Former manicurist testifies in petition to reinstate license after Botox accusation; board to deliberate in closed session

Administrative Law Judge Jamie Teagle Burgos opened the record in OEH case number 2025100622 to hear a petition for reinstatement filed by Darya (recorded in earlier parts of the proceeding as Dara/Daira) Carmona Vega. Deputy Attorney General Molly Selway identified jurisdictional exhibits and summarized the agency's case history, saying the board received an anonymous complaint alleging Vega administered Botox and later filed an accusation. According to Selway, Vega was issued a manicurist license (M355610) on 01/20/2022 and an establishment license (A346091) on 02/01/2022; she surrendered both licenses and they were revoked effective 02/29/2024. Vega filed the petition for reinstatement on 06/24/2025.

Vega testified after being sworn, acknowledging she previously held an LVN license and opened a salon. She said she performed Botox for a short period, did not fully understand the scope limits that separate nursing and cosmetology work, and surrendered her licenses after consulting counsel. "I didn't look into it," she said, describing how she thought prior medical experience made procedures permissible. She described significant personal and financial impacts since surrendering her licenses and said she had taken child-development classes and was volunteering while out of the industry.

Deputy Attorney General Selway and board members questioned Vega about the specific allegations and the broader health and safety findings in the accusation. Selway emphasized that administration of Botox was the primary, most serious allegation and asked Vega whether she understood the risks; Vega acknowledged that Botox "paralyzes" muscles and could be dangerous. Board member Tanya Fairley listed sanitation violations in the record (insufficient disinfectant, tools stored or labeled improperly, soiled disinfectant) and pressed Vega on what she would do differently to protect the public; Vega replied she would disinfect between clients and be more diligent about disposal and cleaning.

Other board members raised concerns about monitoring and supervision if Vega returned to work at an establishment owned by her husband, and whether probation could be effective if Vega remained involved. A board member who spoke at length said Vega's testimony did not show sufficient remediation or learning and stressed that the board's focus is consumer safety, not the petitioner's financial need. "What matters is health and safety," the board member said.

The judge excused Vega and the board moved into closed session for deliberations; the board will issue a written decision after the hearing and did not announce a decision that day.

The hearing record includes documentary exhibits (tabs 1—6) that the deputy attorney general identified for jurisdictional purposes and which will be uploaded to the case center. The fine and costs in the surrender order were listed in the record as $2,786.87; Selway asked Vega if she understood that those costs would need to be paid prior to issuance of any license, and Vega said she could pay if required. The written decision will be the board's final action on the petition.