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 October 20, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a public food establishment, licensed and regulated by the Division. Respondent's license number is 5810388. Respondent's address is 2595 South Hiawassee Road, Orlando, Florida 32835. Norma Gordon is employed by the Division as a sanitation and safety specialist and has worked in that position for four years. Ms. Gordon's job responsibilities include inspecting public food establishments that are regulated by the Division. To effectively carry out job responsibilities, Ms. Gordon had been trained in the areas of Food and Drug standardization, as well as the laws and rules related to the Food Code. Moreover, Ms. Gordon has successfully completed certified manager training. As part of her job, Ms. Gordon participates in monthly continuing education. During her employment with the Division, Ms. Gordon conducts about 1,000 inspections annually. On July 22, 2008, Ms. Gordon conducted a routine inspection of the premises of China No. 1. During the inspection, Ms. Gordon observed about 15 violations, eight of which were deemed to be critical violations. Ms. Gordon set forth her findings and listed all the violations on a Food Service Inspection Report on the day of the inspection. That same day, Ms. Gordon provided a copy of the report to Frank Liu, food manager for Respondent. The Food Service Inspection Report notified Mr. Liu that a call back inspection would be conducted on September 22, 2008, to determine if the violations had been corrected. Mr. Liu signed the Food Service Inspection Report on July 22, 2008, acknowledging that he received a copy of the Inspection Report. On September 23, 2008, Ms. Gordon conducted a call back inspection of China No. 1. During that call back inspection, Ms. Gordon observed several violations that were reported on the Food Service Inspection Report issued on July 22, 2008, but that had not yet been corrected. Ms. Gordon recorded the uncorrected violations that she observed and verified during the September 23, 2008, callback inspection on a Call Back Inspection Report form. That Call Back Inspection Report was completed on September 23, 2008, and signed by Mr. Liu. The uncorrected violations observed and verified on September 23, 2008, are set forth below in paragraphs 9 through 13. The first uncorrected violation was that raw animal foods were not properly separated from each other in the holding unit. Ms. Gordon observed raw chicken stored above the raw beef and vegetables in the upright reach-in freezer. This was a critical violation because food must be protected from cross-contamination. For example, the raw chicken has salmonella, which requires that it be cooked at a certain temperature. Cross-contamination may occur when raw meat products are not separated from each other and/or are stored next to vegetables, because the meats and vegetables have different cooking temperatures. The second uncorrected violation was that Respondent did not have a thermometer available to measure the temperature of the food products. This is a critical violation because such a device is necessary to ensure that foods are prepared and maintained at appropriate temperatures. The third uncorrected violation was that the bathroom door in the establishment was being left open at times other than during the cleaning or maintenance of the facility. This is deemed to be a critical violation. The fourth uncorrected violation was that the restroom was in disrepair. Respondent's establishment had only one toilet. That one toilet had no handle or mechanical device that could be used to flush the toilet. Instead, there was a string tied to the toilet and the handicap bar in the stall. Somehow this mechanism was "rigged" so that in order to flush the toilet, a person had to pull the string that was tied to the handicap bar in the stall. The fifth uncorrected violation was based on the medium build-up of grease on the hood filters above the cooking area. This is a non-critical violation, but can become a critical violation if the equipment is not maintained and cleaned. If the equipment in the cooking area is not kept clean, dust, debris and other residue will accumulate and may fall in the cooking area and/or in the food being cooked. Respondent presented no evidence to establish that the violations described above were corrected on September 23, 2008. Moreover, Mr. Liu did not dispute the evidence presented. His testimony was that most of the violations were corrected in December 2008, which was after the call back inspection. Critical violations are violations that can contribute to food contamination, illness, environmental degradation and/or environmental hazard. Non-critical violations are those which, initially, do not pose an immediate threat. However, if such violations remain uncorrected, they may turn into critical violations. On or about March 21, 2008, the Division issued an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner alleging violations of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and/or rules promulgated thereto. The charges set out in that Administrative Complaint were based on inspections conducted on September 27, 2007, and February 27, 2008. No hearing was held in the matter. Rather, the matter was resolved in April 2008, pursuant to a Stipulation and Consent Order executed by the Division and Respondent. Pursuant to that Stipulation, Respondent agreed to pay a $2,300.00 fine and have its manager and employee attend the Hospitality Education Program.
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, China No. 1, violated Food Code Rules 3-302.11(A)(2), 4-302.12, 4-601.11(C) and 6-202.14; and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(2)(a) and (b); Imposing a total administrative fine of $5,000.00 against Respondent. The total administrative fine shall be paid to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 days of the agency entering its final order in this case; and Requiring Respondent (through its employees, owners, and/or managers) to attend, at personal expense, an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation 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 1620257. Respondent’s license authorizes Respondent to operate a public food service establishment known as Golden Corral at 9045 Pines Boulevard, Pembroke Pines, Florida (the specified location). At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was operating a public food establishment at the specified location.2 At all times material hereto, Walter Denis was an experienced and appropriately trained investigator employed by Petitioner as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist. Mr. Denis’ job responsibilities included the inspection of public food service establishments for compliance with pertinent rules and statutes. Following the receipt of a complaint from a customer, Mr. Denis inspected the subject location on June 22, 2005. Prior to the inspection on June 22, 2005, the subject location had been cited by Petitioner for failure to comply with hand-washing procedures set forth in Section 2-301.14 of the Food Code. A violation of applicable rules by a public food service establishment is either a critical or non-critical violation. A critical violation is one that poses a significant threat to the health, safety, and welfare of people. A non- critical violation is one that does not rise to the level of a critical violation. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that a cashier employed by Petitioner handed clean plates to customers after handling money but without washing his hands. The manner in which the cashier handled the clean plates and the fact that he did not wash his hands after handling money violated Section 2-301.14 of the Food Code, which is a critical violation. Respondent’s manager established that the cashier’s handling of the food plates was contrary to Respondent’s policies and the training given by Respondent to its employees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order finding that Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing against Respondent a fine in the amount of $500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 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 2nd day of February, 2006.
The Issue The administrative complaint, as limited by the abandonment of certain charges at the final hearing, raises four issues about the operation of the respondent's business. These include whether at the time of inspections on August 11 and September 3, 1986, the respondent was a food service establishment which had on its premises food which was not from an approved source; whether it failed to provide dishwashing facilities; whether it failed to provide hot and cold running water under pressure; and whether it failed to provide adequate toilet facilities.
Findings Of Fact France To You Coconut Grove, Inc., operates at 3199 Commodore Plaza, Miami, Florida, in the area known as Coconut Grove. At that location the corporation sells magazines, newspapers, post cards, greeting cards, cigarettes and, at one end of the store, has freezers containing food for sale. The entire facility is comprised of about 900 square feet, and has a single restroom. There is no space for a second restroom. The existing restroom is generally not made available to the public because to reach it, it is necessary to go through a storeroom containing the facility's merchandise. Non-employees therefore are not permitted to use the restroom. Prior to August, 1986, patrons could purchase food in sealed microwaveable packages from the freezer. It would then be heated and made available to the customer on paper plates with plastic, single-use utensils to be consumed outside the premises on a deck containing tables and chairs which France To You had made available. As the result of an article which appeared in the Miami Herald in early August, 1986, which indicated that gourmet food was sold at France To You, the health department sent an inspector, Mr. Hoffman, to the establishment. Hoffman saw people eating on the deck outside France To You. He met with the manager of the facility, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor became distressed when the health department asserted that France To You fell under its jurisdiction. Mr. Hoffman asked Mr. Taylor to come to the health department offices for a planned review. Mr. Taylor did so and after initially meeting with a planned review officer, Mr. Taylor demanded to see someone more senior. During the meeting Mr. Taylor explained he planned to heat for patrons food purchased at France To You, which would be consumed on the deck outside. It was arranged that the administrator of the Dade County Public Health Department, Mr. Livingstone, would come to the Taylor establishment, which is something the administrator ordinarily leaves to regular inspectors. On August 11, 1986, Mr. Livingstone came to France To You with Mr. Ros, the Assistant Director, and Mr. Diaz of the State Department of Business Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. At that meeting Mr. Livingstone found that the freezers contained prepackaged food, which people were eating on the deck outside the establishment. There was also a Mr. Coffee machine on the premises, but it was used only for employees, not to sell coffee to customers. When Mr. Livingstone attempted to explain the requirement of the sanitation code to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Taylor became abusive and the conversation ended. There were no dishwashing facilities or three- compartment sink at France To You on August 11, 1986, and no hot water in the restroom or hot and cold water under pressure in the food preparation area, i.e. the area where the food was heated and transferred to paper plates for consumption. The prepackaged containers of food came from another France To You store on Mills Drive near the Town and Country Mall in south Dade County. That store has a market license which permits it to sell food, but it does not hold a processing license; the Mills Drive facility has not been approved by the Dade County Health Department to process food that would be packaged for sale at another location. It would have been possible for the food portions sold in Coconut Grove to have been prepared by a food processing plant inspected and approved by the Department of Agriculture or the Food and Drug Administration. There was no evidence presented that the food processing plant which was the source of the food portions at France To You was unapproved by the Department of Agriculture or the Food and Drug Administration. The premises were then reinspected by Mr. Hoffman of the Dade County Department of Public Health, and the supervisor for the area, Mr. Petty, on September 3, 1986. That inspection revealed that food was still being prepared and served on the deck outside where people consumed it. There were no dishwashing facilities or three compartment sink to wash and sanitize any food service equipment. Hot and cold running water under pressure was not available where the food was prepared, which is required to minimize the possibility of hand- to-mouth contamination of food. There was not a second restroom available for patrons. While the inspection report and the testimony of Mr. Hoffman would indicate there were some other violations found that day, such as smoking in the food preparation area and the absence of a thermometer in the freezer cases, those matters are not charged in the administrative complaint and therefore not relevant in this proceeding. A reinspection, following up on that done by Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Petty on September 3, 1986, was performed by Mr.Louis Ron of the Dade County Public Health Department on September 9, 1986. Mr. Ron was accompanied again by Mr. Petty. At the time of the reinspection the violations which had been filed by Mr. Hoffman had not been corrected, i.e. there was still no three-compartment sink, there was only one restroom, and there was no hot water in the handwashing sink in the food preparation area. Mr. Ron inspected the premises again on January 16, 1987. At that time Mr. Ron observed microwave ovens which were dirty and had not been cleaned, that there was no facility for sanitizing utensils being used by the establishment, in that there was no dipper well for the ice cream service operation which then had been installed on the deck, but there was a handwashing sink for that ice cream service. While a three- compartment sink had been installed, there was no running water yet connected to it. Finally, another inspection of the premises took place by Mr. Hoffman on April 2, 1987. At that time, the food service operation had expanded to include grills and stoves installed on the deck for the preparation of food items such as hamburgers, hotdogs, chili, eggs and bacon, as well as ice cream being served at the deck. Photographs of these food service activities taken by Mr. Hoffman were admitted into evidence. There may be other food service establishments in the general Coconut Grove area which do not provide two public restrooms, such as the Subway Sandwich Shop.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding the facility to have violated Rules 10D-13.027(1) and 10D-13.027(5), Florida Administrative Code, and imposing an administrative fine of Four Thousand Five Hundred ($4,500) Dollars, pursuant to Section 381.112, Florida Statutes (1985). DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4500M The following are my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings: France To You is a food service establishment as covered in the conclusions of law. Covered in finding of facts. Sentence 1 rejected because there is inadequate proof concerning whether the food source was approved by governmental entities other than the Dade County Health Department. Sentences 2 and 3 covered in findings of fact 2 and 7. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in findings of fact 5, 6 and 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 4, except as to the coffee service, which is covered in finding of fact 6. Rejected due to the inadequate evidence concerning the licensure status of the food processor. Covered in findings of fact 10 and 11. Rejected as unnecessary, and because there is inadequate proof that the respondent sold any coffee to patrons. Covered in finding of fact 14. Covered in finding of fact 12. Covered in finding of fact 13. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 14, but relates only to assessment of penalty not to a violation. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Not adopted because Mr. Taylor's testimony concerning the availability of restrooms at other establishments is not relevant to determining whether the operation of France To You is one which requires two restrooms. Covered in finding of `fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 13. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings: Covered in findings of fact 5 through 7. That no inspector actually saw food being prepared, as opposed to food being consumed by patrons of France To You, is not significant. The evidence supports the inference that France To You was serving food. Rejected because inspectors observed patrons eating food at the establishment in August and September of 1986. Generally adopted in finding of fact 6. Although there is inadequate proof that the source of the food sold had received FDA approval, that is not the issue presented. To impose sanctions, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services had to prove that the source of the food had not received FDA approval, which it failed to prove. The burden of this finding is adopted in finding of fact 6. Rejected for the reasons given in ruling on proposal 1. Covered in finding of fact 9. Rejected because the inspection performed on January 16 indicated that there was no running water connected to the three-compartment sink. To the extent that the finding includes a proposal that there was a handwash sink with hot water is covered in finding of fact 13. Rejected because the evidence gives rise to the inference, which the Hearing Officer makes, that food was being served prior to January 1, 1987. Rejected as inconsistent with the testimony of the health department inspectors which has been credited. No findings have been made with respect to advertisements because it is unnecessary to do so. Omitted. Rejected because the type of licensure which France To You Food Service Corporation had for the facility on Mills Drive was not a license to process food to be sold elsewhere. Rejected as irrelevant. Whether other establishments may be violating the law does not excuse any violations by France To You. COPIES FURNISHED: Morton Laitner, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1350 North West. 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Michael A. Vandetty, Esquire DIENER & SHAPIRO, P.A. 1790 West 49th Street Suite 312 Hialeah, Florida 33012 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary 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 Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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
