DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS,
vs.
Respondent.
) Case Nos. 10-2427
September 24, 2010, by video teleconference with hearing sites in Tallahassee, Florida, and Jacksonville, Florida, before Suzanne F. Hood, Administrative Law Judge with the Division of
Administrative Hearings.
For Petitioner: Charles F. Tunniciff, Esquire
The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent violated Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and specific provisions of the
On or about December 2, 2009, Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Petitioner), issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Taste of Saigon II (Respondent). The complaint alleged that Respondent had committed numerous violations of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and/or the rules promulgated thereto. Respondent subsequently requested an informal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes.
During the informal hearing procedure, it became apparent that disputed issues of fact existed. Accordingly, the file, together with the Transcript of the informal hearing, was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 3, 2010. The Division of Administrative Hearings issued an Initial Order, dated May 5, 2010, identifying the case as DOAH Case No. 10-2427.
On May 19, 2010, the undersigned issued a Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference for DOAH Case No. 10-2427. The notice scheduled the hearing for August 10, 2010.
On or about May 3, 2010, Petitioner issued a second Administrative Complaint against Respondent. The complaint alleged that Respondent had committed numerous violations of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and/or the rules promulgated thereto. Respondent disputed the facts as alleged in the complaint.
Petitioner referred the second case to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 15, 2010. The referral included a Motion to Consolidate the second case with DOAH Case No. 10-
2427.
issued an Initial Order, identifying the second case as DOAH Case No. 10-3294. On June 21, 2010, the undersigned issued an Order of Consolidation for DOAH Case Nos. 10-2427 and 10-3294.
On July 22, 2010, Petitioner filed a Motion for Continuance. On August 3, 2010, the undersigned issued an Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference on September 24, 2010.
On the date of the hearing, Respondent failed to make an appearance. After attempting unsuccessfully to contact Respondent and after waiting for an appropriate period of time, the hearing commenced.
Petitioner presented the testimony of two witnesses.
Petitioner offered Exhibits P1-P2, P4-5, and P7-P10 that were accepted as evidence.
The hearing Transcript was filed on September 30, 2010. Petitioner filed a Proposed Recommended Order on October 11, 2010. As of the date that this Recommended Order was issued, Respondent had not filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Hereinafter, unless otherwise indicated, all references are to Florida Statutes (2009), which have not been amended since that time.
Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the operation of public food service establishments pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2010).
Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, licensed by or subject to Petitioner's jurisdiction. Respondent has been licensed at least since October 2007. Respondent's business address is 4860 Northwest 38th Avenue, Suite C, Gainesville, Florida.
"Critical violations" are violations of the Food Code that pose a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and which are identified as food-borne illness risk factors that require public health intervention. "Non-critical
violations" are any other type of violation prohibited by statute or rule.
After inspections on December 19, 2007, August 4, 2008, and August 6, 2008, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint dated September 16, 2008, in Petitioner's Case
No. 2008051321 against Respondent. The complaint alleged the following violations: (a) 03A-07-1, potentially hazardous food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit; (b) 30-02-1, mop sink's vacuum breaker missing at hose bibb; (c) 36-13-1, grease accumulated under cooking equipment; (d) 37-05-1, observed walls soiled with accumulated food debris; (e) 52-01-1, misrepresentation of food or food product by advertising crab on sushi menu but using imitation crab; and (e) 53B-08-1, no proof of required employee training.
On October 6, 2008, Respondent signed a Stipulation and Consent Order, agreeing to pay a fine in the amount of $1,550. in Petitioner's Case No. 2008051321. Petitioner issued a Final Order in that case on October 22, 2008. The record does not indicate whether Respondent ever paid the administrative fine.
Daniel Fulton is Petitioner's Senior Inspector.
Mr. Fulton performed inspections of Respondent's business on January 22, 2009, April 3, 2009, August 12, 2009, and August 17, 2009. These inspections resulted in the issuance of the Administrative Complaint at issue in DOAH Case No. 10-2427.
Julianne Browning is Petitioner's Senior Sanitation and Safety Specialist. Ms. Browning performed inspections of Respondent's business on February 15, 2010 and April 19, 2010. These inspections resulted in the issuance of the Administrative Complaint at issue in DOAH Case No. 10-3294.
On January 22, 2009, Mr. Fulton performed an unscheduled inspection of Respondent's restaurant. During the inspection, Mr. Fulton observed the following critical violations: (a) 03A-07-1, potentially hazardous cold food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit, including but not limited to, noodles on cook line at 51 degrees Fahrenheit; (b) 31-09-1, hand sink in preparation area not accessible for employee use at all times; (c) 35A-03-1 and 35A-05-1, dead and live roaches on premises in several locations; (d) 06-04-1, thawing potentially hazardous foods improperly because water was not running;
(e) 22-20-1, food contact surfaces not sanitized because interior of ice maker not kept clean; and (f) 30-02-1, plumbing not properly installed and/or maintained because vacuum breaker missing on hose bibb at front hand sink.
During the January 22, 2009, inspection, Mr. Fulton observed the following non-critical violations: (a) 14-37-1, cutting board grooved/pitted and no longer cleanable; (b) 10-07- 1, in-use utensils, such as a spoon, stored in standing water at less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit; and (c) 24-05-1, clean
utensils were not properly stored because spoons in the customer area were facing food side up and there were unprotected plates in the sushi area.
After the January 22, 2009, inspection, and a callback inspection on April 3, 2009, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint dated May 19, 2009, in Petitioner's Case No. 2009026581 against Respondent. The complaint alleged the following critical violations: (a) 03A-07-1, potentially hazardous cold food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit;
(b) 12A-12-1, employee working with raw food then with ready-to- eat food without washing hands or changing both gloves; (c) 12A- 13-1, employee handled soiled equipment or utensils then prepared food, handled clean equipment or utensils, or touched unwrapped single-service items without washing hands or changing gloves; (d) 21-12-1, wet wiping cloth not stored in sanitizing solution between uses; and (e) 32-15-1, no hand-washing sign at hand sink used by food employees.
On August 1, 2009, Respondent signed a Stipulation and Consent Order, agreeing to pay a fine in the amount of $1,750. in Petitioner's Case No. 2009026581. Petitioner issued a Final Order in that case on July 1, 2009. The record does not indicate whether Respondent ever paid the administrative fine.
On August 12, 2009, Petitioner's staff made a routine inspection of Respondent's restaurant. During the inspection,
Petitioner's staff observed the following critical violations:
(a) 03A-07-1, cold food not at proper temperature during storage, display, or service, including but not limited to tofu on the cook line at 75 degrees Fahrenheit; (b) 31-09-1, hand- washing sink not accessible for employee use at all times;
(c) 35A-03-1, dead roaches on premises; (d) 06-04-1, potentially hazardous foods improperly thawed at room temperature, including beef, pork, fish, and hamburger; (e) 22-20-1, food contact surfaces not clean and sanitized due to buildup of slime in the interior of the icemaker; and (f) 30-02-1, vacuum breaker missing at hose bibb.
During the August 12, 2009, inspection, Mr. Fulton observed the following non-critical violations: (a) 14-37-1, cutting board grooved/pitted and no longer cleanable; (b) 10-07- 1, in-use utensil stored in standing water less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit; and (c) 24-05-1, clean glasses, cups, utensils, pots and pans not stored inverted or in a protected manner.
On August 17, 2009, Mr. Fulton performed a callback inspection of Respondent's restaurant. During the inspection, Mr. Fulton observed the following critical violations: (a) 31- 09-1, hand-washing sink not accessible for employee use at all times; (b) 35A-03-1 and 35A-05-1, live and dead roaches on the premises; (c) 06-04-1, potentially hazardous food thawed at room temperature; (d) 22-20-1, food contact surfaces not clean and
sanitized due to buildup of slime in the interior of the icemaker; and (e) 30-02-1, vacuum breaker missing at hose bibb.
During the August 17, 2009, inspection, Mr. Fulton observed the following non-critical violations: (a) 14-37-1, cutting board grooved/pitted and no longer cleanable; (b) 10-07- 1, in-use utensil stored in standing water less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit; and (c) 24-05-1, clean glasses, cups, utensils, pots and pans not stored inverted or in a protected manner.
On February 15, 2010, Ms. Browning performed a routine inspection of Respondent's restaurant. During the inspection, Ms. Browning observed the following critical violations:
(a) 03A-07-1, cold food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit during storage, display, or service, including seafood broth, rice, chicken curry in reach-in cooler, chicken in top of reach-in cooler, fish eggs on counter, cream cheese in sushi case, and fish tempura in sushi area; (b) 08A-26-1, food not properly protected during storage based on observation of raw animal food stored over ready-to-eat foods, such as raw eggs over soup and raw beef over cooked shrimp; (c) 12A-13-1, employee handled soiled equipment or utensils then engaged in food preparation, handled clean equipment or utensils, or touched unwrapped single-service items without washing hands or changing gloves; (d) 01B-24-1, ready-to-eat potentially hazardous food, such as eggroll mix with pork, not consumed/sold
within seven days after opening/preparation; (e) 12B-03-1, employee drinking from an open beverage container in a food preparation or other restricted area while rolling silverware;
(f) 08B-04-1, using paper as a food contact surface by storing bread crumbs on greasy brown paper; (g) 22-20-1, build-up of slime in the interior of the ice machine; (h) 30-02-1, vacuum breaker missing at hose bibb; (i) 05-09-1, no conspicuous thermometer in holding units such as sushi case and two reach-in freezers; (j) 09-05-1, improper use of bowl/plastic container or other container with no handle to dispense food such as rice that is not ready-to-eat; (k) 27-16-1, hot water not provided at mop sink because shut off; and (l) 52-01-1, misrepresentation of identity of food or food product because advertising crab delight in sushi bowl and salad platter but using imitation crab instead.
During the February 15, 2010, inspection, Ms. Browning observed the following non-critical violations: (a) 21-11-1, wiping-cloth sanitizing solution not at proper strength and not provided at sushi bar; (b) 14-32-1, using wood that is not hard and close-grained, such as bamboo sushi mats, as a food contact surface; (c) 18-04-1, old labels stuck to food containers after cleaning; (d) 26-02-1, improper re-use of single-service articles such as reusing plastic wrap to cover sushi mats; and
(e) 23-05-1, residue build-up on towel dispenser at cook-line hand sink.
On April 10, 2010, Ms. Browning performed a callback inspection at Respondent's restaurant. During the inspection, Petitioner's staff observed the following critical violations:
(a) 03A-07-1, potentially hazardous food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit, including seafood broth, rice, chicken curry in reach-in cooler, chicken in top of reach-in cooler, fish eggs on counter, fish tempura in sushi area, and conch, salmon, tuna, and cream cheese all in sushi case; (b) 08A-26-1, raw animal food stored over ready-to-eat food, such as eggs over soup;
(c) 12A-13-1, employee handling soiled equipment or utensils then preparing food, handling clean equipment or utensils, or touching unwrapped single-service items, without washing hands or changing gloves; (d) 01-B-24-1, potentially hazardous food not consumed/sold within seven days after opening/preparation;
(e) 12B-03-1, employee drinking from an open beverage container in a food preparation or other restricted area while rolling silverware; (f) 08B-04-1, paper used as a food-contact surface, such as bread crumbs stored on greasy brown paper; (g) 22-20-1, buildup of slime in the interior of the ice machine; (h) 30-02-1 vacuum breaker missing at hose bibb in mop sink; (i) 05-09-1, no conspicuous thermometer in holding units, such as two reach-in freezers; (j) 09-05-1, improper use of bowl/plastic food
container or other container with no handle used to dispense food that is not ready-to-eat, such as rice; (k) 27-16-1, no hot water at mop sink because shut off; and (l) 52-01-1, misrepresentation of food identity, such as advertising crab delight in sushi bowl and salad platter but using imitation crab.
During the inspection on April 10, 2010, Ms. Browning observed the following non-critical violations: (a) 21-11-1, wiping-cloth chlorine sanitizing solution not at proper minimum strength and none at the sushi bar; (b) 14-32-1, improperly using wood that is not hard or close-grained as a food-contact surface, such as bamboo sushi mats; (c) 18-04-1, old labels stuck to food containers after cleaning; (d) 26-02-1, re-use of single-service articles, such as using plastic wrap over and over on sushi mats; and (e) 23-05-1, residue build-up on nonfood-contact surfaces, as found on towel dispenser at hand sink on cook line.
During the above-referenced inspections, Petitioner's staff repeatedly observed the same critical and non-critical violations of the Food Code at Respondent's restaurant. Even if Respondent was able to correct some of the violations while Petitioner's staff was on the premises, Respondent made no effort to ensure that the violations did not re-occur before the next inspection.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2010).
Petitioner has the burden of proving the allegations contained in the two Administrative Complaints at issue here by clear and convincing evidence. See Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection v.
Osborne Stern and Company, 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996).
Petitioner has a duty to regulate public food service establishments in order to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare. See § 509.032(1), Fla. Stat.
Pursuant to Section 509.032(6), Florida Statutes, Petitioner has authority to promulgate rules as necessary to carry out the provisions of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes.
Section 509.261(1), Florida Statutes, provides that any public food service establishment that has operated or is operating in violation of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, or the rules promulgated thereunder, is subject to fines not to exceed
$1,000 per offense and the suspension, revocation, or refusal of a license.
Section 509.292(1), Florida Statutes, provides as follows in relevant part:
An operator may not knowingly and willfully misrepresent the identity of any food or food product to any of the patrons of such establishment. The identity of food or a food product is misrepresented if:
The description of the food or food product is false and misleading in any particular; (b) The food or food product is served, sold, or distributed under the name of another food or food product; or (c) The food or food product purports to be or is represented as a food or food product that does not conform to a definition of identity and standard of quality if such definition of identity and standard of quality has been established by custom and usage.
Violation 03A-07-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 3- 501.16(A), which requires potentially hazardous cold food to be held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit, except during preparation, cooking or cooling. Petitioner's staff observed this critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on four occasions.
Violation 31-09-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 5- 205.11(A), which requires that hand sinks be accessible for employee use at all times. Petitioner's staff observed this critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on three occasions.
Violation 35A-03-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 6- 501.112, which requires the removal of dead or trapped birds, insects, rodents, and other pests from the premises.
Petitioner's staff observed this critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on three occasions.
Violation 35A-05-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 6- 501.111, which requires control of live pests, such as insects and rodents, on the premises. Petitioner's staff observed this critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on one occasion.
Violation 06-04-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 3- 501.13, which requires thawing potentially hazardous food under refrigeration that maintains the food at 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less or completely submerged under running water. Petitioner's staff observed this critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on three occasions.
Violation 22-20-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 4- 602.11(E), which requires that surfaces of utensils and equipment contacting food that is not potentially hazardous to be cleaned as often as necessary to preclude the accumulation of soil or mold. Petitioner's staff observed this critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on five occasions.
Violation 30-02-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 5- 203.14, which requires a backflow prevention device to preclude backflow of a solid, liquid, or gas contaminant into the water- supply system at each point of use, including on a hose bibb. Petitioner's staff observed this critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on five occasions.
Violation 08A-26-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 3- 302.11(A)(1), which requires the protection of food, such as raw animal foods and raw or cooked ready-to-eat food, from cross contamination. Petitioner’s staff observed this critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on two occasions.
Violation 12A-13-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 2- 301.14, which prohibits an employee from handling soiled equipment or utensils then engaging in other activities such as food preparation without washing hands or changing gloves. Petitioner's staff observed this critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on two occasions.
Violation 01B-24-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 3- 501.18(A), which requires that potentially hazardous food be discarded within seven days after opening or preparation if not consumed or sold within that time. Petitioner's staff observed this critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on two occasions.
Violation 12B-03-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 2- 401.11, which prohibits eating, drinking from an open beverage container, or using tobacco in food preparation areas or other restricted areas. Petitioner's staff observed this critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on two occasions.
Violation 08B-04-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 3- 304.13, which prohibits linens and/or napkins from being used in
contact with food unless they are used to line a food service container and replaced each time the container is refilled.
Petitioner's staff observed this critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on two occasions.
Violation 05-09-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 4- 204.112, which requires a conspicuous thermometer in mechanically refrigerated or hot food storage units. Petitioner's staff observed this critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on two occasions.
Violation 09-05-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 3- 301.11, which requires employees to minimize bare hand and arm contact with exposed food that is not in a ready-to-eat form. Petitioner's staff observed this critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on two occasions.
Violation 27-16-1 is addressed by Food Code Rules 5- 202.12(A) and 5-202.12(B), which requires that hot water be available at hand sinks. Petitioner's staff observed this critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on two occasions.
Violation 52-01-1 is addressed by Section 509.292(1), Florida Statutes, which prohibits any misrepresentation of the identity of food or food products. Petitioner's staff observed this critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on two occasions.
Violation 14-37-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 4- 501.12, which requires that all cutting surfaces, such as scratched and scored cutting blocks and boards, be resurfaced if they can no longer be cleaned and sanitized or discarded if they are not capable of being resurfaced. Petitioner's staff observed this non-critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on three occasions.
Violation 10-07-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 3- 304.12(F), which requires that food preparation and dispensing utensils to be stored in a container of water maintained at a temperature of at least 135 degrees Fahrenheit during pauses in food preparation. Petitioner's staff observed this non-critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on three occasions.
Violation 24-05-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 4- 903.11(B), which requires clean equipment and utensils to be stored in a self-draining position that allows air drying and/or covered and inverted. Petitioner's staff observed this non- critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on three occasions.
Violation 21-11-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 3- 304.14(B)(2), which requires that wet cloths used for wiping food spills be stored in a chlorine sanitizing solution at the proper minimum strength. Petitioner's staff observed this non- critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on two occasions.
Violation 14-32-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 4- 101.19, which prohibits the use of wood, other than a hard and close-grained type, as a food contact surface. Petitioner's staff observed this non-critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on two occasions.
Violation 18-04-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 4- 603.12, which prohibits leaving old labels stuck to food containers after cleaning. Petitioner's staff observed this non-critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on two occasions.
Violation 26-02-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 4- 502.13(A), which prohibits the re-use of single-service articles. Petitioner's staff observed this non-critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on two occasions.
Violation 23-05-1 is addressed by Food Code Rule 4- 602.13, which prohibits a build-up of residue on non-food contact surfaces. Petitioner's staff observed this non-critical violation in Respondent's restaurant on two occasions.
Clear and convincing evidence indicates that Respondent repeatedly violated Section 509.261, Florida Statutes, and numerous provisions of the Food Code as set forth above. The appropriate penalty for these violations is controlled by the disciplinary guidelines set forth in Florida
Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.005, which states as follows in relevant part:
Definitions.
“Critical violation” means a violation determined by the division to pose a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and which is identified as a food borne illness risk factor, a public health intervention, or critical in DBPR Form HR-5022-014 Lodging Inspection Report or DBPR Form HR-5022-015 Food Service Inspection Report, incorporated by reference in subsection 61C-1.002(8), F.A.C., and not otherwise identified in this rule.
“Non-critical violation” means a violation not meeting the definition of critical violation and not otherwise identified in this rule.
“First offense” means a violation of any law subject to penalty under Chapter 509, F.S., when no disciplinary Final Orders involving the same licensee have been filed with the Agency Clerk within the 24 months preceding the date the current administrative complaint is issued.
“Second offense,” and “second and any subsequent offense” mean a violation of any law subject to penalty under Chapter 509, F.S., after one disciplinary Final Order involving the same licensee has been filed with the Agency Clerk within the 24 months preceding the date the current administrative complaint is issued, even if the current violation is not the same as the previous violation.
"Third and any subsequent offense” means a violation of any law subject to penalty under Chapter 509, F.S., after two or more disciplinary Final Orders involving the same license have been filed with the Agency Clerk within the 24 months preceding the date the current administrative complaint is issued, even if the current violation is not the same as the previous violation.
Standard penalties. This section specifies the penalties routinely imposed against licensees and applies to all violation of law subject to a penalty under chapter 509, F.S. . . . .
Non-critical violation.
1st offense--Administrative fine of $150 to $300.
2nd offense--Administrative fine of $250 to $500.
3rd and any subsequent offense-- Administrative fine of $350 to $1,000, license suspension, or both.
Critical violation. Fines may be imposed for each day or portion of a day that the violation exists, beginning on the date of the initial inspection and continuing until the violation is corrected.
1st offense--Administrative fine of
$250 to $500.
2nd offense--Administrative fine of
$500 to $1,000.
3rd and any subsequent offense-- Administrative fine of $750 to $1,000, license suspension, or license revocation or any combination thereof.
Misrepresenting food or food product. Fines may be imposed for each day or portion of a day that the violation exists, beginning on the date of the initial inspection and continuing until the violation is corrected.
1st offense--Administrative fine of
$500 or license suspension.
2nd offense--Administrative fine of
$1,000, license suspension, or license revocation or any combination thereof.
* * *
Aggravating or mitigating factors.
The division may deviate from the standard penalties . . . based upon the consideration of aggravating or mitigating factors present in a specific case. The division shall consider the following aggravating and mitigating factors in
determining the appropriate disciplinary action to be imposed and in deviating from the standard penalties:
Aggravating factors.
Possible danger to the public.
Length of time since the violation occurred.
Number of violations in the current administrative complaint.
Severity of violation in the current administrative complaint.
Disciplinary history of the licensee within the 60 months preceding the date the current administrative complaint was issued.
* * *
Mitigating factors.
* * *
Absent any mitigating circumstances, a license may be suspended for no less than two days. Terms of license suspensions resulting from multiple violations or Final Orders shall be applied consecutively, not concurrently.
Fines resulting from multiple violations or Final Orders shall be assessed cumulatively.
License revocation may be recommended in any case or for any violation when the aggravating circumstances, licensee's compliance history, and conditions of the public lodging establishment or public food service establishment present a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
The relevant aggravating factors include the following: (a) the danger to the public created by Respondent's numerous and repeated critical violations; (b) Respondent's failure to correct critical violations first brought to its
attention in December 2007; (c) the number of violations at issue in these consolidated cases; (d) the severity of the violations at issue here; and (e) Respondent's disciplinary history within the 60 months prior to the current Administrative Complaints. There are no mitigating factors for consideration here.
Based on the specific allegations contained in the two Administrative Complaints at issue here and after considering the penalty guidelines set forth above, Respondent should have its licensed suspended for at least two weeks.
That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for six consecutive days as a penalty in DOAH Case No. 10-2427 and for ten consecutive days as a penalty in DOAH Case No. 10-3294.
DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
SUZANNE F. HOOD
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 2010.
Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and
William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and
15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
