The Issue The ultimate issue for determination is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice to Show Cause, issued on February 6, 1990, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was doing business at 26712 Southwest 144th Avenue, Naranja, Dade County, Florida, 33032-7404 as Village Diner. The Village Diner was operated under restaurant license number 23- 16870R. Mr. Steven Hoffman, Environmental Health Specialist Supervisor, Dade County Public Health Department ("DCPHD"), is an expert in food hygiene, safety, and fire safety. Mr. Hoffman's qualifications include certification by the Federal Drug Administration as a food inspector and certification by the State of Florida in fire safety and as a food hygiene coordinator. Mr. Hoffman has been employed by the DCPHD in various capacities for approximately 13 years. Mr. Hoffman's employment duties on January 12, 1990, included performing inspections of food service establishments in response to complaints received by the DCPHD. In response to a complaint, Mr. Hoffman conducted an inspection of the Village Diner on January 12, 1990. Mr. Hoffman found conditions comprising 18 alleged rule violations, of which eight are classified by Petitioner as major violations. Potato salad, cole slaw, and corned beef was improperly refrigerated at 60 degrees. 2/ Such food must be refrigerated at 45 degrees in order to avoid growth of dangerous bacteria that can lead to food poisoning. Food was stored on the floor of the walk-in refrigeration box and was not covered. Uncovered food left on the floor is susceptible to contamination by other substances dripping into the uncovered food and by other bacteria. Food utensils were stored in dirty water. Food prepared or served with utensils stored in dirty water may be cross-contaminated with bacteria from food or filth in the dirty water. Bulk containers used to store flour were dirty and needed to be replaced. Food contact surfaces were not clean, including stove grills, fryers, and the interior of refrigerators. The reach-in box contained dried, hardened splashes of meat. Wilted lettuce and other food debris had accumulated on the bottom of the reach-in box over a substantial period. Non-food contact surfaces were not clean, including walls and storage shelves. Walls were covered with accumulated grease and smoke. These conditions increased the probability of cross-contamination from bacteria and attracted vermin. The premises were infested with roaches and mice. Live roaches and droppings from mice were observed in and around the premises. Mouse urine was observed with a black light. Paper in open cans had been nibbled by mice. Roaches cause cross-contamination of food by picking up bacteria on their legs and carrying it to other foods. Mice contaminate food by urinating on it and by transporting fleas and ticks from one food to another. The floor under the cooking equipment was dirty. Walls were encrusted with old grease and dirt. Such conditions attract vermin. Toxic items were not stored properly. Boric acid powder was spread on top of pipes directly above a food service steam table. Respondent used the boric acid powder to control mice and other vermin. Boric acid is poisonous when ingested and is moderately toxic by skin and subcutaneous contact. Pressurized CO-2 tanks were placed beside a stove in the kitchen. An extension cord was improperly used in the kitchen. Lights in the kitchen were not shielded to prevent glass from falling into food in the event that a light bulb either was inadvertently broken or burst during operation. A pit in the rear of the premises contained white, congealed grease and emitted a foul odor. A trench had been designed to direct grease away from the premises and into the pit. The grease pit attracted vermin and contaminated ground water approximately eight feet below the surface. A faucet outside the premises was not equipped with a "backflow preventer". The absence of a "backflow preventer" permits contamination of the city water system from the premises in the event of negative pressure in the city water system. Not all of the garbage cans in the rear of the premises had plastic liners. Trash and debris was collected outside the back door of the premises. Trash and unused equipment was stored in the rear of the premises and in the storage room. The collection of litter and equipment attracts vermin by providing food sources and hiding places. Mr. Hoffman issued a Food Inspection Report at the conclusion of his inspection on January 12, 1990. Respondent was given until January 17, 1990, to correct the major violations noted in Mr. Hoffman's Food Inspection Report, and was advised that a Notice to Show Cause would be issued. The premises were re-inspected by Mr. Hoffman on January 18, 1990, and a Call Back/Re-Inspection Report was issued. Respondent corrected all of the alleged rule violations found on January 12, 1990, except two. Respondent was instructed to provide proper light shields over food surfaces and to clean sides of grills, fryers, and the tops of refrigeration units. A Notice to Show Cause was issued on February 6, 1990, citing the 18 rule violations found to have existed during the inspection conducted by Mr. Hoffman on January 12, 1990.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a fine be imposed against Respondent in an amount not to exceed $1,150. In the event that Respondent is unable to pay the fine imposed, it is further recommended that Respondent's license be suspended for a period not to exceed 20 days. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of March, 1991. Daniel Manry 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 21st day of March, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what is the appropriate disciplinary action that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the operation of hotel and restaurant establishments pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Respondent is an eating establishment located in Gainesville, Florida. Respondent was issued license number 1102902 as a public food establishment by the Division. Critical violations are those violations that pose a significant threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Non-critical violations are any other violation that are not deemed critical. Judy Hentges has been employed by the Division for approximately 12 and one-half years as a sanitation and safety specialist. She also has a food manager's certification. Ms. Hentges has received training in laws and rules regarding public food service and lodging, and continues to receive continuing education training on a monthly basis. Ms. Hentges performs approximately 800 to 1,000 inspections annually. On August 11, 2009, Ms. Hentges conducted a routine inspection of Respondent's premises and issued an inspection report while on the premises. Kitty Lu, manager of the restaurant, was present and signed the inspection report, as did Ms. Hentges. Ms. Hentges informed the manager about the violations she found, which were noted on the inspection report, and explained that the violations must be corrected by the following day. During the August 11, 2009, inspection, Ms. Hentges observed food that was not held at 135 degrees Fahrenheit or above. When food is held "out of temperature," bacteria rises at a rapid rate which can initiate a food-borne illness. This is a critical violation because temperature violations are one of the leading causes of food-borne illnesses and present an immediate health threat to the public. Respondent had previously been cited for this particular violation during inspections that took place on February 11, 2009; February 12, 2009; and April 16, 2009. During her inspection on August 11, 2009, Ms. Hentges also observed that imitation scallops were being used, whereas the menu did not indicate that the scallops were imitation. This constitutes misrepresentation of a food product. Respondent previously had been cited for this particular violation on October 20, 2008; October 21, 2008; February 11, 2009; February 12, 2009; and April 16, 2009.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter a final order which confirms the violations found, and suspends Respondent's hotel and restaurant license for four days, effective the first Monday after 40 days from the date the Final order is filed with the Agency Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Barbara J. Staros 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 27th day of August, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-1015 Hot Wok c/o H. L. 3006 Northwest 13th Street Gainesville, Florida 32609 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent's dishmachine chlorine sanitizer was not at proper minimum strength, in violation of Food Code Rule 4-501.114(A); whether vacuum breakers were missing from hose bibs at the mop sink, in violation of Food Code Rule 5-203.14; and whether kitchen ceiling light fixtures hosted an accumulation of dead insects, in violation of Food Code Rule 6-501.112. If any of these violations are proved, an additional issue is the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent operated a restaurant located at 1261 South Powerline Road in Pompano Beach, Florida, as a public food service establishment under Permanent Food Service license SEA1620854, profession 2010. On March 17, 2015, Petitioner's inspector conducted an inspection of Respondent's restaurant. The inspection uncovered several violations. The violations included a dishmachine chlorine sanitizer that tested at zero parts per million, which is below proper minimum strength; a missing vacuum breaker at the hose bibb at the mop sink in the rear; and an accumulation of dead insects in the kitchen ceiling light fixtures. The first two violations are "high priority," and the third violation is "basic." The inspector gave Respondent until May 20, 2015, to correct these violations. On May 20, 2015, Petitioner's inspector conducted a followup inspection of Respondent's restaurant. The inspection uncovered several violations, including the three violations cited in the preceding paragraph. The inspector issued warnings for these three uncorrected violations, but gave Respondent an extension of time until July 21, 2015, to correct these violations. On July 21, 2015, Petitioner's inspector conducted a second followup inspection of Respondent's restaurant. The inspection uncovered three violations, which were the three violations cited in the preceding paragraphs. There were now two hose bibbs lacking vacuum breakers. The failure to maintain the proper strength of chlorine in the dishmachine sanitizer jeopardizes the process by which used items are cleaned and sanitized, so as to be free of pathogens, germs, and viruses. The failure to maintain a vacuum breaker, which creates an air gap in a water line, raises the possibility that dirty water will backflow into, and thus contaminate, a potable water line. The failure to remove the dead insects from the kitchen ceiling fixture poses a risk of attracting additional insects. In the 24 months preceding the issuance of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent had been the subject of one disciplinary order. By Stipulation and Consent Order filed October 21, 2014, Respondent agreed to pay an administrative fine of $840 to settle allegations of several Food Code violations, which Respondent neither admitted nor denied.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the three violations set forth above and imposing a fine of $1875. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 8th day of February, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Blanca Balcazar Latin Bohemia Grill 1261 South Powerline Road Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Marc A. Drexler, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Diann S. Worzalla, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) William N. Spicola, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 19, 2007, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Demills Family Restaurant (hereinafter referred to as "Demills Family Restaurant" or "establishment"), a public food establishment, is licensed and regulated by the Division. The establishment's license number is 2200535. Demills Family Restaurant is located at 6501 Park Boulevard, Pinellas Park, Florida 33781. Larry Burke is employed by the Department as a senior sanitation and safety specialist. Upon being employed with the Department, Mr. Burke was trained in laws and rules for both food service and public lodging establishments. Mr. Burke is certified as a food manager and attends continuing education on a monthly basis. As part of his job responsibilities, Mr. Burke conducts approximately 1000 inspections a year, many of which include inspections of public food establishments. On April 26, 2007, Mr. Burke conducted a routine unannounced inspection of the Demills Family Restaurant. During the inspection, Mr. Burke observed several violations at the establishment which were critical violations that were required to be corrected within 24 hours. Mr. Burke set forth his findings in a Food Service Inspection Report on the day of the inspection and provided a copy of the report to Debra Nunez, one of the owners of the establishment. A violation of the Food Code or other applicable law or rule, which is more likely than other violations to contribute to food contamination, illness, or environmental health hazards, is considered a critical violation. In the April 26, 2007, Food Service Inspection Report, Mr. Burke specified that certain critical violations had to be corrected within 24 hours. However, there were other critical violations observed on April 26, 2007, for which the owners of the establishment were given a warning and an additional 30 days to correct the violations. On April 27, 2007, Mr. Burke conducted a call-back inspection at the Demills Family Restaurant to determine if the critical violations he had observed the previous day had been corrected. During the "call back" inspection, Mr. Burke observed that all the critical violations found during the April 26, 2007, which were required to be corrected within 24 hours, had been corrected within that time period. Also, some of the non-critical violations observed on April 26, 2007, had been corrected when the "call-back" inspection was conducted. (The violations cited in the April 26, 2007, routine inspection and that were corrected during the call-back inspection the following day are not at issue in this proceeding.) During the April 27, 2007, call-back inspection, Mr. Burke prepared a Callback Inspection Report on which he noted violations first observed during the routine inspection conducted on April 26, 2007, but which had not been corrected on April 27, 2007. In accordance with applicable guidelines, Mr. Burke issued a warning to the establishment's owners and gave them 30 days or until May 27, 2007, to correct the uncorrected violations observed on April 27, 2007. This warning appeared on the April 27, 2007, Callback Inspection Report which was given to Mrs. Nunez. On May 31, 2007, Mr. Burke performed a second call-back inspection at Demills Family Restaurant. During this call-back inspection, Mr. Burke observed and cited the violations previously cited on the April 27, 2007, Call-Back Inspection Report that had not been corrected. These violations are discussed below. Violation No. 02-13, one of the uncorrected violations, involved the establishment's failure to provide a consumer advisory on raw/undercooked meat. This violation was based on information provided by personnel in the kitchen that hamburgers in the establishment are "cooked to order." In light of this policy, there are some customers who will likely order hamburgers that are undercooked. In those instances, pathogens may not be eliminated from the meat. Thus, establishments, such as Respondent, are required to inform customers of the significantly increased risk of eating such meat. After the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection and prior to this proceeding, the owners of the establishment posted signs throughout the dining room area which warned customers about the risks of consuming raw or undercooked foods (i.e., meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish or eggs). Violation No. 02-13 is a critical violation, but not one that is required to be corrected within 24 hours. Rather, this was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation after it was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Violation No. 32-15-1, one of the uncorrected violations, involved Respondent's failure to have hand-wash signs at the sinks designated for use by employees. The display of hand-washing signs at these sinks is important because it reminds employees to wash their hands, which helps prevent the transmission of food-borne disease by employees. This was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation and one which was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Mr. Nunez does not dispute that at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, there were no hand-wash signs. However, since that time, he has placed signs that notify employees to wash their hands. These signs are placed at all hand-wash sinks used by employees, including the one in the cooks' kitchen and in the waitresses' station, and are clearly visible to the employees. The establishment also has hand-wash signs at all sinks in the establishment, including those used by customers. Violation No. 37-14-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on part of the ceiling in the establishment being in disrepair. Specifically, the section of the ceiling that was in disrepair was above a food storage area which contained "open food product." This offense is not classified as a critical violation under the Food and Drug Administration or under Florida law. Mr. Nunez does not dispute that part of the ceiling in the establishment was in disrepair at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection and the previous April 2007 inspections. Although Mr. Nunez was aware of the problem, he had to rely on the landlord of the building in which the establishment was located to repair the roof. The problems with the roof contributed to the ceiling being in disrepair. Finally, after about four years of asking the landlord to repair the roof, after the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, the landlord had the roof repaired. The roof repairs are still not complete. However, based on the roof repairs that were completed by early to mid September 2007, Mr. Nunez was able to repair the section of the ceiling at issue in this proceeding. These ceiling repairs were completed by or near the middle of September 2007. Violation No. 37-14-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on Mr. Burke observing that the establishment's exit sign in the dining room was not properly illuminated. The requirement for exit signs to be illuminated is a safety issue. This was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation and one that was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Mr. and Mrs. Nunez do not dispute that at the time of the call-back inspection of May 31, 2007, the exit sign was not illuminated. The problem was caused by a problem with a wire in the sign. The person who does electrical work in the establishment had been out-of-town for several weeks and was unavailable to repair the exit sign. However, about three days after the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, after the repair person returned, he repaired the exit sign; since then, it is properly illuminated. Violation No. 47-16-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on Mr. Burke observing an uncovered electrical box. The box needed to be covered to protect the breaker and to protect the employees and anyone else who had access to the box. This uncorrected violation was a critical violation at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection. Mrs. Nunez does not dispute that there was an electrical box that was uncovered on May 31, 2007. However, Mrs. Nunez testified that during the initial walk-through in April 2007, Mr. Burke showed her the uncovered electrical box that was located above the walk-in freezer. At that time, the cover was off the electrical box and the wires were exposed. Mrs. Nunez thought that the electrical box above the walk-in freezer was the only electrical box that was cited as a violation after the April 27, 2007, call-back inspection. Based on that understanding, that violation was corrected. However, during the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, Mr. Burke showed Mrs. Nunez another electrical box in the establishment that was in violation of applicable provisions. Until that time Mrs. Nunez had not been told, and was not aware, that the second electrical box constituted a violation. This mistake on her part was likely caused by the fact that the structure of the second electrical box was completely different from that of the electrical box over the walk-in freezer. The electrical box over the walk-in freezer had wires which were exposed when the box was not covered. On the other hand, the second electrical box resembles a fuse box and did not have any exposed wires. Violation No. 28-02-1 involved the reuse of single- service articles. This violation is based on Mr. Burke observing Respondent's employees reusing plastic food containers, such as the ones sour cream and cottage cheese are in when delivered to the establishment. Such plastic containers should not be used once the food is exhausted. The reason is that the plastic in such containers is not "food service grade for sanitation purposes." Violation No. 28-02-1 is a non- critical violation. The owners of the establishment do not contest Violation No. 28-02-1, related to the reuse of single-service articles. Mrs. Nunez testified that she purchased containers that could be reused and instructed appropriate staff to use those containers. After being given those instructions, the employees told Mrs. Nunez that they were no longer reusing containers for single-service articles although they were doing so. However, as a result of the violation cited during the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, Mrs. Nunez is committed to checking to ensure that employees are not reusing the plastic containers for single-service articles. Violation No. 61-13-1 is based on Mr. Burke observing that no Heimlich sign was posted in the establishment. The purpose of the Heimlich sign is to provide information in the event a customer in the restaurant is choking. This is a non- critical violation because it makes customers aware in the event of a choking situation. In July 2007, Mr. Nunez left his job as a project engineer to become involved in the day-to-day operations of the Demills Family Restaurant after he realized there were problems at the restaurant that required his attention. Among the issues Mr. Nunez had to initially deal with were the violations cited in the May 31, 2007, Call-Back Inspection Report. Throughout the initial inspection and the call-back inspections, the owners have cooperated with Mr. Burke and corrected most of the violations for which the establishment was cited. Mr. Burke has not conducted an inspection of the Demills Family Restaurant since the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection. However, since that time, all the violations which are the subject of this proceeding have been corrected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent, Demills Family Restaurant, violated Food Code Rules 3-603.11, 4-502.13(a) and 6-301.14; Florida Administrative Code Rules 61C-1.004(2)(C), 61C-1.004(6) and 61C-1.004(10); and NFPA Rule 70.300.31. Imposing a total administrative fine of $2,800 for the foregoing violations. Requiring Respondent (through its employees and/or owners) to attend, at personal expense, an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 5th day of December, 2007.
The Issue The issues in DOAH Case No. 10-1704 are whether Respondent, Stacked Subs (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated November 5, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. Similarly, the issues in DOAH Case No. 10-2445 are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 24, 2009, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating hotels and restaurants within the State of Florida regarding health and safety codes. See § 509.032, Fla. Stat. (2009). At all times material to the allegations of these cases, Respondent operated as a public food service establishment subject to Petitioner’s jurisdiction. In his capacity as an inspector for Petitioner, Alfonso Rullan visited Respondent’s place of business (2054 State Road 436, Winter Park, Florida) on December 19, 2007. During the inspection, Mr. Rullan noted several food service violations that he memorialized in an inspection report provided to, and signed by, Mr. Nevarez. The violations, more fully described in Petitioner's Exhibit 2, required correction. It was contemplated that Respondent would correct the violations of the Food Code such that on second inspection the violations would no longer be found. Since the inspection revealed “critical” violations, it was incumbent on Respondent to timely correct the violations noted in the inspection report. “Critical” violations are violations that, if left uncorrected, can contribute to food contamination, food-borne illness, or adversely affect public health. Thus, “critical violations” must be timely corrected, as they are a present concern. Violations that could lead to critical violations are denoted as “non-critical.” These “non- critical” violations must also be corrected, but they do not constitute a present threat to the public On March 12, 2008, Inspector Will Goris returned to Respondent’s place of business and completed a second inspection report, denoting critical violations uncorrected from the prior inspection and itemizing the concerns that required correction. Mr. Nevarez signed the report. This report, Petitioner’s Exhibit 3, chronicled ten violations of the Food Code. Subsequently, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint (DOAH Case No. 10-1704), outlining the uncorrected and critical violations Respondent had failed to timely address. Respondent timely contested the complaint and sought an administrative hearing in connection with the allegations. Between December 2007 and March 12, 2008, Respondent failed to correct the following violations: Cheese in the reach-in cooler at the front counter was 51 degrees; Employees reported to work and handled food without first washing hands; The prep table was adjacent to the fryers and under the hood was encrusted and greasy; and Single service cups were stored on the floor by the register. Of the foregoing violations, the failure of employees to wash their hands prior to handling food was the most critical violation. This violation was noted by both inspectors. On January 26, 2009, Inspector Goris conducted a routine inspection of Respondent’s premises. On this date, minor violations of the Food Code were again noted, but Mr. Nevarez was given a “met inspection standards” review for this visit. Nevertheless, Petitioner expected Respondent to correct the non-critical violations in a timely manner. On June 17, 2009, when Inspector Goris presented at the restaurant, violations were discovered that led to the second Administrative Complaint, DOAH Case No. 10-2445. Two of the violations were deemed repeat violations, and two were critical violations directly related to public safety; to wit: the soda disperser had slime on it, and proof of employee food- handler training was not available. Respondent timely challenged the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 10-2445. As to all alleged violations, Respondent was provided adequate notice of the allegations and was provided sufficient time to correct deficiencies. Respondent maintains that inspectors should be trained in abuse of power as their inspections can be discretionary and arbitrary. For example, Respondent claimed that the sleeve of cups on the floor by the cash register had merely fallen there when the inspector cited the violation. Respondent’s claim of abuse of power was unsupported by factual evidence. Moreover, the inspections performed by both inspectors documented objective criteria unrelated to opinion or subjective review. For example, dirty, greasy, or encrusted food surfaces were documented. The failure of employees to wash their hands was documented. The inadequate or incorrect temperature of containers of food was documented. These are not subjective items, but were disclosed to Respondent during and at the time of inspection. It is determined that the inspectors’ testimony was credible and persuasive as to the violations cited. The "Food Code," as it is used in this record, refers to paragraph 1-201.10(B), Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 of the Food Code, 2001 Recommendations of the United States Public Health Service/Food and Drug Administration including Annex 3: Public Health Reasons/Administrative Guidelines; Annex 5: HACCP Guidelines of the Food Code; the 2001 Food Code Errata Sheet (August 23, 2002); and Supplement to the 2001 FDA Food Code (August 29, 2003). The Food Code has been adopted by the Department by rule. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.001. The Food Code is also available through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Internet website.
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 an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,750.00 for the violations listed in DOAH Case No. 10-1704 and $1,000.00 for the violations identified in DOAH Case No. 10-2445. The Respondent should also be required to attend training for a better understanding of the requirements of the Food Code to assure that proper guidelines are adopted and implemented at the restaurant. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 5th day of October, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida Carlos Nevarez Stacked Subs 32399 2054 State Road 436 Winter Park, Florida 32792 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
