Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discipline Licensure Revocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nevada Cosmetology Board revokes Maryland Spa license after default hearing, fines imposed
Summary
After finding service proper and accepting staff allegations by default, the Nevada State Board of Cosmetology revoked Maryland Spa's license for 10 years, ordered $2,000 administrative fines per listed violation and required payment of investigation costs.
The Nevada State Board of Cosmetology voted March 24, 2025, to revoke the license of Maryland Spa (license S709130, business ID NB20232876572) and to impose administrative fines and investigation costs after the respondent failed to answer or appear at a disciplinary hearing.
Board staff told the board the division mailed the complaint and notice of hearing and that the respondent declined to file an answer or appear. Chief Compliance Officer Jane Huggins testified about attempts at service and that one of the certified mailings was delivered to an address found by skip trace. Division counsel asked the board to proceed with a default and to adopt the recommended discipline, including the maximum administrative penalties under “6 44 a NRS and NEC,” a 10-year revocation and recovery of investigative costs.
The board first voted that the factual allegations presented by staff were proven and then separately voted that the alleged violations occurred. The board then voted to revoke Maryland Spa’s license for 10 years, impose administrative fines in the amount of $2,000 per account/violation to be paid within three months, and require payment of investigation costs and attorney fees that the board had incurred. The motions carried with no recorded opposition.
The complaint referenced 41 numbered allegations in the division’s filing. Board members discussed that staff had attempted settlement with the licensee and had an unsigned settlement agreement in their file; staff said the respondent refused to sign the proposed settlement and therefore the matter proceeded to hearing. Board members also confirmed proof of service evidence in the record before voting.
The board’s action is recorded on the complaint file (C2024-0884). The board did not state a separate effective date beyond adoption at the March 24 meeting. The transcript shows staff asked for full recovery of investigative costs and for the maximum penalties allowed under the statute the division cited.
The board’s order will be reflected in the official disciplinary order and the board’s licensing database. The transcript contains staff testimony and the board’s motions and votes.
