Two petitions for license reinstatement heard; board closes record, will decide later

The Board of Barbering and Cosmetology heard two petitions for reinstatement during its Feb. 10, 2025 meeting and accepted testimony before closing the record to deliberate at a later date.

Administrative Law Judge Patrice Huber opened both hearings. Deputy Attorneys General presented the state’s records in each case; petitioners gave sworn testimony and submitted supporting documents. After receiving evidence and asking questions, the board members closed the record in both matters and will issue written decisions later.

Why it matters: Reinstatement hearings determine whether a revoked cosmetology license may be returned. The board’s determinations affect public-safety oversight of personal-care services and the professional futures of the petitioners.

Athena Bullock petitioned to reinstate cosmetologist license No. 533783, revoked following a default decision that found she performed a relaxer touch-up in 2012 that caused substantial hair loss for a client. Deputy Attorney General Megan Bright summarized the accusation and the prior default decision, and presented six exhibits including the prior decision and Bullock’s petition filed Oct. 2, 2024. Bullock testified under oath that she had been a newly licensed cosmetologist in 2012 and described the incident: she said the client told her a commercial product (“high color”) had been used rather than bleach, and Bullock “took her word for what she said.” She described what she now would do differently, telling the board she would perform a strand test and give more thorough consultations, and said she is open to probation if the board grants reinstatement. Bullock testified she has worked in hospice and holds CNA credentials, and that she has not performed chemical services since the revocation.

In the hearing record, the accusation alleged a 2012 service resulted in “approximately 90 percent” of the client’s hair “melting or burning and falling off”; the board issued a default decision revoking Bullock’s license effective July 17, 2014. Bullock submitted three letters of reference and certificates of completion as supporting exhibits. After questioning from the deputy attorney general and board members — who emphasized supervision, mentorship and the importance of strand testing — Bullock’s matter was submitted and the record closed. No decision was made at the hearing.

The second petition concerned Blooming Couture Nails LLC and licensee Phuong (spelled at hearing as P-h-u-o-n-g) Tong, whose cosmetology license was revoked by default after multiple inspections, citations and a consumer complaint alleging unsanitary conditions at her establishment. Deputy Attorney General Adriana Lazark presented nine exhibits including inspection reports, citation letters, the default decision entered July 17, 2023 (effective Aug. 17, 2023) and the petitioner’s reinstatement request filed Dec. 30, 2024. The state’s presentation described repeated failed inspection attempts, citation fines that remain unpaid, and a consumer complaint alleging an animal on the premises.

Tong testified under oath that she had owned Blooming Couture Nails and that she left the business in 2018 to care for an ill family member. She told the board she sold the business around Aug. 1, 2018, to an individual she identified as Kim Nguyen and later discovered the buyer apparently never completed an ownership transfer. Tong said she did not receive the board’s notices and that tracking numbers show some mailings were returned; she acknowledged citations remain unpaid and said she lacks receipts for money orders she believed she provided. Board members questioned Tong about repeated citations related to sanitation, display of license, and worker supervision; Tong said she planned to run a single-operator salon if granted reinstatement and cited childcare and caregiving duties that interrupted business oversight. After questions from staff and board members, Tong’s matter was also submitted and the record closed. The board will deliberate and issue written decisions at a later date.

Both proceedings were conducted with a court reporter present and followed the Office of Administrative Hearings process. No final board actions were taken at the meeting; both petitions were submitted and the administrative record closed.

What’s next: The board will deliberate and issue written decisions on each petition; the transcript and exhibits will be part of the administrative record.