Nevada cosmetology board imposes fines and 10‑year revocations on two spas; Qday ordered $22,000 in fines

The Nevada State Board of Cosmetology on Feb. 23, 2026, adopted disciplinary orders against two licensed establishments after hearings and default proceedings, imposing multi‑thousand‑dollar administrative fines and 10‑year revocations of the businesses’ establishment licenses.

At a morning disciplinary hearing the board considered complaint C‑2025‑0311 against Valley Spa (license S708692). Deputy Attorney General Joseph Ounio told the board the evidence would show the business “chose to disregard the rules designed to protect the public.” Owner‑operator Adam Spencer Dick appeared, was sworn and told the board he had previously relinquished other licenses and was not contesting the factual allegations; he asked for leniency on the financial penalties. The board accepted the respondent’s stipulation to the complaint’s factual findings and admitted the division’s exhibits into evidence. After deliberation the board voted to impose administrative fines totaling $14,000, to revoke the establishment license for 10 years, and to seek full recovery of investigative and attorney costs; the motion set a repayment timeframe to be handled with staff and the order (the motion text and timing were discussed on the record and the board instructed staff to follow up with the respondent on payment logistics). Mr. Dick told the board he had already paid prior citations and said he lacked funds to pay additional penalties immediately.

Later in the morning the board opened a hearing on complaint C‑2025‑0821 against Qday Spa (license S708751). Counsel for the respondent, Andrew Pastwick, said his client would not contest a default at the hearing. Chief compliance officer Jamie Huggin offered the Division’s recommended discipline: maximum administrative fines for the listed violations (the Division calculated an administrative‑fine total of $22,000 at maximums), revocation of the establishment license for 10 years, and full recovery of investigative and attorney costs, with payment due within 90 days of the signed order. The board discussed the payment window and enforcement but ultimately approved the Division’s motion by voice vote: $22,000 in administrative fines (administrative‑fine total), full recovery of staff investigative costs and attorney fees, and a 10‑year revocation of the license, with costs due per the order.

What the board said and what happens next

Deputy Attorney General Joseph Ounio urged the board to enforce the law in the Valley Spa matter, saying the Division’s evidence would show practices that “place clients at risk.” The owners’ representatives in each case had an opportunity to be heard: Adam Spencer Dick stipulated to the factual record and asked for mitigation; Qday Spa’s counsel declined to oppose a default and asked for mercy on fines. The board’s final orders will be memorialized in written disciplinary orders that specify the fines, costs and payment deadlines; staff said they will calculate recoverable investigative and attorney fees and communicate next steps to the respondents.

Why it matters

The board’s actions enforce state cosmetology statutes and regulations intended to protect public health and safety by ensuring sanitation standards, lawful staffing and proper licensing at establishments that provide cosmetology and massage services. The 10‑year revocations remove the establishment‑level authority to operate cosmetology services under the licensed trade for a decade, and the orders require owners to satisfy fines and recoverable costs.

What to watch for

Board staff said they will compute final investigative and attorney costs and notify the respondents of the dollar amounts and repayment process. Any respondent wishing to challenge a signed disciplinary order may have appeal rights spelled out in the board’s order; the board’s staff also said it will begin follow‑up communications to ensure compliance with the orders.