facilities.”  On 12/9/09 IBOL sent a letter to R because a diagram of the shop was not included with the application.  R submitted a diagram, and on 12/11/09 a license was issued.  In her written statement, R stated that IBOL had informed R that there needed to be a water source besides the restroom, and R stated that she would put a sink in.  R stated that she was advised by IBOL to indicate on the diagram where the sink would be and to install the sink, which R stated she did.  On 3/18/10 the investigator visited the shop and verified that the sink had been installed.  IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure with a warning letter to R, advising her that the sink should have been installed prior to her opening and that she is expected to comply with all of the Board’s laws and rules.

 

I-COS-2010-227 and I-COS-2010-228  During an inspection, the investigator discovered two small dogs in the establishment while cosmetology services were being performed on the general public.  The owners informed the investigator that they would not allow dogs in the future, that one dog was owned by a client and the other by the owner of a flower shop next door, and that they apologized for failing to enforce the Board’s rules.  Because this is the first offense, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure with a warning letter advising the owners that if dogs are found at the shop in the future, it will be grounds for disciplinary action.

 

I-COS-2010-253, I-COS-2010-254, I-COS-2010-255, and I-COS-2010-256  Cs alleged R allowed a student to practice prior to licensure (two complainants, both employees of the student’s school, filed complaints against a former student and the student’s current employer). Investigation revealed that on or about 4/22/10, the esthetician student placed an ad on Craigs List for tanning, waxing, microdermabrasions, and make-up services while the student was still attending the school.  The student’s last day at the school was 4/30/10, and the student received her esthetician license on 5/6/10.  The student informed the investigator that her instructor helped her with the wording on the Craigs List ad and students were instructed on how to build clientele.  The student stated that all services were to be performed at the school under an instructor’s supervision, and that she received three calls from the ad.  The student stated that she did not perform any services at her new employer prior to licensure but was required to practice spray tanning on models.  The establishment owner informed the investigator that the student did not perform any services prior to licensure, and the investigator did not find any appointments for the student prior to licensure.  There was no evidence presented to support the allegation that the student performed any services prior to licensure at the establishment.  As to the Craigs List ad, the student claims that the instructor requested that she place the ad and assisted her with the wording, and the instructor denies any knowledge of the ad.  IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure with a warning letter to the former student advising her that she is expected to comply with all Board laws and rules.

 

I-COS-2010-274  During an inspection, the investigator discovered R, an unlicensed individual, giving a pedicure to a customer.  (A separate case is pending against the establishment owner for allowing unlicensed practice.)  IBOL records show that R submitted an NT application in April 2009, but R failed to submit verification of licensure from the previous state in which R practiced.  After the inspection, IBOL sent R a letter advising R that unlicensed practice is a misdemeanor and requesting that R respond to the allegation.  R sent IBOL a letter stating that she contacted the other state’s licensing board to send verification of licensure.  IBOL records show that verification of licensure was received on 6/28/10, and an NT license was issued to R on 6/29/10.  IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure with a warning letter to R.

 

I-COS-2010-275  During an inspection, the investigator discovered R, who is not licensed, working at her sister’s establishment.  (A separate case is pending against the sister for allowing unlicensed practice.)  In response to a letter from IBOL, the sister stated that R lives in Mexico and is no longer in the country, that R does not write or speak English, that the sister spoke with R on the phone about this matter and R is very confused about cosmetology laws and rules in Idaho, that R never wanted to break the law but just help her sister out, that the sister did not trust anyone to handle the establishment while she was out of the country and that is why R was at the salon, that R wants to apologize to the Board and “feels very sad” about causing “this situation.”  With R being out of the country and the case against R’s sister, the shop owner, proceeding, IBOL recommends the Board authorize closure with a warning letter to R (via her sister).

 

I-COS-2011-1  C alleged R is practicing after being diagnosed with HIV and hepatitis.  Investigation revealed that C does have HIV and Hepatitis C.  R’s primary care physician provided the investigator with a letter stating in pertinent part:  “I am writing this letter to inform you that neither HIV nor Hepatitis C can be transmitted by casual contact, such as in the profession of cosmetology.  Therefore, the circumstances do not exist for the transmission of HIV or Hepatitis C in the workplace setting.”  IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.

 

I-COS-2011-15 and I-COS-2011-16  During an inspection of R’s home shop, R allowed her small dogs in the shop.  The investigator informed R that non-service animals are never allowed in the establishment and took off appropriate points on R’s inspection.  IBOL recommends the Board authorize closure with a warning letter to R advising R that if non-service animals are found at the shop in the future, it will be grounds for disciplinary action.

 

I-COS-2011-21  C alleged R, who holds a CS license but not a personal license, is performing facials and applying make-up.  R also leases space to an RC in the shop who performs the cosmetology services for the shop.  R informed the investigator that she has provided a few makeovers and that all skin care facials and makeovers were provided free of charge to introduce the line of product that she retails.  R stated that when she does a facial all products are applied by the customers.  R stated that when she does a makeover, she uses applicators and sanitizes every applicator after one use.  R stated that she believed she was providing a service for her retail cosmetics similar to Avon or Mary Kay consultants.  R closed her business on 7/30/10 and retired.  Although R had a CS license, it appears that in order to apply make-up on customers for retail sale, she also needed a retail cosmetics dealer license.  IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure with a warning letter to R that should she open another business in the future, she must have a retail cosmetics dealer license in order to apply make-up to customers in connection with the sale of retail cosmetics.

 

I-COS-2011-22  C alleged she requested that R apply gel nails but that R instead applied MMA acrylic nails. C informed the investigator that the non-flexible nails were too big causing pressure on the skin around her nails, and her fingers were sore for two days.  C stated that two days later she went to another nail salon and was informed by an NT that the nails looked like MMA acrylics.  C stated that she returned to R’s shop and although R never admitted that the nails were acrylic, R provided C with a refund.  C stated that her nails are damaged and believes it will take nearly a year to recover.  C also provided the investigator with an e-mail from the NT who looked at the nails after they were applied, and the NT stated that in her opinion, the product was acrylic with a thin gel sealer over the top.  The NT stated that “they looked bubbly like acrylic with tiny air bubbles, they were not of a flexible nature like gel would be, and they did not have the same color or texture of a true set of gel nails.”  C informed the investigator that she soaked her nails for 8 hours in acetone and then used a laminate file in an attempt to remove all the substance.  C stated that her husband used a nail file to try and smooth out the nails, but now there is a ridge above her cuticles.  R informed the investigator that the product applied to C’s nails was the Le Chat Powder Gel Nail System and the IBD Intense Seal.  R stated that the powder gel she used for C’s nails is a new technology and denied using any type of acrylic product on C’s nails.  R stated that she tried explaining the use of the powder gel to C but C insisted that the product was acrylic.  R stated that she gave C her money back and that C was just a customer that she could not satisfy.  The parties disagree on the product used, and without the actual nails, it is not possible to verify C’s allegations.  Therefore, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.

 

I-COS-2011-49  During an attempted inspection, the investigator noted that the establishment was not licensed.  In response to a letter from IBOL, the owner of the tanning shop stated that she leased part of the shop to a licensed NT.  The owner stated that after speaking with the investigator, she informed the NT that she could not return to the shop until the NT's area was licensed.  (A separate case is pending against the NT.)  IBOL records show that the NT's area was licensed on 9/22/10.  IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure against the tanning shop owner.

 

I-COS-2011-59  During an inspection, the investigator discovered an unlicensed individual performing nail services.  (A separate case is pending against the owner for allowing unlicensed practice.)  In response to a letter from IBOL, R stated that she has a license in another state and was told by one of the owners (her sister-in-law) that she could work at the shop.  R stated that both the owner and the manager were aware that she did not have an Idaho license and assured R that it would not be a problem.  R stated that when the investigator told her she could not work in Idaho she immediately went to IBOL and was informed that she would need to further her education to become licensed in Idaho.  R stated that she has been looking into cosmetology school to complete the 200 hours she needs for Idaho licensure.  R stated that she understands that she was wrong, that she was very sorry for what she did, and that she did not intentionally plan on violating the law.  IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure with a warning letter to R.

 

I-COS-2011-62, I-COS-2011-63, I-COS-2011-64 and I-COS-2011-65 C alleged R (the shop owner) allowed an unlicensed individual to perform pedicure preps and wax appointments, and that two licensed RCs in the shop also allowed unlicensed practice.  The unlicensed individual’s mother contacted IBOL in response to a letter from IBOL and explained that the unlicensed person is a 17-year-old high school student who worked in the shop 2 times a week for 3 years; that the employee could not remember doing any waxing and only did what the licensed RCs in the shop told her to do; that she did not recall doing anything that required a licensed cosmetologist to do; and that after receiving the letter from IBOL, the employee quit working at the shop because she is applying for college scholarships and doesn’t want to jeopardize her chances.  The owner of the shop stated that the employee turned on the wax machine to heat it up but otherwise did not do anything else involving waxing, and that she did not perform pedicures but did sanitize the tubs.  Based on the responses and the fact that no evidence was presented to support the allegation that an unlicensed individual was practicing cosmetology at the shop, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.