Petitioner Tuang Khong Dang testifies at State Board hearing seeking cosmetology license reinstatement
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Tuang Khong Dang told the State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology that family tragedies and staffing shortages contributed to past inspection violations and probation noncompliance; the board admitted the petition packet and will decide the reinstatement in closed session.
An administrative law judge heard sworn testimony Aug. 6 from Tuang Khong Dang, who asked the State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology to reinstate his revoked cosmetologist license.
Dang emphasized personal hardship and staff shortages as reasons for past compliance failures. He told the board that after losing three employees in a car accident and suffering a family tragedy he “gave up with my business” and apologized for prior conduct. He said he now performs permanent-makeup services and would pay outstanding costs and comply with probation if reinstated.
The Department of Justice deputy attorney general, Caitlin Dougherty, presented the petition packet and summarized Dang’s licensing history, including an accusation and a stipulated settlement that placed his cosmetology and establishment licenses on probation in 2017, a later surrender of the establishment license, a petition to revoke probation, and an administrative default that revoked his cosmetology license effective Nov. 30, 2018. Dougherty told the board Dang owes $4,587.50 in investigation and enforcement costs and that the petition lacks supporting documentation of rehabilitation.
The administrative law judge, Sean Gavin, swore in Dang and allowed board members to question him. Board members asked why Dang failed to complete remedial education and quarterly probation reports, and whether he had taken safety and sanitation courses since the discipline. Dang replied he attempted to complete coursework but encountered a school closure and later obtained tattoo/permanent-makeup training; he said he would take safety courses and pay the outstanding costs if his license were reinstated.
No board vote occurred in the hearing. The petition packet and attachments were admitted into evidence, Dang testified under oath, and both parties submitted the matter. Gavin told Dang the board would meet in closed session and that a written decision would be mailed. The board did not take any public action at the hearing.
The hearing record shows the board permitted the petition materials and heard testimony but deferred any decision to a later closed-session deliberation and formal vote.
Board members and staff said they will weigh the admitted evidence, probation history, and any rehabilitation documentation before deciding whether to reinstate Dang’s license.