In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
 P. O. Box 25147 at
 Houston, Texas 77005

 and

 SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
 5215 Yoakum Boulevard at
 Houston, TX 77006

 P.S. Docket No. 6/82;  
 
 02/27/79
 
 Cohen, James A.  

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:
 Daniel S.Greenberg, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Office
 U.S. Postal Service
 Washington, D. C.  20260

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Jack Paller, Esq.
 Katz, Paller & Land
 400 Colony Square, Suite 1633
 Atlanta, GA 30361

Respondent has appealed from the Initial Decision of Administrative Law Judge Quentin E. Grant holding that, with regard to its product "Formula #24," Respondent is engaged in conducting a scheme for obtaining money through the mails by means of false representations within the meaning of 39 U.S.C. § 3005.

Respondent, Scientific International, Inc., placed advertisements seeking the remittance of money through the mail for its "Formula #24," a product which the advertisements represent would affect hair loss and hair growth.

As the result of a complaint filed by the Consumer Protection Office of the U.S. Postal Service, a hearing was held at which Complainant offered the testimony of William R. Knowles, a highly qualified medical doctor specializing and certified in dermatology. Evidence on Respondent's behalf was presented primarily by Mr. Refugio Escobedo, the operator of a hair salon for men and women.

After evaluation of the evidence presented, the presiding Administrative Law Judge concluded that the use of Formula #24 would not produce for most users the results represented and therefore found the representations of Respondent to be materially false in fact. Accordingly the Administrative Law Judge recommended issuance of an order pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 3005.

Respondent takes exception to 13 of the 18 Findings of Fact and 4 of the 5 Conclusions of Law in the Initial Decision. In general, Respondent's exceptions represent its disagreement with the Administrative Law Judge's evaluation of the evidence and the weight accorded portions of the evidence. For the most part Respondent has not shown the existence of any error of fact or law in the Initial Decision. Many of the arguments advanced by Respondent in support of a specific exception do not relate to the Finding of Fact to which the exception is purported to be taken. Other of the exceptions are repititious.

Each of Respondent's exceptions has been considered, although they have not been separately addressed. The entire record has been reviewed and considered in connection with the exceptions. On the basis of this review it is concluded that with the slight modification contained in this decision, the findings and conclusions of the Initial Decision are supported by the evidence presented and the Initial Decision is correct.

Respondent's principal exception pertains to Finding of Fact No. 15. In this finding it was held that Mr. Escobedo's testimony was confused and that he seemed to be unable to distinguish between actual hair growth and the appearance or illusion of growth. In a lengthy discussion, Respondent attributes this confusion to the conditions under which Mr. Escobedo's testimony was received. Mr. Escobedo's testimony could have been received in a more orderly fashion; however, Mr. Escobedo was afforded full opportunity to state what he observed and the manner of receipt of the testimony was not the cause of the confusion. Mr. Escobedo was unable to convincingly state that during the 14-day test, for any of the three individuals involved in the test, hair loss stopped or new hair in fact grew (e.g., Tr. 92, 95, 99, 101, 108, 110, 115, 117, 132, 134, 136, 145, 152, 158, 162).

Respondent's exception to Finding of Fact No. 14 correctly notes that the fact finding is in error when it states that "before" pictures were taken after the third or fourth day of a test being supervised by Mr. Escobedo. The unchallenged testimony is that the "before" photographs were taken prior to the commencement of the test (Tr. 69). However, this error does not appear to have an effect on the ultimate conclusion reached in the Initial Decision.

Respondent's exceptions to the Conclusions of Law essentially result from its disagreement with the Findings of Fact and the weight or interpretation given the evidence by the Administrative Law Judge. Based on a review of the record, the Administrative Law Judge's evaluation of the evidence has been found to be proper and therefore the Conclusions of Law contained in the Initial Decision are also proper. The only exception to a conclusion of law which alleges a misapplication of the law is the exception to Conclusion of Law No. 2. In connection with this exception Respondent states the conclusion is not consistent with reasonable inference (citing Donaldson v. Read Magazine, Inc., 333 U.S. 178 (1948)) or common experience. A review of Respondent's advertisement and the evidence in the record persuades me that the conclusion is consistent with reasonable inference under the principle established in the cited case. Moreover Respondent's Answer and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law admit the existence of this representation.

After consideration of the entire record, it is concluded that the evidence presented establishes that Formula #24 does not stop hair loss or cause new hair to grow and that the Respondent is engaged in a scheme for obtaining money through the mails by means of false representations. Except for the one error of fact noted above, the Initial Decision is affirmed and the appeal is denied. Accordingly a remedial order under the provisions of 39 U.S.C. § 3005 is being issued contemporaneously with this decision.