Connecticut board finds respondent practiced barbering without a license, sustains four allegations

The Connecticut Department of Public Health’s Practitioner Licensing and Investigations Board heard a disciplinary matter on Nov. 19 concerning Maria DeMichel (petition number 2023-1348). Department counsel informed the board that the respondent had not filed an answer and had indicated by email she would not attend the hearing. The department entered multiple exhibits into the record and moved to deem the allegations admitted; the board voted to approve that motion.

Anthony Nanny, counsel for the department, told the board: “The allegations in this petition are that respondent has been practicing as a barber without a license since at least 2013.” The department offered documentary evidence including investigative reports, a surprise salon inspection, social-media posts and returns of service. Counsel said inspection evidence showed the respondent was the only person at the salon performing work during an inspection and had booked an appointment during the inspection.

With the respondent absent, the board proceeded to a fact-finding session. For each numbered allegation in the statement of charges the board found that the department had met its burden of proof: that the respondent was never issued a barber license by the department; that she had worked at Simone's Barber Shop in Southington since about March 2013; that she had cut and styled hair while unlicensed; and that the conduct violated Connecticut General Statutes Section 22-34. Chairman Anderson and board members voted to sustain each allegation; the board’s fact-finding concluded the hearing.

Kevin Hanstead, attorney with the Department of Public Health, outlined next steps: he will draft a written decision for the board’s review and approval, to be placed on a future meeting agenda (staff indicated January 2026 as the next meeting window). Counsel asked that the board consider issuing an order directing the respondent to cease and desist from practicing barbering prior to any other enforcement or licensing remedies.

The board’s action was administrative: no criminal charge was presented, and the respondent did not appear to contest the allegations. The department’s exhibits and the board’s findings will be reflected in the forthcoming draft decision and the record of the board’s proceedings.

The hearing record shows that the department presented evidence alleging the respondent had used another person’s license at one point; counsel stated that license was lapsed and that the license-holder no longer practiced in Connecticut. The board scheduled review of the draft decision at a subsequent meeting.