Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Richard J. Campbell, d/b/a Granny's Donut Shop, was, at all times material hereto, engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, packing, holding or selling food at retail. Petitioner held food permit number 68877 issued by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department), for the premises located at 306 Northeast Eight Street, Homestead, Florida. The Department is charged with the administration and enforcement of Chapter 500, Florida Statutes, including the rules promulgated thereunder, relating to food safety and the selling of food to the consuming public. The Violations Department food safety inspectors conducted food safety inspections at Granny's Donut Shop on December 12, 1994, December 27, 1994, and January 12, 1995. On each of the three inspections, Granny's Donut Shop received an overall rating of "poor." These ratings resulted from the fact that on each of the three inspections the inspector observed multiple unsanitary conditions that constituted violations of applicable statutory and rule provisions; however, most of the violations were not critical violations. The Department's initial inspection of December 9, 1994, resulted in an overall rating of "poor" based on a finding of 16 sanitary violations; however, only one violation, the presence of insect activity, was a critical violation. The Department reinspection of December 27, 1994, again resulted in an overall rating of "poor" based on a finding of 20 sanitary violations. Again, only one violation, the storage of toxic items (cleaning supplies) on a shelf with food products, was a critical item, and the previous critical violation had been corrected. While not critical, approximately seven of the violations noted on the first inspection persisted, including, the frame of the fryer was not clean, the rolling racks were not clean, the floor was dirty, the flour was not properly stored, the walls were dirty, some soiled linen was stored with food, and the coolers were dirty. The Department's reinspection of January 12, 1995, again resulted in an overall rating of "poor" based on a finding of 18 sanitary violations; however, only one violation, the storage of toxic items (cleaning supplies) above a three-compartment sink, was noted as a critical item, and the previous critical violation had been corrected. Again, while not critical, approximately seven of the violations noted on the previous inspection persisted, including, the frame of the fryer was not clean, the rolling racks were not clean, the floor was dirty, the flour was not properly stored, the walls were dirty, the wall over the handwashing sink had holes in it, and some soiled linen was stored on a work table. Finally, during the course of the January 12, 1995, inspection, the Department issued a stop use order for a mixer that was found "dirty with old product residue [and] build-up on both food [and] non-food contact surfaces," which it deemed an immediate serious danger to the public health. The Penalty At hearing, the Department offered proof that it is its policy to recommend an administrative fine against an establishment which has received two "poor" ratings in a row and on the third inspection does not achieve an improved rating of "fair" or "good." The Department further observed that under the provisions of Section 500.121(1), Florida Statutes, it is authorized to impose an administrative fine not excededing $5,000 against a food establishment that has violated Chapter 500, Florida Statutes; however, the Department did not offer any proof as to what penalties, if any, it had imposed in prior similar cases, and did not submit a proposed recommended order advocating the assessment of an administrative fine in any particular amount. Compared with the paucity of proof offered by the Department concerning an appropriate fine, petitioner offered proof, which is credited, that Granny's Donut Shop was a small, family owned business, that the demands of the business were taxing, that the business is now closed, and that the business took a severe financial toll on petitioner. While not excusing sanitary violations that could pose a threat to the consuming public, such factors, under the circumstances of this case, provide useful evidence in assessing a penalty that will deter others from similar violations, yet not be unduly harsh toward petitioner's violations. Considering such mitigating factors, as well as the nature of the violations established, an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) is deemed appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding petitioner violated the provisions of Chapter 500, Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00). DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, 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 24th day of April 1996.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint 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 (2007). At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a restaurant holding Food Service license number 5803705 and operating at 29 South Semoran Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32807. On October 23, 2007, Alphonso Rullan, a sanitation safety specialist employed by the Petitioner, performed a routine inspection of the Respondent at which time there were employees engaged in food preparation. At the time of the October 23 inspection, the Respondent was unable to provide any evidence that the employees had received training in food safety protection. Mr. Rullan also observed during the October 23 inspection that the interior of the microwave oven was soiled with crusted food material indicating that the oven was not being routinely cleaned at least every 24 hours. Mr. Rullan noted the deficiencies in an inspection report, a copy of which was provided to the manager, who was identified as "Victor Montenegro." On January 11, 2008, Mr. Rullan returned to the Respondent to perform a call back inspection, during which the Respondent was still unable to provide evidence that employees had received training in food safety protection. Mr. Rullan again observed that the microwave oven was soiled with crusted food material indicating that the oven was not being cleaned at least every 24 hours. The deficiencies were cited in an inspection report which was provided to Mr. Lopez at the time of the inspection. On February 8, 2008, the Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent for failure to correct the deficiencies 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 enter a final order imposing a fine of $1,000 against the Respondent and requiring the Respondent to complete an appropriate educational program related to the violations identified herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2008, 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 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 September, 2008.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Danny Paul, held Florida Restaurant License 39-219R for The Market Restaurant located at 1401 West Haines Street, Plant City, Florida. The Division of Hotels and Restaurants is the State of Florida agency charged with licensing restaurants. On the afternoon of December 16, 1987, Harry P. Messick, an Environmental Health Specialist for the Hillsborough County Health Department, under contract to do food sanitation inspections for the Department of Business Regulation, in the company of his supervisor, Jordan Lewis, entered the Respondent's restaurant to conduct a no-notice, routine, quarterly inspection. The Market Restaurant is a full service restaurant capable of serving in excess of 100 patrons at a time. At the time of this inspection the restaurant was open for business. Both the cafeteria line and table service were in operation. When he entered the facility, Mr. Messick identified himself to Respondent, and advised him of what he was going to do. Mr. Messick had with him two different types of thermometers and a flashlight. During the inspection, Mr. Paul left the premises. Mr. Messick first went to the kitchen where he observed cooked sausage and sausage gravy sitting out without protection. The gravy was at a temperature of 95 degrees and the cooked sausage was at a temperature of 85 degres (all temperatures mentioned herein are stated in farenheit). These temperatures indicated the items had been kept at room temperature rather than at the 140 degrees as required by rule. Mr. Paul admitted the items were as described but indicated that to refrigerate and reheat them destroys the taste. He has chosen not to offer these items after the breakfast rush rather than store and reheat them. Mr. Messick also observed other discrepancies. Cream pies sitting out in the kitchen were not under refrigeration at the required temperature of not more than 45 degrees. Mr. Paul admits that he has always kept his pies at room temperature and has never been written up for this before. A sandwich preparation cooler with a roll down lid, containing the makings for sandwiches, which are required to be kept at no more than 45 degrees, was found to maintain the food at 54 degrees - above the maximum allowed. Mr. Paul does not deny this allegation. He did not check for compliance. Frozen food was left to thaw at room temperature prior to cooking. It should have been maintained at 45 degrees but was not, nor did the method of thawing, constitute the approved method as found in the rule. Mr. Paul contends he has to defrost as he does to insure the temperature of the meat is sufficiently high to allow it to cook uniformly the way he chooses to prepare it. If the center were to be cooler than the outside, it would not cook properly, in his opinion, and he indicated he will not thaw food the way the rule prescribes. Pies were displayed on the serving line without a sneeze guard to protect them. Mr. Paul admits no sneeze guard was present nor has there been one in place at any time during the prior six years he has operated the restaurant. He also admits that mesh bags of onions were sitting on the concrete floor in the kitchen, but contends they had just been delivered and he had not had time to put them away. Bulk ingredients, such as rice and flour, stored in barrels, were not dispensed by scoops with handles to prevent hand contact with the food product. Instead, a bowl was used to remove the needed quantity from the barrel. Mr. Paul admits this, reasoning that scoops with handles are no more sanitary than bowls without handles since the substance routinely gets on the handles as well. Nonetheless, he has now affixed handles to the bowls he uses in place of scoops. Ice scoops were not properly stored in the ice or in a storage spot with the handles up. Instead, they were placed in the dust on top of the ice machine. Mr. Paul denies the scoops were on top of the machine, contending the waitresses could not reach them there. They were not properly stored, however, and are now stored in the ice as required. Respondent was not using approved food grade plastic bags, either clear or white plastic, for food storage but was instead using trash bags for this purpose. Trash bags are not permitted because many are made from recycled plastic or have insecticide contained in the plastic and are not safe for food. Respondent admits that as of the time of the inspection, he was not using the required bags. He is now. Some utensils were stored with the eating surface up instead of the handles as required. Mr. Paul attributes this to personnel taking too many clean utensils by mistake and improperly replacing them. When brought from the dishwashing machine, utensils are always placed at the waitress station with the handle up. Mr. Messick did not contend the utensils were dirty, merely that the method of handling was improper. He made no mention of cooking utensils. Mr. Messick noted that major food contact surfaces were not kept clean. Cooler racks, counter tops, the food preparation cooler, and the can opener blades needed cleaning and displayed accumulations of material not merely from the current day's use. Based on his experience, Mr. Messick concluded that these surfaces had not been cleaned on a routine basis. Mr. Paul strongly denied this, however, contending that each day when the restaurant closes a cleaning man comes in and goes over every food preparation surface. However, Mr. Messick's observations are more credible than Respondent's denials. Under the rules of the Division, hand washing facilities must be available in each food service area. There was a sink available, but because of objects placed in front of it, (milk cases and a basket), it was impossible to get to. In addition, neither soap nor towels were available. Mr. Paul contended the obstructions could have been moved, but their presence indicates the sink is not often used. The grease trap outside the restaurant, newly installed, has a lid to cover it which, at the time of the inspection, had been left open. This allowed flies and other vermin access and permitted bad smells to escape. According to Mr. Paul, an employee merely forgot to close the lid which is normally kept closed at all times. There is no reason to doubt this explanation. Petitioner asserts and Respondent admits that as of the time of the inspection, several ceiling lights did not have either the plastic or wire mesh shields to prevent glass fragments from getting into the food if the light were broken. This situation has now been corrected on all but one light. At the time of the inspection, oven cleaner, a toxic substance, was observed on a shelf where food was stored and automatic battery operated fly spray dispensers were located on the wall within twelve feet of open food. Mr. Paul indicates that if oven cleaner was there, it was unusual because all cleaning supplies are routinely kept away from food supplies. He does not contest the location of the spray dispensers but contends that here, as in several other violations, the condition had existed for a long time without prior write-up. Mr. Paul's memory of write-ups or the lack thereof is somewhat faulty. For example, the facility was cited about iced tea spoons in the inspection in September, 1987; he has been cited for the light shields before; and he was cited for the fly spray dispensers in June, 1987. When the inspection was complete and the report written, Mr. Messick showed it to Mr. Lewis, who agreed, and both discussed it with Mrs. Paul, in the absence of Mr. Paul who was not present. All of the write-ups except two, the temperatures of food, (hot and cold), and the protection of food during storage are considered minor defects which would not require follow-up. However, those dealing directly with food are considered major and will normally require a follow-up compliance inspection. Respondent has received two previous Final Orders from the Division as a result of discrepancies in prior compliance inspections. In the first, dated October 13, 1986, he was found guilty of twelve separate violations and ordered to pay a fine of $1200.00. In the second, he was found guilty of six separate violations and ordered to pay a fine of $600.00. Neither fine has been paid and Mr. Paul unequivocally stated his intention not to pay them. He places no credence in the authority of the Division or the Health Department to govern his activities and indicates he has no interest in the report of inspection prepared by Mr. Messick after this last visit. He states that if the present hearing results in a fine or other disciplinary action, he will still not comply with a Final Order and pay a fine but will "appea1 and keep [his] license." Respondent contends that throughout the first few years of his operation, he had no problem with the Health Department or any other regulatory agency. Only when he had problems with the fire hood over his stove and paid a company $600.00 to make some cosmetic change and place a sticker on it to "keep the Health Department off his back" did his problems begin. He finds the inspectors and department personnel to be heavy handed and overbearing. He claims they have threatened him (not physically) and are prejudiced against him. At the re-check inspection done on September 28, 1987, Mr. Messick was ordered out of the restaurant by the Respondent, who contends the inspector came in during meal service and started to take the temperature of the food while it was being served. Mr. Messick denies interference and claims he gave respondent no cause to order him out. Whatever the facts may be, Mr. Paul did order Mr. Messick out of his restaurant. He may have some legitimate reason to believe the Health Department employees are not cooperative, however. Mr. Paul has repeatedly asked the Health Department to come by his restaurant and tell him what to do. He says he will make the required corrections once. After that, he wants to be left alone and not be subjected to repeated inspections. He apparently cannot accept the requirements for routine quarterly inspections. He has contacted Ms. Deitricksen and has asked that a doctor from the Department come to his restaurant to talk with him. It is Division policy, however, that Division personnel not go on inspections with Health Department personnel unless requested by the Department to do so. She has repeatedly met with Respondent to outline the procedure and the need for quarterly inspections to him and to explain the results of these inspections. These discussions, though not resulting in agreement, have been amicable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license to operate The Market Restaurant, License No. 39-219R, be suspended for 90 days. Recommended this 13th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0739 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted in this case. By the Petitioner 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 2 - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. Accepted. 5 - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. Accepted and incorporated herein, except for the last sentence relating to utensils which is rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not proven. 16 - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18. Accepted as to content. This as well as all other proposed findings of fact are couched, however, in the form of a restatement of testimony rather than as a finding of fact. 19 - 20. Accepted. 21 - 26. Accepted and the substance incorporated throughout the Recommended Order as appropriate. 27 - 41. Rejected as citations of Rules and not findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry L. Hooper, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Mr. Danny Paul The Market Restaurant 1401 West Haines Street Plant City, Florida 33566 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent has committed the various violations charged in the Administrative Complaint, related to purported violation of various food service establishment sanitation and safety requirements under authority provided by Subsection 509.032.(1)(2), Florida Statutes; Section 509.261, Florida Statutes (2003), Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004, and Chapters 4 and 5 of the "Food Code" (adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004, by reference.)
Findings Of Fact The Division is an Agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with regulating the operation of food service establishments in accordance with Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004, et seq. Included within that area of regulation is the inspection of food service establishments, such as restaurants, to ensure that various food sanitation and safety requirements are complied with and to assess fines and penalties for violation of relevant rules related to food sanitation and safety. The Respondent at all times pertinent hereto has been a licensed restaurant under the Division's food service establishment jurisdiction, holding license number 56-01170-R. The Respondent's last known address is 99 Eglin Parkway, No. 42, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548. The Division inspector conducted an inspection of the Respondent's food service premises on April 25, 2003. Steven Kurz was the Division's inspector who carried out the initial inspection of the Respondent's premises on that date. Mr. Kurz noted approximately 18 deficiencies in terms of the Respondent's food service operation on that occasion. Thereafter, a follow-up second inspection was conducted on April 28, 2003. That second inspection was conducted by Mr. Phil Perez, Senior Sanitation and Safety Specialist of the Division. Inspector Perez believed that seven of the original noted 18 deficiencies found on the first inspection of April 25, 2003, still existed on April 28, 2003. He thus opined that there was (1) a dirty towel hanging on a rack over a three- compartment sink; (2) a dirty floor mixer/dough machine; (3) a dirty ice chute; (4) an unprotected or opened tooth pick container, accessible to the public; (5) a kitchen hand sink without hot water being connected thereto; (6) the exterior door of a walk-in refrigerator or cooler was dirty; (7) the "exit" sign for the restaurant was not illuminated; and (8) a cardboard box or boxes were stored over a gas hot water heater. Because of the deficiencies Mr. Perez found on the second follow-up inspection, the Division ultimately issued the subject Administrative Complaint on August 2, 2003. It alleges the remaining deficiencies as violations of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and the Administrative Rules promulgated thereunder. The Respondent disputed the allegations of the compliant and timely requested a formal proceeding. The Respondent concedes that a dirty towel was hanging near the sink in the back of the restaurant, as found upon the second inspection; however, he established that the towel was not used for wiping food surfaces or non-food equipment surfaces, but rather was used during the performance of maintenance on a piece of equipment. The Division has conceded, in accordance with this showing, that this was not a violation and has dismissed this portion of the complaint. Although the inspector found the dough machine and dough mixer to be un-cleaned at the time he inspected it, the Respondent showed that he inspected the machines during the lunch hour when they were busy using the machines. The Respondent established that the machines are cleaned thoroughly each day, but they obviously could not be cleaned while they were in active use mixing dough during lunch hour food preparation, or while they were about to be used. This explanation by the Respondent, which is accepted as credible versus the inspector's brief observation of the condition of the machines, shows that this violation did not occur. The machine is kept in a clean condition every day, except when it is actively used for mixing dough, which was the case in the instant situation. The Respondent has also been charged with having dirt or grime on the door of the walk-in cooler on the occasion of both inspections. Mr. Perez observed a discoloration on the door. The Respondent's testimony, which is accepted as credible, shows that the discoloration was in reality oxidation or some discoloration caused by the age of the aluminum metal with which the door is covered. It was not demonstrated that the discoloration was due to dirt, grime, or an unsanitary condition on the door and this violation has not been established. Respondent conceded that the exit sign light bulbs were burned out at the time of both inspections and were inoperative. He also admits to the sink in question not being in working order in terms of hot water being connected at the time of the inspections. The Respondent was however at the time of hearing currently repairing the sink. The Respondent also concedes that the tooth pick dispenser was broken and open, caused by customers reaching inside for tooth picks. He concedes that this was a violation, but had repaired the matter after it was brought to his attention. The Petitioner established that the soda machine ice chute was dirty on both the April 25 and April 28, 2003, inspections. This violation has clearly been established. It has also been established that the Respondent maintained storage of one or more cardboard boxes on top or above the heat- producing gas hot water heater, rendering the boxes as flammable hazards. The Respondent testified generally, and in mitigation, to the effect that the inspection occurred during a busy lunch hour and that it is impossible to keep all items cleaned while actively working in a restaurant during a lunch hour serving customers. The Respondent also established that the restaurant does use a check list for daily cleaning operations. The Respondent showed that, at the time of the second inspection, the Respondent was in the process of repairing the deficient items or conditions, inasmuch as the second inspection was only approximately three days after the initial inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the above- named agency assessing an administrative penalty in the amount of $1,000.00, payable in the manner prescribed in the final order entered herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 1st day of July 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Susan Wilkinson, Esquire Drew Winter, Esquire Department of Business and and Professional Regulation 940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Jeff B. Moyer Godfathers Pizza 99 Eglin Parkway, No. 42 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2022 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotel and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Hotel And Restaurants 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2022
Findings Of Fact The Circle Grill is a food service establishment located at 503 Cotton Street in Graceville, Florida, licensed by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Control #42-0044R), and owned and operated by Mr. and Mrs. H. W. Murphy of Graceville, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Murphy were in possession of a valid license as of December 3, 1979, and through the date of the hearing, March 26, 1980. A sanitarian for the Jackson County Health Department conducted premise inspections at the Circle Grill on December 3, 1979, and March 25, 1980. The initial food inspection report on December 3rd, signed by Bill J. Dean, Registered Sanitarian, listed the following alleged violations: Several employees were found to be working with the service/preparation of food without required hair restrains. Food preparation tables were not in good repair, their tops being cracked, broken, separated or insufficiently sealed so as to allow food particle build-up. Certain food cooking and preparation equipment was not clean; specifically, the meat saw was not clean as was the oven hood and stove. The restaurant kitchen walls were not clean with the major problem being a grease build up. The kitchen's walk-in freezer was not clean with debris on the floor and frost build-up. There were several plumbing leaks in the kitchen. The restaurant's grease trap lacked an approved lid. Vermin droppings were found inside kitchen and walk-in freezer, rat burrows were found around the kitchen door and around grease trap, and a hold in the restaurant wall outside storage room was discovered. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). At the hearing Respondent, H. W. Murphy, filed as "Respondent's Exhibit 1" a copy of a call back - reinspection report dated March 25, 1980. This second inspection reported noted that there had been compliance with the requirement that employees should wear hair restraints and that the plumbing leaks in the kitchen had been repaired, but the remaining alleged violations had not been remedied. Respondent had unsuccessfully attempted to solve the vermin problem but did no materially dispute the other allegations of the Notice to Show Cause. The Hearing Officer finds that the items listed on the foregoing food inspection report as (a) and (f) have been corrected. The items listed as (b), (c), (d), (e), (g) and (h) have not been corrected, and these conditions continue to exist at the time of the hearing. Respondents had the period from December 3, 1979, when the first inspection was made, to March 25, 1980, to effectuate necessary sanitary measures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the license of the Respondents, Mr. and Mrs. H. W. Murphy, be suspended until they can show they have remedied the unsanitary conditions noted in this order and that their business establishment is no longer in violation of the foregoing statute and rules. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of May, 1980. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Esquire Department of business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. and Mrs. H. W. Murphy c/o Circle Grill 503 Cotton Street Graceville, Florida
