Florida Statute 478.42 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXII
REGULATION OF PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS

Chapter 478
ELECTROLYSIS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 478.42

478.42 Definitions.—As used in this chapter, the term:

(1) “Board” means the Board of Medicine.

(2) “Council” means the Electrolysis Council.

(3) “Department” means the Department of Health.

(4) “Electrologist” means a person who engages in the practice of electrolysis.

(5) “Electrolysis or electrology” means the permanent removal of hair by destroying the hair-producing cells of the skin and vascular system, using equipment and devices approved by the board which have been cleared by and registered with the United States Food and Drug Administration and that are used pursuant to protocols approved by the board.

History.—s. 3, ch. 92-172; s. 168, ch. 94-218; s. 144, ch. 97-264; s. 143, ch. 99-397.

F.S. 478.42 on Google Scholar

F.S. 478.42 on Casetext

Amendments to 478.42

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 478.42

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 478.42.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 478.42

Total Results: 3

Society for Clinical and Medical Hair etc. v. Department of Health, Board of Medicine

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-12-30

Citation: 183 So. 3d 1138, 2015 WL 9584834

Snippet: who engages in the practice of electrolysis.” § 478.42(4), Fla. Stat. (2014). Electrolysis is

Dr. Navarro's Vein Centre of the Palm Beach, Inc. v. Miller

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2009-11-18

Citation: 22 So. 3d 776, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 17241, 2009 WL 3837205

Snippet: rather cosmetic electrolysis as defined by section 478.42(5), Florida Statutes (2008). The doctor and her

Moorman v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1946-04-09

Citation: 25 So. 2d 563, 157 Fla. 267, 1946 Fla. LEXIS 724

Snippet: same effect is Jackson v. United States, 102 Fed. 478, 42 C.C.A. 452; State v. Yturaspe, 22 Ind. 360, 125