Findings Of Fact The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department) is the state agency charged with responsibility for administration of the Florida Food Act, Chapter 500, Florida Statutes. Guy Ratcliff (Respondent) is the owner and operator of the Scratch & Dent Food Mart (Food Mart) located at 702 East Baker Street, Plant City, Florida. Inspections were conducted by a representative of the Department on July 12 and 26, September 20, October 21, and November 23, 1993. On all five inspections, the inspector assigned an overall evaluation rating of "poor" to the store. During the inspection performed on July 12, 1993, dust, bugs, spiders and rodent droppings were present on food shelves. Moths and beetle infestation were present in dry cereals and in dry cat and dog food. On orders of the Department, the Respondent removed the contaminated food from sale. During the inspection performed on July 26, 1993, various grain products were found to be infested with beetles and moths. Some canned foods were rusted or swollen. Beetles, moths, spiders, rodent droppings and "nesting materials" were found on food display shelving. On orders of the Department, the Respondent removed the contaminated food from sale. By letter dated August 19, 1993, the Department advised the Respondent that, "[y]our food establishment was inspected and found sanitarily "poor"." The letter states that the Department was reviewing the matter to determine if administrative action was warranted and notes that "[f]ailure to comply with sanitation provisions of Chapter 500, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 5E-6, Florida Administrative Code, can result in an administrative fine and/or suspension of your Food Permit." By letter of August 23, 1993, the Department advised the Respondent that, "[y]our food establishment received a "poor" sanitation rating on August 12, 1993." The evidence fails to establish that an inspection and sanitation rating were performed on August 12, 1993. The letter further states that the establishment would be reinspected "in the near future" and that "[f]ailure to correct the deficiencies may result in a continued poor rating "and possible action by the department to safeguard the public health." During the inspection performed on September 20, 1993, roach and rodent droppings and swollen and leaking canned tomato and fruit products were present on food display shelves. On orders of the Department, the Respondent removed the contaminated food from sale. During the inspection performed on October 21, 1993, swollen and leaking canned tomato products and roach and rodent droppings were present on food display shelves. On orders of the Department, the Respondent removed the contaminated food from sale. During the inspection performed on November 23, 1993, live beetles and moths were present in dry cat and dog food. Live beetles were present in dry sauce mixes. Roach and rodent droppings were present in the dry cereal, dry pet food, baby food and other sections of the store. On orders of the Department, the Respondent removed the contaminated food from sale. By letter dated November 30, 1993, the Department advised the Respondent that, "[y]our food establishment was inspected and found sanitarily "poor"." The letter states that the Department was reviewing the matter to determine if administrative action was warranted and notes that "[f]ailure to comply with sanitation provisions of Chapter 500, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 5E-6, Florida Administrative Code, can result in an administrative fine and/or suspension of your Food Permit." Based on the deficiencies noted herein as determined during the inspections, the Department filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding. In response to the allegations of the complaint, the Respondent acknowledged that problems had been found by the inspector. He stated that a bad shipment of food had resulted in contamination of the warehouse and store by pests and rodents. The Respondent asserts that continuing efforts are made to clean the store and place it in more sanitary condition. According to the Department's inspector, on the March 30, 1994 evaluation of the facility, no violations were noted and a sanitation rating of fair was assigned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order imposing a fine of $5,000 against the Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1994 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-0695 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order. Respondent The Respondent did not file a proposed recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol , PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol , PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Linton B. Eason Qualified Representative Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Room 515 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Guy Ratcliff, President Scratch & Dent Food Mart, Inc. 702 East Baker Street Plant City, Florida 33566
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in an Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Petitioner), against Town and Country Skate World (Respondent) are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2011). At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a restaurant operating at 7510 Paula Drive, Tampa, Florida, 33615, and holding food service license number 3203942. On May 6, 2010, Rich Decker (Mr. Decker), employed by the Petitioner as a senior sanitation and safety specialist, performed a routine inspection (May 6 inspection) of the Respondent and observed conditions that violated certain provisions of the Food Code. Food Code violations are classified as "critical" or "non-critical." A critical violation of the Food Code is one that poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and is a risk factor for food-borne illness. A non- critical violation of the Food Code is one that does not meet the definition of a critical violation. At the conclusion of the May 6 inspection, Mr. Decker noted the observed violations in an inspection report. A manager for the Respondent was present during the inspection. The manager signed the inspection report and received a copy of the report at that time. According to the inspection report, a follow-up "callback" inspection was scheduled to occur on July 6, 2010, prior to which critical violations were to have been corrected. On July 21, 2010, Kathy Dorsey (Ms. Dorsey), employed by the Petitioner as a senior sanitation and safety specialist, performed the callback inspection (July 21 callback inspection) and observed some of the same Food Code violations noted on the May 6 inspection report. At the conclusion of the July 21 callback inspection, Ms. Dorsey noted the observed violations in an inspection report. An employee of the Respondent present at the time of the inspection signed and received a copy of the callback inspection report. The Petitioner subsequently filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding. Pursuant to state regulations, the Respondent was required to have designated a certified food protection manager responsible for the operation of food service. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the designated food protection manager's certification had expired and that the Respondent was operating without a properly-certified food protection manager. This was a critical violation of the Food Code, because the lack of a properly-certified food protection manager presents a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare through the transmission of food-borne illness by improper food preparation. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that no thermometer to ascertain the temperature of food products was present, a critical violation. Foods held at improper temperatures are susceptible to development of bacterial contamination and are a risk factor for transmission of food-borne illness. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the Respondent, which utilized a chemical system for sanitation of dishes and utensils, had no chemical test kit provided at the location of the sanitation sink. The test kit is required to ascertain whether the composition of the disinfection liquid is appropriate and capable of sanitizing the items. This was a critical violation because improperly sanitized dishes and utensils pose a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare through the transmission of food-borne illness. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the gaskets located at the reach-in food refrigeration unit were soiled, a critical violation because the situation presents an opportunity for bacterial contamination of food products and transmission of food-borne illness. Sinks used for preparation of food products are not to be used for hand washing, and, accordingly, the Food Code prohibits having hand-washing aids at a food prep sink. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the Respondent had hand-washing materials located at a food-prep sink. This was a critical violation because dual use of sinks provides an opportunity for bacterial contamination of food or utensils and transmission of food-borne illness. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the Respondent's gas tanks (helium and/or carbon dioxide) were not properly secured, which was a non-critical violation of state regulations cited herein. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that ceiling tiles in the kitchen were water-stained, indicating the presence of an unidentified leak above the ceiling tiles, and other tiles were missing. These were non-critical violations of state regulations cited herein.
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 the Respondent in the amount of $1,550. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2011, 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 28th day of November, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Alan Blizard Town and Country Skate World 7510 Paula Drive Tampa, Florida 33615 Layne Smith, 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
The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are stated in the counts set forth in the Administrative Complaint for each case: Whether Falcon Catering Service No. 7 (hereinafter "Falcon 7") and Falcon Catering Service No. 8 (hereinafter "Falcon 8") failed to maintain the proper protection and temperature requirements for food sold from their mobile site in violation of the federal Food and Drug Administration Food Code ("Food Code"). In the Prehearing Stipulation filed in this matter, each Respondent generally admitted to the violations in the Administrative Complaints, but suggested that mitigating factors should absolve them of the charges or greatly reduce any administrative fine imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is responsible for monitoring all licensed food establishments in the state. It is the Division's duty to ensure that all such establishments comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Respondents Falcon 7 and Falcon 8 are licensed mobile food dispensing vehicles. Falcon 7 has license No. MFD5852560, which was initially issued on April 23, 2005; Falcon 8 has license No. MFD5852642, which was issued on October 19, 2005. Each of the Respondents serves meals and snacks to, inter alia, laborers at construction sites. On or about March 13, 2009, the Division conducted a food service inspection on Falcon 7. At that time, the food truck was located at 4880 Distribution Court, Orlando, Florida. One of the Food Code violations found by the inspector was Item 53b. That citation meant there was no validation of employee training on the truck. A follow-up inspection was deemed to be required. On April 10, 2009, a follow-up inspection was conducted by the Division. At that time, Item 53b was cited as a repeat offense. Also, Item 8a was cited. Item 8a refers to protection of food from contaminants and keeping food at an acceptable temperature. Notes by the inspector indicate that a further violation of Item 8a occurred because customers were allowed to serve themselves directly from food containers, and there was no fan in operation during the serving of food. On May 28, 2009, another inspection of Falcon 7 was conducted. At that time, the food truck was located at 12720 South Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando, Florida. Item 8a was again cited as a deficiency. The inspector's notes indicate that food was not properly protected from contamination and that customers were being served "buffet style" from the back of the truck. The inspector noted that this was a repeat violation. A follow-up or "call-back" inspection was conducted on December 3, 2009, at which time the temperature in Orlando was unusually cold. The food truck was at the same address on Orange Blossom Trail as noted in the prior inspection. Falcon 7 was again found to have been serving food buffet style from the back of the food truck. An Item 8a violation was again noted by the inspector. Another inspection of Falcon 7 was conducted on January 19, 2010, another very cold day in Orlando. At that time, the food truck was located at the same site as the last two inspections. The inspector cited the food truck for an Item 8a violation again, stating that the food was not being protected from contaminants. Dust was flying up on the back of the truck to exposed food items. An inspection of Falcon 8 was conducted on August 25, 2009, while the truck was located at 4880 Distribution Court, Orlando, Florida. An Item 8a violation was noted by the inspector, who found that displayed food was not properly protected from contaminants. The food truck was located under an Interstate 4 overpass and was open to flying debris. The inspector noted that customers were being served buffet style and that there was no protection of food from contamination by the customers. A follow-up inspection for Falcon 8 was conducted on August 27, 2009, at 9:12 a.m., while the food truck was located at the same site. Another Item 8a violation was cited at that time. The violation notes indicate essentially the same situation that had been cited in the initial inspection two days earlier. Less than one hour after the follow-up inspection, another inspection was conducted on Falcon 8 at the same location as the prior two inspections. There were no Item 8a citations issued during this inspection, but the food truck was found to have no water available for hand washing. The food truck employee was using a hand sanitizer to clean her hands. Respondents do not dispute the facts set forth above. However, Respondents provided mitigating facts for consideration in the assessment of any penalty that might be imposed. Those mitigating factors are as follows: The food trucks were serving an inordinately large number of workers during the dates of the inspections. The City of Orlando was constructing its new basketball arena, and there were numerous laborers involved in the project. In order to serve the workers, it was necessary for the food trucks to put their food out on tables, rather than ladle the food directly from the food warmers in the food truck. In fact, the shelves in the food trucks are so narrow that dipping food out of the warmers would be impossible. Due to the cold weather in Orlando during this time, it was impossible to keep the food at acceptable temperature levels for very long. The large number of workers washing their hands at the food trucks caused the trucks to run out of water much more quickly than normal. When the water ran out, the employees took care to sanitize their hands as well as possible. Ms. Falcon testified that the inspector's testimony concerning use of tables to serve food was erroneous. However, Sabrina Falcon was not present during the inspections, and her contradictory testimony is not reliable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, imposing a fine of $500.00 against Falcon Catering Service, No. 7, in DOAH Case No. 10-10925; and a fine of $750.00 against Falcon Catering Service, No. 8, in DOAH Case No. 10-10930. All fines should be paid within 30 days of the entry of the Final Order by the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 10th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Sabrina Falcon Falcon Catering Service 642 Mendoza Drive Orlando, Florida 32825 Megan Demartini, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue At issue in this case is whether respondents committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Action, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, respondents held alcoholic beverage license number 60-05592, series 2-APS, for use at the premises of K Beverage & Food, located at 2511 West Gate Avenue #9, West Palm Beach, Florida. This license was issued November 18, 1991, by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. On or about August 22, 1991, K Beverage & Food was authorized by the United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service ("F.N.S."), to accept food stamps. In the application, respondents, acting through Mr. Hassan, acknowledged that they had read and fully understood the Food Stamp Program regulations. As part of the authorization process, Mr. Hassan attended a meeting and education course on the Food Stamp Program regulations applicable to retail grocers, and he signed an acknowledgment that he understood these regulations. The F.N.S. Compliance Section routinely conducts investigations of authorized stores to ensure compliance with all applicable federal rules and regulations. The compliance investigation of K Beverage & Food commenced on March 31, 1993, when Senior Investigator Rene Berlingeri entered the store at approximately 2:30 p.m. A man was working at the checkout counter when Mr. Berlingeri brought three food and four non-food items to the counter for purchase. The clerk rang up the total price for the seven items. Mr. Berlingeri offered food stamps in payment, and the clerk accepted them without comment. The clerk put the food stamps in the drawer of the cash register. On April 8, 1993, Mr. Berlingeri visited K Beverage & Food for the second time. The store clerk at that time was a woman who identified herself as Isabel. Mr. Berlingeri again selected three food and four non-food items for purchase. Isabel rang up the total price for the seven items and, without comment, accepted food stamps as payment. On April 13, 1993, Mr. Berlingeri visited K Beverage & Food; Isabel was the clerk on duty. He selected three food items and four non-food items. Isabel rang up the total price of the seven items and again, without comment, accepted food stamps as payment. As she was bagging his purchases, Mr. Berlingeri selected a six-pack of beer, and, without comment, Isabel accepted food stamps as payment. On April 15, 1993, Mr. Berlingeri visited K Beverage & Food. Isabel was again working as clerk. He selected one food item and three non-food items, including a six-pack of beer. Isabel accepted food stamps as payment for the total price of the four items, without comment. Mr. Berlingeri then asked if she would exchange food stamps for cash, and he gave her a book of food stamps with a face value of $50. Isabel gave him $45 in cash from the cash register and put the book of food stamps into the cash register. On April 20, 1993, Mr. Berlingeri entered K Beverage & Food at approximately 10:15 a.m. and asked Isabel if she would purchase $200 worth of food stamps. At Isabel's request, he returned at approximately 11:40 a.m. He gave Isabel food stamps with a face value of $200; she gave him $140 in cash, which she took from under the counter. She told Mr. Berlingeri that, if he ever wanted to exchange more food stamps for cash, he should come to K Beverage & Food at about the same time of day. On July 17, 1993, Mr. Berlingeri made his final investigative visit to K Beverage & Food. The clerk on duty, who identified himself during the transaction as "Sam", gave Mr. Berlingeri $130 in cash in exchange for food stamps with a face value of $200. Sam put the food stamps under the counter, but Mr. Berlingeri did not see the place from which Sam obtained the cash. During the transaction, Sam acknowledged that he knew Isabel; he asked Mr. Berlingeri to keep the transaction confidential. On July 23, 1993, Mr. Berlingeri returned to K Beverage & Food to identify the persons involved in the food stamp transactions. The clerk on duty told Mr. Berlingeri that the owner of K Beverage & Food had another store, called A1A Food Discount Beverage, and Mr. Berlingeri went there. He approached a woman who identified herself as Sandra Marcel Hassan; Mr. Berlingeri verified the identification from a Florida driver's license. While Mr. Berlingeri was in A1A Food Discount Beverage, the person known to him as "Isabel" came into the store. She produced a Florida driver's license that identified her as Maria Isabela Besola. The clerk that Mr. Berlingeri dealt with at K Beverage & Food in March and the clerk who took part in the July 17 transaction were not identified. During the period in which the transactions set out in paragraphs 3 through 9 occurred, Mr. Hassan was present at K Beverage & Food only in the mornings, when he prepared the bank deposit, and in the afternoons after 5:00 p.m., when he came in to work. Mr. Hassan was not present in the store when any of the transactions at issue occurred, nor was there evidence that respondent Sandra M. Bomio Hassan was present at K Beverage & Food at any of the times relevant to this case. Respondents knew that it is a violation of Food Stamp Program regulations for a retail food store to accept food stamps in exchange for ineligible, non-food items and in exchange for cash. Six violations occurred at K Beverage & Food over a period of 21 days, with a seventh violation occurring 60 days later, and three different clerks were involved in the violations. The repeated violations were conducted in an open and flagrant manner. Even though respondents were not on the premises when the violations occurred, it may be reasonably concluded that, due to the number of violations and the open manner in which they occurred, respondents condoned or negligently overlooked the violations by failing to exercise due diligence in supervising their employees and in monitoring the licensed premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a Final Order finding respondents Sandra M. Bomio and Hapy Hassan, d/b/a K Beverage & Food, guilty of violating section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 31st day of May 1995.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 17, 2009, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is the state agency responsible for inspecting and regulating public food service establishments in Florida. Respondent is a permanent food service establishment holding License No. 5808714. Respondent's business address is 11400 University Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32817. On June 2, 2008, Will Goris, an employee of Petitioner, conducted a routine inspection of Respondent's premises. A Food Service Inspection Report was prepared on site which noted a number of violations. This Food Service Inspection Report was received and signed by Camilo Gondran on the day of the inspection. Respondent was notified in writing on the inspection report that violations must be corrected by the next unannounced inspection. On October 15, 2008, Nyahin Bandele, an employee of Petitioner, conducted a routine inspection of Respondent's premises. A Food Service Inspection Report was prepared on site which noted a number of violations. This Food Service Inspection Report was received and signed by Tim Smoak on the day of the inspection. Respondent was notified verbally and in writing on the inspection report that violations must be corrected by December 15, 2008. Ms. Bandele conducted a follow-up inspection on December 30, 2008. She discovered that some of the violations noted during the October 15, 2008, inspection had been corrected, but that some had not. She issued a Call Back Inspection Report and delivered it to Tim Smoak on the day of the inspection. She verbally advised and the report stated that the "remaining violations must be corrected by the next inspection to avoid an Administrative Complaint." On March 27, 2009, Ms. Bandele conducted a routine inspection on Respondent's premises. She prepared an inspection report and delivered it to David Swanson. It noted violations and recommended that an Administrative Complaint be filed. A critical violation is one that, if not corrected, is more likely than other violations to cause an imminent food-borne illness, contamination, or environmental hazard. A non-critical violation is one that relates to good retail practices, such as general cleanliness, organization, and maintenance of the facility. On October 15, 2008, and March 27, 2009, the inspection reports noted that the required consumer advisory for raw, undercooked, or not otherwise processed foods, was not provided. This is a violation of Rule 3-603.11 of the Food Code and a critical violation. Respondent presented credible evidence that the menu was changed in late August 2009 that corrected this violation. On October 15, 2008, and March 27, 2009, the inspection reports noted that there were small flying insects in the bar area. This is a violation of Rule 6-501.11 of the Food Code, and a critical violation. Respondent presented credible evidence that following the confirmed presence of fruit flies during the October 15, 2008, inspection, a pest control organization was retained by Respondent and he presented a service report that indicates "no activity of flying insects" on February 20, 2009. On October 15, 2008, December 30, 2008, and March 27, 2009, there was a build-up of slime inside the ice machines. In addition, a build-up of accumulated food debris was noted in the reach-in coolers. These are critical violations of Rule 4-602.11(E) of the Food Code. No credible evidence was offered to refute these violations. On October 15, 2008, December 30, 2008, and March 27, 2009, boxes of food were found to be on the floor in the walk-in cooler. This is a critical violation of Rule 3-305.11 of the Food Code. No credible evidence was offered to refute these violations. On October 15, 2008, December 30, 2008, and March 27, 2009, there was an excessive build-up of dirt and dust observed on hood filters. This is a violation of Rule 4-601.11(C) of the Food Code, but is a non-critical violation. Respondents presented evidence that the hoods had been professionally cleaned on April 13 and October 27, 2008. This does not preclude the violations noted. On October 15, 2008, December 30, 2008, and March 27, 2009, the lights over the kitchen cookline were missing shields. This is a non-critical violation of Rule 6-202.11 of the Food Code. No credible evidence was offered to refute these violations.
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, TD's Sports Bar and Grill, committed the critical violations of Rules 3-305.11, 4-601.11(C), and 4-602.11(E) of the Food Code, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and be administratively fined $1,500.00 for these violations; Respondent committed the non-critical violation of Rule 6-202.11 of the Food Code and be administratively fined $250.00 for this violation; and The allegations that Respondent violated Rules 3-603.11 and 6-501.11 of the Food Code, be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 16th day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 David Swanson Timothy Smoak TD's Sports Bar and Grill c/o Legend Realty, LLC 2838 University Acres Drive Orlando, Florida 32817
Findings Of Fact Dunya Safford is a resident of Gadsden County, Florida. The parties have stipulated that he was admitted to the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital on December 30, 1977, in an emergency medical condition, and that the treatment performed by the hospital was of an emergency nature. The parties have further stipulated that the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital is a regional referral hospital within the meaning of 154.304(4), Florida Statutes (1977). Dunya Safford, then less than one year old, was admitted to the hospital on December 30, 1977 and discharged on January 4, 1978. Dunya is the child of David and Carrie Safford. The total bill for services rendered by the hospital was $1,816.30. The hospital submitted a bill to Gadsden County in the amount of $633.95 for the services. This latter amount is the portion of the bill which can be billed to the county of residence in accordance with the Florida Health Care Responsibility Act. Gadsden County has refused to pay the bill, contending that the patient was not indigent. The patient has not paid the bill. The patient's parents have a total of eight children. One of the children married and moved out of the household prior to the patient's hospitalization. Another of the children is Mrs. Safford's child, but not Mr. Safford's child, although Mr. Safford has taken responsibility for complete support of the child. During the six months prior to the hospitalization, Mrs. Safford had no income. Mr. Safford had approximate average weekly income of $95 in his employment as an agricultural worker. The Saffords were, during that period, food stamp recipients. They received $2,552 in food stamps, and paid $669 for them. They thus received net food stamp benefits of $2,178, or an average of $363 per month.
