The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated December 2, 2009, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Restaurant was licensed as a public food service establishment in the State of Florida by the Department, having been issued license type 2010 and license number 2323257. At all times material hereto, the Restaurant was located at 762 Northwest 183rd Street, Miami Gardens, Florida 33169. A critical violation in food service is considered to be a violation that, if not corrected, is directly related to food-borne illness, food contamination, or health risk. A non-critical violation in food service is considered to be a violation that, if not corrected, can become a critical violation. On August 14, 2009, Daniel Unold, an inspector with the Department, conducted a routine inspection of the Restaurant. During the inspection, Inspector Unold found violations, which were considered to be critical and non- critical violations. Further, during the inspection, Inspector Unold prepared a food inspection report, setting forth the alleged violations and the date for the callback inspection, which was October 14, 2009. The inspection report was signed by Inspector Unold and a representative of the Restaurant. Inspector Unold made the representative aware of the alleged violations and that the violations had to be corrected by the callback date of October 14, 2009, and he provided the representative with a copy of the inspection report. On October 19, 2009, Inspector Unold performed the callback inspection. Among other things, four critical violations were not corrected from the routine inspection of August 14, 2009. During the callback inspection, Inspector Unold prepared a food callback inspection report, setting forth, among other things, the alleged critical violations. The callback inspection report was signed by Inspector Unold and a representative of the Restaurant. Inspector Unold made the representative aware of the alleged violations. The most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on August 14, 2009, and was not corrected by October 19, 2009, was no certified food manager for the Restaurant. This violation is critical because it is necessary for the person operating a food service establishment to be knowledgeable regarding food contamination, hygiene, cloth contamination, and food-related diseases. That person is a certified food manager, and the certification process requires class training and a test. The next most serious alleged critical violation not corrected by October 19, 2009, was no proof of required employee training. This violation is a critical violation because it is necessary for every food service employee to have basic knowledge regarding hand washing and food contamination. The next most serious alleged critical violation not corrected by October 19, 2009, was the hand wash sink lacking the proper hand drying provisions. This violation is a critical violation because hand drying is an important part of the hand washing procedure, and, if not performed correctly, it is as if hand washing had not occurred at all. The next most serious alleged critical violation not corrected by October 19, 2009, was the Restaurant operating without a current Hotel and Restaurant license. The new owner of the Restaurant, Elise Benabe, had not completed a change of ownership application. This violation is a critical violation because the State of Florida requires all public food service establishments to be licensed.
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: Finding that Five Star Haitian Restaurant violated Florida Administrative Code 61C-4.023(1), Section 509.049, Florida Statutes (2009), Food Code Rule 6-301.12, and Section 509.241(2), Florida Statutes (2009); and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,875.00 against Five Star Haitian Restaurant. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 6th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Louise Wilhite-St Laurent, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Elise Benabe Five Star Haitian Restaurant 762 Northwest 183rd Street Miami Gardens, Florida 33169 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Louise Wilhite-St Laurent Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-220
The Issue The issues in this disciplinary proceeding arise from Petitioner's allegation that Respondent, a licensed restaurant, violated several rules and a statutory provision governing food service establishments. If Petitioner proves one or more of the alleged violations, then it will be necessary to consider whether penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the State agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a restaurant operating at 4743 North Ocean Drive, Sea Ranch Lakes, Florida, and holding food service license number 1621866. On June 18, 2012, and August 20, 2012, Respondent was inspected by Jens Rammelmeier, a senior sanitation and safety specialist employed by the Division. During both visits, Mr. Rammelmeier noticed multiple items that were not in compliance with the laws which govern the facilities and operations of licensed restaurants. Through the testimony of Mr. Rammelmeier and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, the Division presented clear and convincing evidence that, as of August 20, 2012, the following deficiencies subsisted at Respondent Carina's Stone Fired Pizza-Gelato: (1) ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food was held for more than 24 hours with no date marking, in violation of Food Code Rule 3-501.17(B); (2) an employee made bare-hand contact with ready-to-eat foods without a written alternative operating procedure in effect, contrary to Food Code Rule 3-301.11(B); (3) a food handler came into contact with soiled equipment and thereafter engaged in food preparation without washing his hands, in violation of Food Code Rule 2-301.14; (4) an employee engaged in food preparation without wearing a hair restraint, contrary to Food Code Rule 2- 402.11; (5) an accumulation of dead roaches was observed under several kitchen counters and a dishwasher, in violation of Food Code Rule 6-501.112; and (6) no proof of required employee training, contrary to section 509.049. Each of the foregoing deficiencies, with the exception of the violation relating to the hair restraint, is considered a critical violation by the Division. Critical food code violations are those that, if uncorrected, present an immediate threat to public safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order: (a) finding Respondent guilty in accordance with the foregoing Recommended Order; and (b) ordering Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $1100, to be paid within 30 days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer 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 13th day of May, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Rosarios II Italian Restaurant (Respondent), committed the violations alleged and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The 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. (2008). At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent operated as a public food service establishment subject to the Petitioner’s jurisdiction (See Petitioner’s Exhibit 1). The Respondent's license number is 1617840. In his capacity as an inspector and as a sanitation and safety supervisor for the Petitioner, Sean Grofvenor visited the Respondent’s place of business (12691 West Sunrise Boulevard, Sunrise, Florida) on November 13, 2007. On that date, the violations, more fully described in the inspection report of that date, (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) warranted the closure or emergency order of suspension of license for the establishment. The Respondent was made aware of the violations and the Petitioner announced that it would come back in 24 hours to reassess the closure. The closure was deemed appropriate to protect the public. The 24-hour call-back inspection was provided to reassess the "critical" problems depicted in the inspection report. The November 13, 2007, inspection report described the following "critical" violations: Live and dead roaches present at the establishment; Ready-to-eat food prepared on site and held more than 24 hours without proper date and time tagging; A hand-wash sink lacked proper drying provisions by the dish machine; Uncovered food was discovered in a holding unit, the dry storage area, and in a walk-in cooler; and Soiled gaskets at numerous stations within the food preparation areas. After the 24-hour call-back inspection was completed, the Respondent was allowed to reopen but was advised that a second follow up inspection would be performed. The Respondent was given until January 14, 2008, to correct all of the violations previously identified and described in the inspection report of November 13, 2007. Robert Becker is a sanitation and safety specialist employed by the Department. He accompanied Mr. Grofvenor on the November 13, 2007, inspection of the Respondent's establishment and assisted in the compilation of the violations noted in the first inspection report. Inspector Becker performed a call-back inspection of the Respondent's establishment on January 17, 2008. This final call-back inspection report (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) described the violations that remained uncorrected. The Department uses the terms "critical" and "non- critical" to describe violations of the "Food Code." 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- The Food Code is also available through the U. S. Food and Drug Administration Internet website. "Critical" violations of the Food Code are conditions that, if not corrected, could lead to food contamination, food borne illness, or environmental degradation. A "non-critical" violation relates to a preventative measure or practice to keep the environmental conditions of food preparation and service in proper order. If not corrected, a "non-critical" violation has the potential to become a "critical" situation. When Inspector Becker returned to the Respondent's establishment on January 17, 2008, the critical violations described in paragraph 4 were not fully corrected. For example, Inspector Becker observed roach activity within the kitchen of the Respondent's establishment. Roach activity is considered a critical violation as roaches are a direct contributor to the contamination of food and the spread of bacteria and disease. Inspector Becker documented the number and location for each roach discovered at the site. Additionally, Inspector Becker observed unmarked ready-to-eat food that was not appropriately tagged. Date marking ready-to-eat food is necessary to prevent spoilage and the growth of bacteria. Foods may only be held at designated temperatures and within certain conditions for a limited time period. If left unmarked, it is impossible to discern whether the guidelines have been met. Third, Inspector Becker found the hand wash sink lacked proper drying provisions. Although a repeat violation from the previous inspection, the Respondent corrected this violation on site. The fourth critical violation related to uncovered food in holding situations. Food must be properly covered to prevent exposure to contamination. Whether in a walk-in cooler or other station, food must be covered. Sauces and pasta are considered "food." The final critical violation was soiled gaskets on several kitchen appliances or preparation surfaces. Cooler gaskets at the prep reach-in cooler, cooler gaskets at the pizza station, and gaskets near a fryer were dirty or soiled. When gaskets are soiled the mere opening and closing of the device can spread filth and expose food to contaminants. Gaskets must be kept clean and free of all potential contaminants. In addition to the foregoing, there were several non- critical violations of a preventative nature that the Respondent failed to correct. These violations could easily be corrected and did not pose an immediate threat to the public. For example, a restaurant employee without hair restraint is easily corrected. In testifying for the Respondent, Mr. Pierre Louis maintained that while the inspection report of November 13, 2007, was correct, he had since made the corrections necessary to bring the restaurant into compliance. Those corrections were not, however, completed before January 17, 2008. Mr. Pierre Louis described difficulty finding replacement gaskets for the equipment. The inference being that the gaskets could not be cleaned but had to be replaced. Mr. Pierre Louis did not advise the Department of the difficulty in making the replacements until the time of hearing. The Respondent was given over 60 days within which to make the necessary corrections. The Respondent did not correct the roach problem between November 13, 2007, and January 17, 2008, despite its representation that it had hired an extermination company to address the problem. Roach presence is a critical violation that cannot go unattended or inadequately treated.
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 $3,500.00. The Respondent should also be required to attend training for a better understanding of the requirements of the Food Code to assure that proper sanitary measures are adopted at the restaurant. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 2008, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned Luczynski, 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 Cheri-ann Granston Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ernst Pierre Louis Rosarios II Italian Restaurant 12691 West Sunrise Boulevard Sunrise, Florida 33323
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
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating and inspecting restaurants. Respondent is licensed and regulated by Petitioner. Respondent’s permanent food service license number is 6902905. Respondent’s license address is 3785 Orlando Drive, Sanford, Florida 32773-5686. Petitioner's inspector inspected Respondent on July 8, 2002. Several deficiencies were noted by the inspector. Among the deficiencies were the following: (1) violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-4.023(4)(a), “there was no proof of employee training available for employees employed for sixty days or more"; (2) violation of Section 3-304.14(B)(2), 1999 Food Code, Recommendations of the United States Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration (incorporated into Florida Law by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61C), “there were wiping cloths on the food prep counters that were not stored in sanitizer"; (3) violation of Section 4-601.11(A), 1999 Food Code, Recommendations of the United States Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, “the reach-in freezer by the grill had old food debris built-up on the inside"; and violation of Section 6-501.111, 1999 Food Code, Recommendations of the United States Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, “observed flies in the kitchen area.” One deficiency of critical concern was that Respondent's employees had failed to complete their food service training. The Food Service Inspection Report of the July 8, 2002, inspection advised Respondent: WARNING: Violations in the operation of your establishment must be corrected by July 22, 2002 at 8:00 AM. On July 25, 2002, Petitioner's inspector returned for a re-inspection of the deficiencies noted during the July 8, 2002, inspection. The four deficiencies mentioned in paragraph 3, supra, had not been corrected. During the re-inspection, the following observations were made: "53B No proof of employee certification available for employees employed 60 days or more"; "21 Wiping cloths for food prep counters - no sanitizer"; "22 Mini freezer @ grill w/ old food debris built up on inside of reach in"; and "35 Flies in kitchen areas." Respondent did not appear at the final hearing and, therefore, did not present any mitigating circumstances.
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: Finding that Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Imposing an administrative fine of $2,500.00 payable within 45 days of the filing of the final order. Requiring Respondent’s manager(s) to attend a Hospitality Education Program class within 60 days of the filing of the final order and to provide proof of such attendance to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2003, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly A. Fields McDonalds Post Office Box 941869 Maitland, Florida 32751 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Geoff luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue in this case is whether on April 5 and October 18, 2011, and on February 28, 2012, Respondent was in compliance with the food safety requirements of section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and implementing administrative rules of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and if not, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division) is responsible for monitoring all licensed food-service establishments in the state to ensure that they comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Mr. Douglas Peterson has been employed as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Division for five and one-half years. He previously worked in the restaurant industry for over 21 years, including eight years as a kitchen manager and five years as a restaurant assistant manager. He has had training, including monthly in-house training and field training, in food inspection. On average, he conducts about five safety and sanitation inspections of food-service establishments per day, and about 1000 inspections per year. China King is a licensed permanent public food-service establishment operating at 4941 East Busch Boulevard, Suite 120, in Tampa, Florida. The owner of China King, Mr. Chi Kin Chan, speaks very little English. Representing the restaurant was Mr. Chan’s daughter, Ms. Man Chan, who assists her father with the restaurant. Under all of the circumstances, including the facts that Ms. Chan helps operate the restaurant, demonstrated basic knowledge of applicable statutes and rules, and demonstrated her ability to capably and responsibly represent Respondent, Ms. Chan was accepted as a Qualified Representative. China King was inspected by Mr. Peterson on August 25, 2010, and October 26, 2010. The Administrative Complaint alleged violations based upon these inspections, and testimony and exhibits as to these violations were offered at hearing. However, an earlier Administrative Complaint relating to these inspections has already been settled, as discussed below. The Stipulation and Consent Order in the earlier case settled any violations based upon these inspections, and no purpose is served by delineating the details of those inspections here. On April 5, 2011, Inspector Peterson conducted another food service inspection on China King. Inspector Peterson prepared a Food Service Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022- 015, using his Personal Data Assistant (PDA) to record the violations that he observed during the inspection. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the report on behalf of China King. During the April inspection, Mr. Peterson observed that China King had ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on-site and held more than 24 hours that had not been properly date-marked in the walk-in cooler, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that lack of proper date marking poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. Mr. Peterson also observed during the April inspection that China King was storing food on the floor in the cooks’ line and in the preparation area, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that storing food on the floor poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. During the April inspection, Mr. Peterson observed the improper use of a plastic food container or other container with no handle being used to scoop or dispense food that was not ready-to-eat, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that using containers without handles to scoop or dispense food fails to minimize food contact with bare hands, and poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Division has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. On October 18, 2011, Mr. Peterson conducted another inspection of China King. Inspector Peterson again prepared an inspection report on DBPR Form HR 5022-015 using his PDA to record the violations that he observed. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the report on behalf of China King. During the October inspection, Mr. Peterson again observed ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on- site and held more than 24 hours that had not been properly date-marked in the walk-in cooler, including egg rolls, cooked chicken, pork, and shrimp. He recorded this information in his report, along with a notation that it was a repeat violation. Mr. Peterson also observed food stored on the floor in the walk-in during his October inspection. He recorded this, noting that it was a repeat violation. During the October inspection, Mr. Peterson observed the improper use of a bowl or plastic food container without a handle as a scoop to dispense non ready-to-eat foods such as flour and starch, as well as ready-to-eat foods such as salt and sugar. He noted this in his report, along with a notation that this was corrected on-site. Mr. Peterson also observed an employee with no hair restraint during the October inspection. He noted this in his report along with the fact that it was corrected while he was on-site. On February 28, 2012, Mr. Peterson conducted a stipulation call-back inspection, as well as a full inspection of the China King. A stipulation call-back inspection is an inspection that is required as part of a stipulation which is conducted for the limited purpose of determining whether specific violations noted earlier have been corrected. Inspector Peterson prepared a Call Back Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-005, as well as DBPR Form HR 5022-015 on February 28, 2012, using his PDA to record the violations that he observed. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the reports on behalf of China King. On February 28, 2012, Mr. Peterson again observed that ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food that had been prepared on-site and held more than 24 hours had not been date-marked. He noted this in his reports. Mr. Peterson again observed food stored on the floor in the walk-in and cooks’ line during his February inspection and made note of this in his reports. Mr. Peterson again observed a can without a handle being used to scoop rice on February, 28, 2012, as was noted in his reports. Mr. Peterson also observed an employee without a hair restraint during his February inspection, noting this in his reports. In response to questioning from Respondent at hearing, Inspector Peterson stated that he was familiar with the description of the inspection process set out on the Division of Hotels and Restaurants’ website. Inspector Peterson was aware that these procedures state that an inspector will invite the manager to accompany him on the inspection walk-through, and that the inspector will go over each item on the inspection report. Mr. Peterson testified that at each inspection he advised persons at the restaurant of the violations and the need to correct them. Mr. Chi Kin Chan, owner of China King, testified that Mr. Peterson did show his badge when he conducted the inspection on February 28, 2012, although he did not announce who he was. Mr. Chan testified that Mr. Peterson just went through the restaurant on his own and did not invite Mr. Chan or anyone else from the restaurant to accompany him on his inspection. Mr. Chan testified that Mr. Peterson then just went to the front of the restaurant and prepared his report without discussing any of the alleged violations with Mr. Chan or operators of the restaurant. Mr. Taoso Tevega is engaged to be married to Ms. Man Chan, and so is the prospective son-in-law of Mr. Chan. Mr. Tevega occasionally assists the Chan family with the restaurant, but does not receive any paycheck from China King. He works in the receiving department of Advance Auto Parts. Mr. Tevega was present at China King during the February 28, 2012, inspection. Mr. Tevega testified that on February 28, 2012, Inspector Peterson just showed up in the back of China King without identifying himself and that he did not ask anyone to accompany him as he went about the restaurant conducting his inspection. Mr. Tevega testified that Mr. Peterson did not discuss or explain the violations to anyone, but just had Ms. Chan sign the report. Mr. Peterson testified that he was in business casual attire, with his employee identification tag secured from a lanyard worn around his neck, and that he presented identification before beginning each inspection. Mr. Peterson identified himself by displaying his badge before and during the February 28, 2012, inspection, as testified to by Mr. Chan and Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson did not invite anyone to accompany him as he conducted the inspection on February 28, 2012, as Mr. Chan and Mr. Tevega testified. Mr. Peterson advised operators at the restaurant of the violations and the need to correct them, as he testified. The Division issued an Administrative Complaint against China King for the above violations on or about March 7, 2012. Additional evidence introduced at hearing showed that China King had a previous disciplinary Final Order entered within 24 months of the Administrative Complaint issued in this case. That Stipulation and Consent Order was signed by China King Manager Ko Chan on January 13, 2012, and was filed on January 24, 2012. In the Order, China King agreed to pay a fine of $900.00, but neither admitted nor denied the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint. Some of those allegations would have constituted critical violations. The January 24, 2012, Stipulation and Consent Order was in settlement of an Administrative Complaint issued on November 8, 2010. That Administrative Complaint alleged violations of the Food Code based upon inspections conducted on August 25, 2010, and October 26, 2010, two of the inspections for which testimony and documentary evidence was submitted in this case, but which are discussed here only for penalty purposes.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above 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 finding China King in violation of three critical violations and one non-critical violation and imposing a fine of $2,625, to be paid within 30 calendar days of the filing of the Final Order with the Agency Clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 11th day of December, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 23, 2011, and if so, whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the operation of hotel and restaurant establishments pursuant to section 20.165 and chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a Florida corporation named Stugotz, Inc., doing business as Joey's On Beach. The corporation is wholly owned by Joseph Di Meglio. Respondent holds a public food establishment license issued by the Department. Respondent's business address is 2521 Thomas Drive, Unit A, Panama City Beach, Florida 32408. Inspector Smith has been employed by the Department as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist for approximately five years. She has received training in laws and rules regarding public food service and lodging, is a certified food manager, and performs approximately 1,000 inspections each year for the Department. Formerly, Inspector Smith was a restaurant manager for 15 years. On March 2, 2011, Inspector Smith performed a food service inspection of Joey's On Beach located at 2521 Thomas Drive, Unit A, Panama City Beach, Florida 32408. During the inspection, Inspector Smith prepared and signed an inspection report on her electronic personal data assistant setting forth violations she allegedly encountered during the inspection. Ann Marie Di Meglio, the wife of the owner of Joey's On Beach, was present during the inspection and signed the report on the electronic device. According to the inspection report, the March 2, 2011 inspection of Joey's On Beach occurred at 11:11 a.m. Joey's On Beach opens at 11:00 a.m. The inspection occurred during active food preparation. Inspector Smith made the Respondent aware that all violations noted during the inspection needed to be corrected by May 2, 2011. All of the pages of the three-page March 2, 2011, inspection report are prefaced with the heading "FOOD SERVICE INSPECTION REPORT LEGAL NOTICE" with the warning that "Failure to comply with this Notice may initiate an administrative complaint that may result in suspension or revocation of your license and fines." The third page of the March 2nd report set forth alleged violations as follows: Warning(s) 12A-09-1: Observed food employee wearing jewelry other than a plain ring on their hands/arms while preparing food. 22-25-1: Observed buildup of soiled material on mixer head. 08A-28-11: Observed bag if [sic] bread crumbs on foor [sic] in walkin cooler. 08A-29-1: Observed sauce and bread crumbs uncoverd [sic] in walkin cooler. 02-22-1: Ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on site and held more than 24 hours with not properly date marked. Sausage 08A-23-1: Observed shell eggs over sausage in walkin cooler 08A-28-1: Observed jug of oil stored on the floor. 53B-08-1: No proof of required employee training provided. All public food service establishments must provide the division with proof of employee training upon request, including, but not limited to, at the time of any division inspection of the establishment. This violation must be corrected by: 5/2/11. 32-16-1: Hand wash sink lacking proper hand drying provisions. Corrected on site. 09-04-1: Observed bare hand contact of ready-to-eat food by employees and establishment has no approved Alternative Operating Procedure in effect. Corrected On Site. On May 3, 2011, Inspector Smith performed a callback inspection of Joey's On Beach. According to the report, the inspection was performed at 10:18 a.m. Respondent had not yet opened for business and the callback inspection was conducted during active food preparation. During the callback inspection, Inspector Smith did not discuss specifics of the case with the owner, Joseph Di Meglio, because, according to Inspector Smith, inspectors are "not allowed to discuss the case at an inspection." Inspector Smith prepared and signed a two-page report for the May 3rd callback inspection on her electronic personal data assistant indicating that some of the violations noted on the March 2, 2011, inspection report had not been corrected. Mr. Di Meglio signed the May 3, 2011, inspection report. Both pages of the May 3 inspection report had the same "Legal Notice" as the earlier report, stating "Failure to comply with this Notice may initiate an administrative complaint that may result in suspension or revocation of your license and fines." Alleged uncorrected violations recommended for an administrative complaint were noted on the May 3 inspection report as follows: The following item(s) have been recommended for Administrative Complaint: Violation 53B-08-1 No proof of required employee training provided. All public food service establishments must provide the division with proof of employee training upon request, including, but not limited to, at the time of any division inspection of the establishment. This violation must be corrected by: 5/2/11. At callback no training provided for Ann Marie. Violation 22-25-1 Observed buildup of soiled material on mixer head. Violation 08A-29-1 Observed sauce and breadcrumbs uncovered in walkin cooler Violation 08A-28-1 Observed bag if [sic] breadcrumbs on floor in walkin cooler Violation 02-22-1 Ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on site and held more than 24 hours with not properly date marked, sausage, and at callback sausage and meat balls not date marked in walkin cooler The Administrative Complaint in this case charged Respondent with the same five alleged violations recommended in the May 3rd callback inspection report, in the following order (Counts 1 through 5): (1) Observed ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on site and held more than 24 hours with not properly date marked in walk-in cooler [referencing 02-22-1, and citing 3-501.17(A), Food Code]; (2) Observed bag of bread crumbs on floor in walk-in cooler [referencing 08A-28-1, and citing 3-305.11, Food Code]; (3) Observed sauce and break [sic] crumbs uncovered in walk-in cooler [referencing 08A-29-1, and citing 3-302.11A)(4), Food Code]; (4) Observed build up of soiled material on mixer head [referencing 22-25-1, and citing 4-601.11(A), Food Code]; and (5) Observed no proof of required training provided, at call back no training provided for Ann Marie [referencing 53B-08-1, and citing 509.049, Florida Statutes]. At the final hearing, the Department announced that Count 5 of the Administrative Complaint, alleging a lack of training in violation of section 509.049, Florida Statutes, had been dropped because Mr. Di Meglio had established to the Department's satisfaction that Respondent's employees were properly trained. The Department presented some evidence in support of the remaining allegations. As discussed below, however, the Department only met its burden of persuasion as to Count 2 alleging that breadcrumbs were improperly stored in an open container on the floor of the walk-in cooler. As to Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint, at the final hearing, Inspector Smith referred to both inspection reports and observed that the reports indicated that Respondent had failed to properly date mark ready-to-eat potentially hazardous food (sausage and meatballs) held on site for more than 24 hours in the walk-in cooler. She explained that such failure was a critical violation because food must be date- marked to indicate the day it was prepared, and the day that it expires. She further explained that potential hazardous foods, such as precooked sausage and meatballs, are only good for seven days from the date prepared. Respondent's witness, Ann Marie Di Meglio, works at the restaurant and was there when the first inspection took place. Her husband, Mr. Di Meglio, was not. According to Ms. Di Meglio, it is Respondent's procedure to date-mark the containers in the walk-in cooler. She further testified that at the time of the inspection, there was active preparation, and it is hard to keep things covered during active preparation. Mr. Di Meglio, through his testimony, further explained that they date-marked the covers of the sausage and other prepared foods in the cooler, but remove the lids to gain access to the food during active preparation. He testified that there were labels on the lids of the sausage and meatball containers at the time of the inspections, but that the lids had been set aside because of preparation. Inspector Smith suggested that she would have cited the sausage and meatball containers for being open, but could not recall whether they were open or not. She did not see the labels on the lids. There were no photographs or specific descriptions of the containers or observations by Inspector Smith. During the final hearing, when asked whether there were dates on the lids of the containers, Inspector Smith testified, "I can't answer that because I'm not there. I didn't write anything about it being uncovered." Based upon the explanations provided by the Di Meglios, the timing of the inspections, the lack of specific recollection by Inspector Smith, and considering that the Department has the burden of persuasion, it is found that the Department did not prove that Respondent failed to properly date its containers of potentially hazardous foods as alleged in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint. As to Count 2, Inspector Smith stated in both the March 2 and May 3, 2011, inspection reports that she observed an open bag of breadcrumbs stored on the floor in Respondent's walk-in cooler. Storage of breadcrumbs on the floor in an open container is a critical violation because when food is stored on the floor, it can become contaminated by exposure to wastewater or germs from walking back and forth outside to the bathroom. While perhaps an open container could be explained by the fact that there was active food preparation, no excuse or explanation was offered as why an open bag of breadcrumbs was found on the floor during both inspections. Respondent's witnesses did not otherwise address the improper storage of breadcrumbs on the floor as alleged in Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint. As to Count 3 relating to the open containers of breadcrumbs and sauce, it is found that Respondent's explanation of active food preparation was reasonable given the timing of the inspections. In other words, the Department failed to prove that Respondent was storing foods in open containers because it is found that the containers were only opened temporarily during active food preparation.3/ As to Count 4, relating to an alleged dirty mixer head, the inspection reports for both the March 2 and May 3, 2011, inspections indicate there was a "buildup of soiled material on mixer head." While Ms. Di Meglio testified that she did not know if there was something on the mixer head at the time of the inspections, she testified that the mixer is cleaned every day, and that the material on the mixer head, if any, was not old. Rather, she explained, she had used the mixer around 10:00 a.m. the very morning of the first inspection to make dough and cut cheese. Ms. Di Meglio further explained that Respondent's mixer is very old and has some discoloration. And, while admitting that there may have been some dust or flour on the mixer from recent use, both she and her husband denied that there was any soil on the mixer or the mixer head. Inspector Smith's testimony regarding the state of the mixer, and the brief descriptions in the inspection reports referring to "soiled material" on the mixer head, without more, provided less than clear and convincing evidence of a violation. While Inspector Smith testified that she would not cite the equipment as being dirty if it was soiled with everyday use dirt, she was unable to definitively recall her observations. When questioned about the mixer head at the final hearing, Inspector Smith observed: I just noted that it was extremely2/ soiled when I was there at the initial inspection and at the callback. Not the top, but the mixer head being - - that goes over the unit, from what I can remember. When further asked to explain the difference between "soiled" and "dusty," Inspector Smith testified: It was all food debris with - - I mean, I just remember it just being soiled. It was over a year ago. I can't describe in detail what was on it. I would not cite it unless it was old food debris, or it was mold-like substance maybe with a combination. I don't cite everyday dirt. Considering Inspector Smith's less than specific recall, Respondent's explanation, and the Department's lack of specific details or photographs contrary to the testimony of Respondent's employees, it is found that the Department failed to prove the violation alleged in Count 4 of the Administrative Complaint. While the inspection reports were accepted into evidence as corroborative hearsay, it is found that, under the facts and circumstances, they are documents prepared in anticipation of litigation.4/ Specifically, the reports contain warnings and requirements of compliance, with specific mention of the fact that failure to comply may "initiate a complaint." Moreover, the evidence showed that the investigator could not discuss the allegations with Respondent's owner because inspectors are "not allowed to discuss the case at an inspection." Even if the inspection reports were not merely hearsay, their lack of detail when compared to the recollections of Respondent's employees regarding operations and the state of affairs during the inspections, was insufficient to meet the Department's burden of persuasion necessary to prove Counts 1, 3, and 4 of the Administrative Complaint. Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint alleging improper storage of bread crumbs on the floor, however, was uncontroverted, and the Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's improper storage of bread crumbs was a critical violation.5/
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order which dismisses Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 and confirms Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint, and imposes an administrative penalty in the amount of $250 for Respondent's critical violation of Rule 3-305.11, relating to improper storage of breadcrumbs discovered during the inspections conducted on March 2 and May 3, 2011. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 13th day of July, 2012.
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.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the State agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a restaurant operating at 3100 Northwest 17th Avenue, Miami, Florida, and holding food service license number 2328990. On May 19, 2010, and July 23, 2010, Respondent was inspected by Reginald Garcia, a sanitation and safety specialist employed by the Division. During both visits, Mr. Garcia noticed multiple items that were not in compliance with the laws which govern the facilities and operations of licensed restaurants. Through the testimony of Mr. Garcia and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, the Division presented clear and convincing evidence that as of July 23, 2010, the following deficiencies subsisted at Respondent Alma Caribe Café Restaurant: (1) potentially hazardous food held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit, contrary to Food Code Rule 3-501.16(A); (2) potentially hazardous food not cooled from 135 to 41 degrees Fahrenheit within six hours, in violation of Food Code Rule 3-501.14(A); (3) holding equipment incapable of maintaining potentially hazardous food at proper temperatures, in violation of Food Code Rule 4-301.11; (4) raw food stored over cooked food, contrary to Food Code Rule 3- 302.11(A)(1); and (5) no proof of required employee training, in violation of section 509.049, Florida Statutes. Each of the foregoing deficiencies is considered a critical violation by the Division. Critical food code violations are those that, if uncorrected, present an immediate threat to public safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order: (a) finding Respondent guilty in accordance with the foregoing Recommended Order; and (b) ordering Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $1250, to be paid within 30 days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer 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 20th day of December, 2011.
