The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was licensed and regulated by Petitioner, having been issued license number 2330422. Respondent’s license authorizes Respondent to operate a public food service establishment known as Emily’s Restaurant No. 2 at 16 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida (the specified location). At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was operating a public food establishment at the specified location (the subject restaurant).2 At all times material hereto, Leonardo Hernandez was an experienced and appropriately trained investigator employed by Petitioner as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist. Mr. Hernandez’s job responsibilities included the inspection of public food service establishments for compliance with pertinent rules and statutes. Violations are classified as either critical or non-critical. A critical violation is one that represents an imminent threat to the general public. A non- critical violation is a violation that does not rise to the level of a critical violation. On April 18, 2006, Mr. Hernandez inspected the subject restaurant. Based on that inspection, Mr. Hernandez prepared a report that noted multiple violations of pertinent rules. Prior to leaving the premises on April 18, 2006, Mr. Hernandez discussed his findings with the owner of the restaurant. Mr. Hernandez found that critical and non-critical violations existed and ordered the owner to correct the violations. On May 22, 2006, Mr. Hernandez conducted a follow-up inspection of the subject restaurant for the purpose of determining whether the violations he had ordered corrected had been corrected. Petitioner proved that the following violations existed at the subject restaurant at the time of the initial inspection on April 18 and at the time of the follow-up inspection on May 22, 2006. PARAGRAPH 1 Section 3-302.11(1)(a) of the Food Code requires that raw meat be stored so that it will not contaminate ready-to-eat food. On both April 18, 2006, and May 22, 2006, Mr. Hernandez observed that Respondent had stored raw meat above ready-to-eat food in violation of the cited Section of the Food Code. Following the initial inspection, Mr. Hernandez warned Respondent’s owner as to this violation and ordered her to correct the violation. The violation had not been corrected as of the second inspection. This is a critical violation because of the manner in which Respondent stored the raw meat could have resulted in the contamination of the ready-to-eat food. PARAGRAPH 2 Section 5-202.12(A) and (B) of the Food Code requires that a hand-washing sink utilized by employees have hot water of at least 38°C (100°F). On both April 18, 2006, and May 22, 2006, Mr. Hernandez observed that Respondent had no hot water at the hand-washing sink utilized by Respondent’s employees. Following the initial inspection, Mr. Hernandez warned Respondent’s owner as to this violation and ordered her to correct the violation. The violation had not been corrected as of the second inspection. This is a critical violation because it pertains to basic sanitation. PARAGRAPH 3 Section 11.4.2 of the National Fire Protection Association requires restaurants to keep oven hoods clean so as to prevent the build-up of greasy or oily sludge. On both April 18, 2006, and May 22, 2006, Mr. Hernandez observed that Respondent had failed to clean the oven hood and that greasy or oily sludge had built-up on the oven hood. Following the initial inspection, Mr. Hernandez warned Respondent’s owner as to this violation and ordered her to correct the violation. The violation had not been corrected as of the second inspection. Mr. Hernandez testified that this was a non-critical violation. PARAGRAPH 4 Section 4-204.112 of the Food Code requires that food storage units have a thermometer to measure ambient temperature and requires that the thermometer be located so that it is easily viewable. On both April 18, 2006, and May 22, 2006, Mr. Hernandez observed that Respondent did not have a thermometer in a refrigerated food storage unit. Following the initial inspection, Mr. Hernandez warned Respondent’s owner as to this violation and ordered her to correct the violation. The violation had not been corrected as of the second inspection. This is a critical violation because of the possible danger to the public that might result from the storage of food at the wrong temperature. PARAGRAPH 5 Section 4-903.11(b) of the Food Code requires that clean equipment and utensils be stored so that they are either inverted or covered. On both April 18, 2006, and May 22, 2006, Mr. Hernandez observed that Respondent had failed to store glasses, cups, utensils, pots, and pans in compliance with Section 4-903.11(b) of the Food Code. Following the initial inspection, Mr. Hernandez warned Respondent’s owner as to this violation and ordered her to correct the violation. The violation had not been corrected as of the second inspection. This is a critical violation because it pertains to basic sanitation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order that finds that Respondent committed the violations alleged in paragraphs 1 through 5 of the Administrative Complaint and imposes administrative fines against Respondent as follows: $1,000.00 for the paragraph 1 violation; $1000.00 for the paragraph 2 violation; $500.00 for the paragraph 3 violation; $1,000.00 for the paragraph 4 violation; and $500.00 for the paragraph 5 violation. In addition, the final order should require Respondent’s owner to attend, at Respondent’s expense, an educational program sponsored by Petitioner’s Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 2006.
Findings Of Fact In their Prehearing Stipulation, filed on August 14, 1990, the parties stipulate to the following: Container Corporation of America (CCA) owns and operates a pulp and paper mill in Fernandina Beach, Nassau County, Florida. The mill is authorized by various Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) permits to discharge industrial wastewater and emit air pollutants and is subject to DER's power to enforce such permits, as well as Chapter 403, F.S. and DER Rules. DER issued an Administrative Notice of Violation charging CCA with various wastewater violations, an filed a judicial action alleging violation of air pollution standards at the mill. The Notice of Violation was issued on April 24, 1990, OGC Case NO. 90-0346; and the judicial action was filed in the Circuit Court of Nassau County in June of 1989, Civ Case NO. 89- 562-CA. CCA has not yet requested a hearing on the merits of the Notice of Violation; it requested an informal conference on the charges, which tolls the time for requesting a hearing. A verbal settlement has been reached, but is not yet reduced to writing. Neither DER nor CCA has requested a hearing on the merits in the judicial action. The allegations in the complaint are, however, at issue and, absent settlement, will be tried by the court. On June 27, 1990, DER gave notice of its intent to deny an operating (renewal) permit for the No. 5 Recovery Boiler and Smelt Dissolving Tank because of the pending judicial action. Subsequent to the filing of this rule challenge petition, DER notified CCA that the Notice of Intent to Deny renewal of CCA's operating permits for the NO. 5 Recovery Boiler and the Smelt Dissolving Tank dated June 27, 1990 was issued erroneously and that the permits would be issued. [Issuance is based on expiration of the 90-day deadline for denial rather than the agency's interpretation of the rule under scrutiny.] On June 28, 1990, DER notified. CCA that it may not be able to issue.. the requested construction permits [for a new batch digester and brown stock washer] due to the pending Department enforcement action ... CCA was notified that its applications for construction of the proposed new batch digester and brown stock washer were incomplete. If the judicial action is not resolved at the time action must be taken on the application for construction permits for the new batch digester and brown stock washer, the permits will be denied in reliance on Rule 17-4.070(5)(first three sentences). By a separate letter on June 28 1990, DER also notified CCA that until the Notice of Violation was resolved the application for the construction permit for the new paper machine would be held in abeyance. CCA has been notified that its application for a construction permit for its new proposed paper machine is incomplete. Subsequent to the filing of this rule challenge petition, DER has notified CCA it will not hold CCA's application for a construction permit for its proposed new paper machine in abeyance upon the submission of the requested material, or its request to process the application without the material, but will process the permit at that time and issue either an intent to issue or deny. If, however, the Notice of Violation is not resolved by the time action must be taken on the application the permit will be denied in reliance on Rule 17-4.070(5). Until or unless the judicial action against CCA filed by DER in June 1989 is resolved, Rule 17-4.070(5)(first three sentences) requires DER to deny any permit applications filed by CCA relating to the Multiple Effect Evaporators (2), Nos. 5 and 7 Power Boilers, including electiostatic precipitators, Recovery Boilers (2) and Pulp Digester Systems (2) located at its Fernandina Beach mill. Each of the foregoing sources operate by virtue of permits issued by DER. The permits periodically expire and must be renewed. DER interprets the first sentence of Rule 17- 4.070(5) to mean that no permits for the sources listed in paragraph 10 above can be renewed unless and until the pending civil action against CCA is resolved, and the issue of reasonable assurance is not reached. [As to Intervenor Florida Pulp & Paper Association) The Florida Pulp & Paper Association is a trade association representing the vital interests of its members -- the pulp and paper companies operating mills in Florida or discharging to state waters. Rule 17-4.070(5), F.A.C., the rule which is the subject of this proceeding, regulates and affects the substantial interests of the members of the Association. Each of the mills operate [sic] under various environmental permits issued by DER. Permits must be obtained when existing permits expire or when sources are replaced or expanded. The rule at issue forbids the issuance of such permit to any source or for any activity against which the Department has filed a Notice of Violation or judicial enforcement action, which remain(s) pending. The Association's scope of interest and activity includes participating in the development of rules proposed by DER membership. Here, a senior DER official has indicated that the rule at issue will henceforth be uniformly and strictly applied, industry-wide. Accordingly, a determination of invalidity of this rule is an appropriate remedy for the Association to seek on behalf of its members
The Issue The issues presented in this consolidated proceeding are whether Respondent committed the acts and violations alleged in the two administrative complaints, and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating restaurants in the state. Respondent is licensed as a restaurant, pursuant to license number 5802478, and operates as 459 Chinese Restaurant at 657 North Primrose Drive, Orlando, Florida 32803 (the restaurant). A sanitation and safety specialist (Specialist) for Petitioner inspected the restaurant on October 28 and 29, November 5, and December 1, 2004. The Specialist inspected the restaurant again on April 26 and 27, 2005. On December 1, 2004, Respondent committed three violations of applicable statutes and rules. On April 27, 2005, Respondent committed another violation. Each violation was an uncorrected violation that first occurred in previous inspections. On December 1, 2004, Respondent did not document that an employee at the restaurant had received training in professional hygiene and food-borne disease prevention in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-4.023(4)(a). This violation is a critical violation. Petitioner's witness identified a critical violation as a violation that is an immediate danger to the public safety. On December 1, 2004, a grease buildup existed on the kitchen wall near the fryer. Food-debris buildup was also present on the floors in the corner of the kitchen. Neither of these violations is a critical violation. On April 27, 2005, Respondent maintained eggs at a temperature of 64 degrees Fahrenheit, rather than 45 degrees, in violation of Rule 3-5.01.16(B) of the Food Code. This is a critical violation. Several mitigating factors are evidenced in the record. The violations did not result in actual harm. Respondent has no prior discipline. The violations are not continuing or ongoing violations. The only aggravating factor is that two of the violations are critical violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of committing the acts and violations alleged in each Administrative Complaint, requiring Respondent's representative to attend the educational program prescribed in Petitioner's PRO, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,300, due and payable to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 calendar days of the date that the agency serves Respondent with a copy of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Quinn 459 Chinese Super Buffet 657 North Primrose Drive Orlando, Florida 32803 Jessica Leigh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Petitioner), against Koy Wan Hibachi Buffet (Respondent) are correct.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2013).1/ At all times material to this case, the Respondent was operating as a large buffet-type public restaurant located at 945 West State Road 436, Suite 1179, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714. On April 22, 2013, Amy Zaleski and Cecelia Chiu, trained and experienced sanitation and safety specialists employed by the Petitioner, performed a routine inspection of the Respondent, during which the inspectors observed various violations of the Code. At the conclusion of the routine inspection, Ms. Zaleski prepared a written report documenting the Code violations observed by the inspectors. Before leaving the premises, Ms. Zaleski provided a copy of the inspection report to a manager identified as Ander Chow and discussed the violations with him. According to the inspection report, the violations were to be corrected by 8:00 a.m., on June 21, 2013, at which time a "callback" inspection was scheduled to occur. The purpose of the callback inspection was to determine whether the Code violations identified during the routine inspection had been corrected. On June 24, 2013, Inspectors Zaleski and Chiu performed a callback inspection of the Respondent and observed that some of the Code violations observed during the routine inspection had not been corrected. At the conclusion of the routine inspection, Ms. Zaleski prepared a written report documenting the Code violations observed by the inspectors. Before leaving the premises, Ms. Zaleski provided a copy of the inspection report to a manager identified as Melody Chen and discussed the violations with her. The Code classifies violations as either "high priority," "intermediate" or "basic," essentially reflecting the level of threat to public health posed by a deficiency. A high priority violation is one that poses a direct or significant threat to public health. An intermediate violation is one that, uncorrected, could develop into a high priority violation. A basic violation is one of core sanitation and maintenance requirements that does not meet the level of a high priority or intermediate violation. Count 1 Raw oysters and other "shellstock" are sold to restaurants in containers that are tagged to identify the source of the product and the date of the harvest. The relevant portion of the Code requires that establishments serving shellstock must prevent the comingling of products from different sources and harvest dates. The Code also requires establishments to retain the tags for 90 days to permit identification of the source and date of harvest. The purpose of the requirement is to facilitate identification of a potential source of contaminated shellstock after an occurrence of food-borne illness by persons consuming the product. The Respondent offered raw oysters available for public consumption. On the dates of both the routine and the callback inspections, the Respondent was unable to make the shellstock tags available for inspection, and the Petitioner cited the Respondent for failing to maintain the tags in the manner required. The Petitioner classified the deficiency as an intermediate violation. At the hearing, the Respondent asserted that the tags were properly maintained and available at the time of the inspections, and that the managers present at the time of the inspections were not sufficiently proficient at speaking English to understand the inspectors' request. The assertion was not supported by credible evidence. The Respondent was unable to demonstrate compliance with the tag retention requirement on the dates of the inspections. Counts 2 and 3 The relevant portion of the Code requires that certain food products be stored within specified temperature ranges to minimize the potential for bacterial growth. In the alternative, establishments may use "time control" to monitor the safety of potentially hazardous food. Essentially, an establishment can meet Code requirements either by controlling the temperature at which the product is held or by limiting the time during which the product must be consumed, cooked or discarded. In Count 2, the Petitioner alleged that during both the routine and the callback inspections, the temperatures of various food items including "Krab," sprouts, shrimp, raw pork, surimi, boiled eggs, and cut melon failed to comply with the temperature- based requirements of the Code. The Petitioner classified the deficiency alleged in Count 2 as a high priority violation. In Count 3, the Petitioner alleged that during both the routine and the callback inspections, sushi, a potentially hazardous food being served on the buffet line, failed to comply with the temperature-based requirements of the Code. The Petitioner classified the deficiency alleged in Count 3 as an intermediate violation. The Respondent asserted that it used time control to monitor the products for safety. The Code requires that an establishment choosing to use time control must have written documentation identifying the practices implemented and must make the documentation available to the Petitioner on request. The Respondent was unable to produce written documentation of the time control procedures during either the routine or the callback inspection. Count 5 The relevant portion of the Code prohibits storage of food on the floor because dirt, bacteria, and floor cleaning chemical residue can contaminate food stored on the floor. During both the routine and the callback inspections, the Petitioner's inspectors observed boxed food being stored on the floor of a walk-in freezer. This deficiency was classified as a basic violation. At the hearing, the Respondent asserted that the products had been delivered just prior to the inspections, the delivery employee placed the boxes on the freezer floor, and Respondent's employees had not yet moved the boxes from the floor to the shelves. The assertion was not supported by credible evidence. Count 6 The relevant portion of the Code provides that an employee may drink from a closed beverage container if the container is handled in a manner which prevents contamination of the employee's hands, the container, exposed food, and clean equipment and utensils. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent violated the Code because inspectors observed an employee's beverage container on a food prep counter. The evidence is insufficient to establish that the potentially permissible beverage container was not handled in such a manner as to comply with the requirements of the Code. Count 9 (Part A) The relevant portion of the Code requires that food contact surfaces must be "clean to sight and touch" to prevent bacterial contamination. During both the routine and the callback inspections, meat-cutting boards at cooking stations were stained and soiled. Count 9 classified the deficiency as an intermediate violation. Counts 10 and 12 The relevant portion of the Code requires that "a handwashing sink shall be maintained so that it is accessible at all times for employee use" and that the sink "shall be equipped to provide water at a temperature of at least 100 degrees." During both the routine and the callback inspections, one of the 12 handwashing sinks available to employees had various items stored in it, and there was no hot water available at that sink. Count 10 identified the hot water deficiency as an intermediate violation. Count 12 classified the accessibility deficiency as an intermediate violation. The Respondent asserted that the hot water supply line was leaking at that particular sink and so it had been turned off. The items were placed in the sink to prevent its usage. The evidence failed to establish the reason the sink remained unrepaired after being cited as a deficiency during the routine inspection. Count 11 The relevant portion of the Code requires that a vacuum breaker device be installed on certain plumbing fixtures to prevent the backflow of contaminated water into the water supply system. During both the routine inspection and the callback inspection, the inspectors observed that a splitter fitting had been installed on the mop sink faucet and that no vacuum device was present. This deficiency was classified as a high priority violation. Count 13 The relevant portion of the Code requires that the operator of an establishment take effective measures to protect the premises from infestation by vermin, such as roaches. During the routine inspection, a gap was visible at the threshold of an exterior door at the rear of the restaurant through which vermin could enter the building. During the routine inspection, inspectors observed dead roaches inside a cabinet under a "soft-serve" ice cream machine, in a cabinet under a handwash sink, on the floor at a "wait station," and inside a storage area where unused equipment was located. Roach excrement was present on the gasket of an unused cooler located in the storage area. During the callback inspection, the gap remained unrepaired. Inspectors again observed dead roaches inside a storage area where unused equipment was located and roach excrement on the gasket of an unused cooler. Roaches present a risk of bacterial contamination and disease to surfaces and food contact areas. Count 13 classified presence of vermin as a high priority violation and the gap under the exterior door as a basic violation. Count 15 The relevant portion of the Code requires that carbon dioxide and helium tanks be adequately secured. An unsecured carbon dioxide tank can fall over, explode, and become a dangerous projectile. During both the routine inspection and the callback inspection, inspectors observed a carbon dioxide tank stored in an upright position without being properly secured. This deficiency was classified as a basic violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order imposing a fine of $6,900 against the Respondent and requiring that the Respondent complete an appropriate educational program related to the violations set forth herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to properly maintain the premises at Park Avenue Sub, in violation of Section 509.032, Florida Statutes (2000), as alleged in the Administrative Complaints.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of facts are made: 1. Respondent, Sang Kuen Cho, held license number 69-0347-R for the operation of a public food service establishment operating under the name Park Ave Sub, and located at 1203 South Park Avenue, Sanford, Florida 32771. As to DOAH Case No. 01-0961: 2. On August 18, 19, and 22, 2001, Carolyn Moore, Inspector with Petitioner's Division of Hotels and Restaurants, conducted an inspection of Respondent's premises. 3. It was observed that there was no 40 BC Fire Extinguisher available on the premises. The Fire Suppression System was tagged 11-99, and the last inspection report was dated 11-99. The barrel used for grease collection was not ona surface that was non-absorbent. There was no evidence that the restaurant manager was certified by Petitioner as a certified food manager. There was no probe thermometer available. The meat slicer had old, dried food debris on it. There was bare wood exposed on the preparation table, and the covering was worn out. There was old, dried food splattered on the wall behind the slicer. The flooring around the cooking equipment was missing tiles or other non-porous covering. There was a large amount of newspapers and empty boxes under the preparation table. 4. There were no chemical test strips available to test the concentration of the sanitizing solutions. The filters in the hood over the stove had an accumulation of dust and a black substance on them. There was no covered receptacle in the restroom. The restroom had no paper towels or other hand-drying device provided. The front door was propped open on August 18, 2000. The last inspection report was not available. As to DOAH Case No. 01-1110: 5. On January 24, 2001, and again on February 1, 2001, an inspection was conducted on Respondent's premises. 6. It was observed that there was no 40 BC fire extinguisher on the premises for the grease fryer. The tag on the Fire Suppression System indicated it was last inspected 11- 99. 7. Deli meats in containers in the refrigerator had not been date marked to indicate the date the food should be consumed by. The ceiling tiles over the hood system were not properly installed, leaving a gap. Old food debris and a black substance were on the hood filters. The wall by the back door had old, dried food debris splattered on it. As to DOAH Case No. 01-1111: 8. On July 26, 1999, and again on August 20, 1999, an inspection was conducted on Respondent's premises. 9. The right compartment of the three-compartment sink was not plumbed for hot and cold water. The front exit door was open in a fixed position. The fire extinguisher was stored on the floor by the rear exit door. The floor in the kitchen area had torn and missing tiles and was not sealed. An extension cord was being used for operating the microwave, and a carbon dioxide tank was not secured. 10. There was still no 40 BC fire extinguisher available when the premises were re-inspected on April 18 and 27, 2001.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 For Respondents: No appearance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be enter by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, as follows: 1. As to DOAH Case No. 01-0961, an administrative fine of $5,400 be imposed and Respondent's license be suspended until payments of fines have begun and the restaurant is brought into compliance with the Food Code, the Fire Safety Code, and other provisions of Chapter 61C, Florida Administrative Code. 2. As to DOAH Case No. 01-1110, an administrative fine in the amount of $3,400 be imposed and Respondent's license be suspended until the restaurant is brought into compliance and payments on the fine are begun. 3. As to DOAH Case No. 01-1111, an administrative fine of $1,000 be imposed and Respondent's license be suspended until payment, in full, is made. 4. Respondent be required to make monthly payments until the administrative fines are paid in full under such terms anda conditions as the Department deems just and reasonable. DONE AND ENTERED this Gl, day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this A day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Park Avenue Sub 1203 South Park Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Sang Kuen Cho d/b/a Park Ave Sub 1203 South Park Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Susan R. McKinley, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Respondent is ETC Investments, Inc., licensed at all times pertinent to these proceedings to operate Tarpon Springs Care Center, an adult congregate living facility in Tarpon Springs, Florida. Petitioner's employees conducted inspections of Respondent's facility on September 30, 1986; May 29, 1987; and June 30, 1987. As a result of these inspections, certain deficiencies were discovered. Dates for correction of the deficiencies were determined by Petitioner's employees. Respondent was informed of the correction deadlines. Upon subsequent inspections by Petitioner's employees, some of the deficiencies continued to exist. On September 30, 1986, Petitioner's employees determined that Respondent did not have an admission and discharge record which was being properly maintained. Respondent was required to make available to Petitioner's representative by October 7, 1986, documentation indicating that a current register was being maintained. The deficiency remained uncorrected on May 29, 1987. The deficiency consisted of Respondent's failure to record the name of one resident on the facility's central log or register and a failure to note the discharge of three other residents in that register. A required health assessment form was not present in the file of one resident in Respondent's facility on September 30, 1986; a correction deadline of October 30, 1986 was set. The required form was still not in the file as required on May 29, 1987. On May 29, 1987, Respondent still had not provided proof of continuing liability insurance availability for Petitioner's review. This deficiency had been noted on September 30, 1986, with correction to be made by Respondent by October 30, 1986. Respondent failed to provide evidence at the September 30, 1986 inspection that weights of two residents of the facility were recorded semiannually. The purpose of weight records is to assist in ascertaining if a resident has a health problem. This deficiency remained uncorrected on May 29, 1987, although, as a result of the September 30, 1986 inspection, correction had been required to be made by October 30, 1986. On May 29, 1987, Respondent had not provided documentation for review by Petitioner's representative indicating that quarterly fire alarm tests were conducted; likewise, Respondent had not provided documentation indicating the performance of required smoke detector tests and inspections. These deficiencies were noted in the September 30, 1986 inspection. Documentation of testing in both instances was required to be made available by Respondent no later than October 30, 1986. Respondent has been charged with failure to provide documentation of food service policies as a result of the September 30, 1986 inspection. However, in the absence of direct testimony, Petitioner exhibit number 1, alleged to be a statement of deficiencies issued by Petitioner, is not corroborative or credited with probative value as to existence of Respondent's failure to provide documentation of the facility's food service policies and procedures by the deadline of October 30, 1986. Further, testimony of Respondent's witness, that correction of this deficiency was overlooked during subsequent inspections by Petitioner's employees, is corroborated by the witness' provision of a copy of Respondent's policies dated October 3, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order finding the commission of six class III violations by Respondent and assessing total civil penalties of $900 for such violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Haman, Esquire 7827 N. Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33614 Elaine Chicles, pro se President, ETC Investments, Inc. 1210 East Oakwood Street Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
