The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 6, 2004, and, if so, what action should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witness and her demeanor while testifying in person, documentary materials received into evidence, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant and material facts are determined: At all times material hereto, Respondent, Dale Hill, d/b/a D and R BBQ and Catering, was not licensed, nor had he been licensed to operate a public food service establishment in the State of Florida by DBPR. Victoria Bagley, senior sanitation and safety specialist with DBPR, is certificated in food management; special fire inspection; standardized public lodging, the Food Code; public food service laws; and rules of the State of Florida. Ms. Bagley has conducted approximately 750 inspections annually during the last three years of her 14-year tenure with DBPR. On July 18, 2004, during an inspection of the premises, Ms. Bagley found Respondent was operating D and R BBQ and Catering without the required license. This is a critical item violation. A critical item violation is a provision of the Food Code, that, if in noncompliance, is more likely than other violations to contribute to food contamination, illness, or environmental health hazard and is denoted in the Food Code with an asterisk. Rule 1-201.10(b)(19), Food Code. The July 18, 2004, inspection found a lack of hot and cold running water at the required fixtures. This is a critical item violation. The July 18, 2004, inspection found there was not a conveniently located handwash sink. This is a critical item violation. By clear and convincing evidence, Petitioner proved each allegation in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the 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, Dale Hill, d/b/a/ D and R BBQ and Catering, violated Rules 5-103.12, 5-204.11, 6-401.10, and 6.202.15, Food Code; Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(2)(d); and Subsection 509.241(1), Florida Statutes (2004); Imposing an administrative penalty against Respondent, Dale Hill, in the amount of $500, per critical item violation, for a total of $2,000, due and payable to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 calendar days of the date the final order is filed with the agency clerk; and Requiring Respondent, Dale Hill, to attend an education program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program, at Respondent's expense. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 27th day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Dale Hill D & R BBQ & Catering 4460 Tallevast Road Sarasota, Florida 34243 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street 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 John Washington, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent violated Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and specific provisions of the Food Code, 2001, Recommendations of the United States Public Health Service/Food and Drug Administration (Food Code), adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.001(14); and, if so, (b) what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the operation of public food service establishments pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2010). Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, licensed by or subject to Petitioner's jurisdiction. Respondent has been licensed at least since October 2007. Respondent's business address is 4860 Northwest 38th Avenue, Suite C, Gainesville, Florida. "Critical violations" are violations of the Food Code that pose a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and which are identified as food-borne illness risk factors that require public health intervention. "Non-critical violations" are any other type of violation prohibited by statute or rule. After inspections on December 19, 2007, August 4, 2008, and August 6, 2008, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint dated September 16, 2008, in Petitioner's Case No. 2008051321 against Respondent. The complaint alleged the following violations: (a) 03A-07-1, potentially hazardous food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit; (b) 30-02-1, mop sink's vacuum breaker missing at hose bibb; (c) 36-13-1, grease accumulated under cooking equipment; (d) 37-05-1, observed walls soiled with accumulated food debris; (e) 52-01-1, misrepresentation of food or food product by advertising crab on sushi menu but using imitation crab; and (e) 53B-08-1, no proof of required employee training. On October 6, 2008, Respondent signed a Stipulation and Consent Order, agreeing to pay a fine in the amount of $1,550. in Petitioner's Case No. 2008051321. Petitioner issued a Final Order in that case on October 22, 2008. The record does not indicate whether Respondent ever paid the administrative fine. Daniel Fulton is Petitioner's Senior Inspector. Mr. Fulton performed inspections of Respondent's business on January 22, 2009, April 3, 2009, August 12, 2009, and August 17, 2009. These inspections resulted in the issuance of the Administrative Complaint at issue in DOAH Case No. 10-2427. Julianne Browning is Petitioner's Senior Sanitation and Safety Specialist. Ms. Browning performed inspections of Respondent's business on February 15, 2010 and April 19, 2010. These inspections resulted in the issuance of the Administrative Complaint at issue in DOAH Case No. 10-3294. On January 22, 2009, Mr. Fulton performed an unscheduled inspection of Respondent's restaurant. During the inspection, Mr. Fulton observed the following critical violations: (a) 03A-07-1, potentially hazardous cold food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit, including but not limited to, noodles on cook line at 51 degrees Fahrenheit; (b) 31-09-1, hand sink in preparation area not accessible for employee use at all times; (c) 35A-03-1 and 35A-05-1, dead and live roaches on premises in several locations; (d) 06-04-1, thawing potentially hazardous foods improperly because water was not running; (e) 22-20-1, food contact surfaces not sanitized because interior of ice maker not kept clean; and (f) 30-02-1, plumbing not properly installed and/or maintained because vacuum breaker missing on hose bibb at front hand sink. During the January 22, 2009, inspection, Mr. Fulton observed the following non-critical violations: (a) 14-37-1, cutting board grooved/pitted and no longer cleanable; (b) 10-07- 1, in-use utensils, such as a spoon, stored in standing water at less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit; and (c) 24-05-1, clean utensils were not properly stored because spoons in the customer area were facing food side up and there were unprotected plates in the sushi area. After the January 22, 2009, inspection, and a callback inspection on April 3, 2009, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint dated May 19, 2009, in Petitioner's Case No. 2009026581 against Respondent. The complaint alleged the following critical violations: (a) 03A-07-1, potentially hazardous cold food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit; (b) 12A-12-1, employee working with raw food then with ready-to- eat food without washing hands or changing both gloves; (c) 12A- 13-1, employee handled soiled equipment or utensils then prepared food, handled clean equipment or utensils, or touched unwrapped single-service items without washing hands or changing gloves; (d) 21-12-1, wet wiping cloth not stored in sanitizing solution between uses; and (e) 32-15-1, no hand-washing sign at hand sink used by food employees. On August 1, 2009, Respondent signed a Stipulation and Consent Order, agreeing to pay a fine in the amount of $1,750. in Petitioner's Case No. 2009026581. Petitioner issued a Final Order in that case on July 1, 2009. The record does not indicate whether Respondent ever paid the administrative fine. On August 12, 2009, Petitioner's staff made a routine inspection of Respondent's restaurant. During the inspection, Petitioner's staff observed the following critical violations: (a) 03A-07-1, cold food not at proper temperature during storage, display, or service, including but not limited to tofu on the cook line at 75 degrees Fahrenheit; (b) 31-09-1, hand- washing sink not accessible for employee use at all times; (c) 35A-03-1, dead roaches on premises; (d) 06-04-1, potentially hazardous foods improperly thawed at room temperature, including beef, pork, fish, and hamburger; (e) 22-20-1, food contact surfaces not clean and sanitized due to buildup of slime in the interior of the icemaker; and (f) 30-02-1, vacuum breaker missing at hose bibb. During the August 12, 2009, inspection, Mr. Fulton observed the following non-critical violations: (a) 14-37-1, cutting board grooved/pitted and no longer cleanable; (b) 10-07- 1, in-use utensil stored in standing water less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit; and (c) 24-05-1, clean glasses, cups, utensils, pots and pans not stored inverted or in a protected manner. On August 17, 2009, Mr. Fulton performed a callback inspection of Respondent's restaurant. During the inspection, Mr. Fulton observed the following critical violations: (a) 31- 09-1, hand-washing sink not accessible for employee use at all times; (b) 35A-03-1 and 35A-05-1, live and dead roaches on the premises; (c) 06-04-1, potentially hazardous food thawed at room temperature; (d) 22-20-1, food contact surfaces not clean and sanitized due to buildup of slime in the interior of the icemaker; and (e) 30-02-1, vacuum breaker missing at hose bibb. During the August 17, 2009, inspection, Mr. Fulton observed the following non-critical violations: (a) 14-37-1, cutting board grooved/pitted and no longer cleanable; (b) 10-07- 1, in-use utensil stored in standing water less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit; and (c) 24-05-1, clean glasses, cups, utensils, pots and pans not stored inverted or in a protected manner. On February 15, 2010, Ms. Browning performed a routine inspection of Respondent's restaurant. During the inspection, Ms. Browning observed the following critical violations: (a) 03A-07-1, cold food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit during storage, display, or service, including seafood broth, rice, chicken curry in reach-in cooler, chicken in top of reach-in cooler, fish eggs on counter, cream cheese in sushi case, and fish tempura in sushi area; (b) 08A-26-1, food not properly protected during storage based on observation of raw animal food stored over ready-to-eat foods, such as raw eggs over soup and raw beef over cooked shrimp; (c) 12A-13-1, employee handled soiled equipment or utensils then engaged in food preparation, handled clean equipment or utensils, or touched unwrapped single-service items without washing hands or changing gloves; (d) 01B-24-1, ready-to-eat potentially hazardous food, such as eggroll mix with pork, not consumed/sold within seven days after opening/preparation; (e) 12B-03-1, employee drinking from an open beverage container in a food preparation or other restricted area while rolling silverware; (f) 08B-04-1, using paper as a food contact surface by storing bread crumbs on greasy brown paper; (g) 22-20-1, build-up of slime in the interior of the ice machine; (h) 30-02-1, vacuum breaker missing at hose bibb; (i) 05-09-1, no conspicuous thermometer in holding units such as sushi case and two reach-in freezers; (j) 09-05-1, improper use of bowl/plastic container or other container with no handle to dispense food such as rice that is not ready-to-eat; (k) 27-16-1, hot water not provided at mop sink because shut off; and (l) 52-01-1, misrepresentation of identity of food or food product because advertising crab delight in sushi bowl and salad platter but using imitation crab instead. During the February 15, 2010, inspection, Ms. Browning observed the following non-critical violations: (a) 21-11-1, wiping-cloth sanitizing solution not at proper strength and not provided at sushi bar; (b) 14-32-1, using wood that is not hard and close-grained, such as bamboo sushi mats, as a food contact surface; (c) 18-04-1, old labels stuck to food containers after cleaning; (d) 26-02-1, improper re-use of single-service articles such as reusing plastic wrap to cover sushi mats; and (e) 23-05-1, residue build-up on towel dispenser at cook-line hand sink. On April 10, 2010, Ms. Browning performed a callback inspection at Respondent's restaurant. During the inspection, Petitioner's staff observed the following critical violations: (a) 03A-07-1, potentially hazardous food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit, including seafood broth, rice, chicken curry in reach-in cooler, chicken in top of reach-in cooler, fish eggs on counter, fish tempura in sushi area, and conch, salmon, tuna, and cream cheese all in sushi case; (b) 08A-26-1, raw animal food stored over ready-to-eat food, such as eggs over soup; (c) 12A-13-1, employee handling soiled equipment or utensils then preparing food, handling clean equipment or utensils, or touching unwrapped single-service items, without washing hands or changing gloves; (d) 01-B-24-1, potentially hazardous food not consumed/sold within seven days after opening/preparation; (e) 12B-03-1, employee drinking from an open beverage container in a food preparation or other restricted area while rolling silverware; (f) 08B-04-1, paper used as a food-contact surface, such as bread crumbs stored on greasy brown paper; (g) 22-20-1, buildup of slime in the interior of the ice machine; (h) 30-02-1 vacuum breaker missing at hose bibb in mop sink; (i) 05-09-1, no conspicuous thermometer in holding units, such as two reach-in freezers; (j) 09-05-1, improper use of bowl/plastic food container or other container with no handle used to dispense food that is not ready-to-eat, such as rice; (k) 27-16-1, no hot water at mop sink because shut off; and (l) 52-01-1, misrepresentation of food identity, such as advertising crab delight in sushi bowl and salad platter but using imitation crab. During the inspection on April 10, 2010, Ms. Browning observed the following non-critical violations: (a) 21-11-1, wiping-cloth chlorine sanitizing solution not at proper minimum strength and none at the sushi bar; (b) 14-32-1, improperly using wood that is not hard or close-grained as a food-contact surface, such as bamboo sushi mats; (c) 18-04-1, old labels stuck to food containers after cleaning; (d) 26-02-1, re-use of single-service articles, such as using plastic wrap over and over on sushi mats; and (e) 23-05-1, residue build-up on nonfood-contact surfaces, as found on towel dispenser at hand sink on cook line. During the above-referenced inspections, Petitioner's staff repeatedly observed the same critical and non-critical violations of the Food Code at Respondent's restaurant. Even if Respondent was able to correct some of the violations while Petitioner's staff was on the premises, Respondent made no effort to ensure that the violations did not re-occur before the next inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for six consecutive days as a penalty in DOAH Case No. 10-2427 and for ten consecutive days as a penalty in DOAH Case No. 10-3294. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 14th day of October, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Hung Nguyen Taste of Saigon II 4860 Northwest 39th Avenue, Suite C Gainesville, Florida 32606 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the following acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, dated August 22, 2006, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed: A violation of Food Code, Rule 2-301.14, on April 11, 2006, and July 19, 2006, by employees failing to properly clean their hands before engaging in food preparation. A violation of the Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(6), on April 11 and July 19, 2006, by failing to repair a water leak in the restaurant's storeroom. A violation of the Food Code, Rule 6-202.11, on April 11 and July 19, 2006, by failing to provide protective shielding around light bulbs in the restaurant's storeroom and in one food preparation area.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating public food service establishments within the State of Florida and is authorized to impose penalties for violations of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a public food service establishment that operates in the State of Florida, under Petitioner's license number 4602269, at 1245 West Homestead Road, Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936-6003. Darlene Tregunno is the owner/operator of McDonald's No. 6303. She owns the restaurant through her corporation, Arch Restaurants, Inc. Fields is employed by Petitioner as the Deputy District Manager of the Fort Myers District. She has been working in this position for approximately three years and has been working for the Petitioner for more than 16 years. On April 11, 2006, at 8:30 a.m., Fields visited McDonald's No. 6303, operating at 1245 West Homestead Road, Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936, for the purpose of performing a routine food service inspection. Fields noted numerous violations on an Inspection Report prepared that day. It included the observation that one employee was observed coughing into his or her hand and then putting a glove on without washing first. Fields provided the on-duty manager with a copy of the report and notified Respondent that a call-back inspection would be conducted. On July 19, 2007, at 9:16 a.m., Fields conducted a call-back inspection at McDonald's No. 6303. At the time of the call-back inspection, Fields observed an employee changing gloves without washing his or her hands. This, along with the prior incident where an employee coughed into his or her hand and put on gloves without washing first, is considered a critical violation of the Food Code by Petitioner. Critical violations are violations that cause an imminent threat to a customer or an employee of a food service establishment. At the time of the call-back inspection, six ceiling tiles were missing and in disrepair in the storeroom, and water was dripping from the ceiling onto the floor. In addition, at the time of the call-back inspection, light shields were missing in the store and in one food preparation area. Respondent was cited for violations to the Food Code under Rules 2-301.14 and 6-202.11, and for a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(6). Respondent does not deny any of the allegations. However, Respondent trains new employees in food safety. Respondent promotes a policy whereby all employees are told to wash their hands hourly and after performing activities that could otherwise lead to food contamination. Respondent attempted to hire a contractor to repair the leak in the storeroom and to replace the missing and damage ceiling tiles. However, due to storm damage in the area, a contractor was not hired until September, 2006. Respondent tried to hire a contractor sooner, but could not find anyone who would make the repairs in a timely manner. Also, Respondent was unable to make the repairs herself. The repair work was completed in September of 2006, and is currently in good repair. The missing light shields were replaced after the time of the call-back inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Business and Professional Regulations, Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order, as follows: Respondent be found guilty of violating, one count each, Rules 2-301.14 and 6-202.11, Food Code, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(6); Respondent be assessed an administrative fine in the amount of $300 for each of the violations, for a total of $900; and Respondent be directed to attend an education program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 15th day of June, 2007.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Michelle's Café, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating public food service establishments operating within the State of Florida. See §§ 509.032 and 509.261, Florida Statutes (2007). At all times material to the allegations of this case the Respondent, Michele’s Café, was a licensed public food establishment governed by the provisions of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2006). The Respondent’s address of record is 299 East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On July 31, 2006, in his capacity as a trained inspector for the Petitioner, Mr. Torres visited the Respondent’s place of business in order to conduct an inspection. Mr. Torres performs between 800 to 1000 inspections per year of licensed food establishments to assure that such businesses are in compliance with all food service rules and regulations. At the time of the inspection, Jessica Sanchez, the manager on duty, represented the Respondent. The inspection report for July 31, 2006, identified several critical violations that needed to be corrected. Mr. Torres notified Mr. Villeda, as the owner and/or operator of the licensed entity, of the inspection results. Mr. Villeda later identified himself as the manager of the café. Critical violations are items that must be corrected because, if not corrected, they pose a threat for imminent food- borne illness, contamination, or environmental hazard. Non- critical violations are less serious but can also lead to a potential health hazard. As to each type of violation, the Petitioner expects the licensee to take appropriate action to correct the cited deficiency. Mr. Torres notified Mr. Villeda of the findings of his inspection of July 31, 2006, because he anticipated that the violations would be corrected in advance of a “call back” inspection. The “call back” inspection was performed on September 18, 2006. This inspection was also performed by Mr. Torres and disclosed the following uncorrected deficiencies (these had been identified to the Respondent in the July 31, 2006 inspection report): There was no thermometer to measure the temperature of food products. This is a critical violation. Food products must be stored and maintained at an acceptable temperature to prevent bacteria from growing. Without a thermometer there is no verifiable system to confirm that acceptable temperatures are being maintained. Additionally, to retain prepared food on-site for sale or use, the prepared food item must be labeled to detail the date of its initial preparation. Ready to eat food can be retained for a maximum of seven days. After that period, there is a presumption that the item may not be safely consumed. Consequently, all prepared food must be clearly labeled to assure it is disposed of at the appropriate time. Because the sale of out-of-date food presents a health hazard, the labeling requirement is considered critical. The failure to follow the guideline is, therefore, considered a critical violation. Sanitizing chemicals used in the cleansing of dishes or food service preparation equipment must be tested to assure a proper level is utilized. The sanitizing chemicals may be toxic, therefore too much can lead to the contamination of the food service item and too little may fail to sanitize and kill bacteria. Accordingly, when used in conjunction with a three-compartment sink or dish machine, a chemical testing kit allows the user to easily verify that the amount of sanitizing chemical is correct. The failure to have and use a test kit is considered a critical violation as the improper use of chemicals may pose a public health hazard. The Respondent did not have the chemical kit to measure the product being used at its location. Food dispensing equipment, such as soda machines, must be kept clean. A build-up of slime on the soda dispenser nozzle poses a threat as mold can form and be dispensed with the soda to the user’s beverage. As illness can result, this deficiency is also considered a critical violation. In this regard the Respondent's soda machine had a build-up of slime on its dispensing nozzle. Food containers must also be kept clean. The interior of Respondent’s reach-in cooler had accumulated a residue of food or soil. As this could contaminate food placed in the cooler, this deficiency is also considered critical. Similarly, food contact surfaces must also be kept smooth and easily cleanable. In this regard, the Respondent’s use of ripped or worn tin foil to cover a shelf was not appropriate. As to each of the deficiencies noted above, the Respondent failed or otherwise refused to timely correct the item. Mr. Villeda represented that the violations were corrected by the last week of September 2006. Implicit in that representation is the admission that such violations were not corrected by September 18, 2006, the date of the “call back” inspection. The Respondent does not have a mop sink. The Respondent’s representation that the owners of the building have a mop sink elsewhere (that is used for the licensed area) has been deemed plausible. If a building janitor uses a mop sink located elsewhere to clean up spills (as was represented), the absence of a mop sink within the licensed area does not demonstrate that no mop sink existed. In this regard the Respondent has been given the benefit of the doubt. The Respondent did not explain why the deficiencies were not corrected before the “call back” inspection. It is accepted that the corrections were later made and the Respondent has been given consideration of this effort in the penalty recommended in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00 against the Respondent, Michelle’s Café. S DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 21st day of November, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesus Villeda Michelle's Cafe 13161 Northwest 11th Court Sunrise, Florida 33323 Joshua B. Moye, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 William Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monore Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monore Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the various acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint in violation of the "food code," as more particularly cited below, and if so, what, if any, penalty is warranted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner 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 located at 4611 University Drive, Coral Springs, Florida, holding Food Service license number 1614898. On January 22, 2007, Deborah Audain, a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Division, performed a food service inspection of the Respondent. During the inspection, Ms. Audain observed five large roaches in the prep area, three roaches in the hot-holding area, 14 in the kitchen by the stove, three crawling on seasonings on the kitchen shelf, one crawling on the kitchen floor, and one in the bathroom hallway. Ms. Audain prepared and signed an inspection report detailing her findings during the inspection. In addition to the roach infestation, 25 violations of applicable Food Code regulations were also found on January 22, 2007, which were cited in a Food Service Inspection Report (Inspection Report). Ms. Audain went over the report, which was on a hand held machine, with Mr. Platzer. He could not read it since it was not a paper report. As per Department procedure when a roach infestation is found, Ms. Audain faxed the inspection report to the Tallahassee office for review. The review resulted in emergency closure of the restaurant due to the roach infestation problem, which created a public health threat. Ms. Audain notified the Respondent that someone would return the following day for a re-inspection and then again at a later date for a callback inspection. On January 23, 2007, Sanitation and Safety Specialists Sean Grosvernor and Terrence Diehl returned to Old Vienna Restaurant as scheduled. Respondent had resolved and corrected the roach problem and the restaurant's license was reinstated. Mr. Grosvernor and Mr. Diehl gave Respondent a written Food Service Inspection Report, a copy of which was signed at the restaurant by co-owner Sherry Platzer. The January 23, 2007, Legal Notice Food Service Inspection Report read in pertinent part: * * * 2 dead roaches on shelf in kitchen (employee removed) Approved to reopen per Kendall Burkett *All other violations must be corrected by 2/23/07. On March 7, 2007, Ms. Audain and Mr. Diehl re-inspected Old Vienna Restaurant and determined that four of the violations remained uncorrected. During the inspection Mr. Grosvernor and Mr. Diehl prepared a Call Back/Re-Inspection Report, (Re- Inspection Report) setting forth the findings from the re- inspection and recommending that an administrative complaint be filed. According to the March 7, 2007, Re-Inspection Report, during the call-back inspection, 22 of the 26 originally cited violations from the January 22, 2007 inspection had been corrected since the initial inspection. The other violations had not been corrected. The first uncorrected violation for which Respondent was cited was Food Code Rule 4-501.114(a)--not maintaining chlorine sanitizer in the final rinse of the dishwashing machine, a critical violation. Respondent contacted Cheney Brothers to service the dishwashing machine and fix it when informed that the machine didn't have the proper level of chlorine on January 22, 2007. The company reported to the restaurant, worked on the dishwashing machine, and informed the owners that it was working because it tested properly. The owners didn't know why the correct level of chlorine did not register when the operator checked it twice upon inspection. Respondent was also cited for a violation of Food Code Rule 3.302.11 (A)(1)--having an improper vertical separation of raw animal foods and ready-to-eat foods since the restaurant’s raw eggs in the walk-in-cooler were stored on the top shelf over ready-to-eat foods, a critical violation. The eggs were stored on the top shelf with an aluminum sheet pan underneath.1 Respondent had been storing the eggs the same way for seventeen years. After receiving the March 7, 2007, inspection, Respondent moved the eggs to the bottom shelf. Respondent was also cited a second time for a violation of Food Code Rule 3-302.11(A)(1)--the inspectors observed boxes of perishable food on the floor in the walk-in- cooler, a critical violation. The boxes contained fries and meat that had been dropped for delivery by Cheney Brothers. Respondent was not storing the food on the floor but was in the middle of the restaurant's food delivery process when the boxes were observed on the floor. Respondent's procedures for delivery included Cheney Brothers dropping off food daily. The perishable food is delivered in boxes and placed in the walk-in-cooler by Cheney Brothers to keep cold until Respondent put it away. The food is typically unpacked and put away within an hour after delivery. The Department also cited Respondent for the fourth uncorrected violation, Food Code Rule 2-402.11--due to the food handler in the kitchen prepping foods without a proper hair restraint, a non-critical violation. A critical violation is a violation that poses an immediate danger to the public. A non-critical violation is a violation that does not pose an immediate danger to the public, but needs to be addressed because if left uncorrected, it can become a critical violation. Respondent challenged the Administrative Complaint and requested a hearing. No dispute exists that the request for hearing was timely filed. No evidence of prior disciplinary action being taken against Respondent by the Department was presented.
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: Dismissing two counts of Food Code Rule 3-302.11. Finding that Old Vienna Restaurant violated Food Code Rules 2-402.11, 4-501.114(A), and 6-501.111. Imposing an administrative fine of $900.00, payable under terms and conditions deemed appropriate. Imposing mandatory attendance, at personal expense, at an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 14th day of January, 2008.
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 for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated June 27, 2011, 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 1620035. At all times material hereto, the Restaurant was located at 1145 South Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316. A critical violation in food service is considered to be a violation of the Food Code that, if not corrected, will most likely cause and is directly related to food-borne illness, food contamination, or environmental hazards. A non-critical violation in food service is considered to be a violation that is less likely to cause and will not directly contribute to food-borne illness or food contamination. On October 27, 2010, Lynden Lewis, an inspector with the Department, conducted a routine inspection of the Restaurant. During the inspection, Inspector Lewis found violations, which were considered to be critical and non- critical violations. Further, during the inspection, Inspector Lewis prepared a food inspection report, setting forth the alleged violations and that the violations were required to be corrected by the next unannounced inspection. The inspection report was signed by Inspector Lewis and a representative of the Restaurant. Inspector Lewis made the representative aware of the alleged violations and that the violations were required to be corrected by the next unannounced inspection, and he provided the representative with a copy of the inspection report. On June 16, 2011, Inspector Lewis and Begum Khatoon, an inspector with the Department, conducted an unannounced routine inspection of the Restaurant. Among other things, three critical violations were not corrected from the routine inspection of October 27, 2010. During the unannounced inspection, Inspector Khatoon prepared a food inspection report, setting forth, among other things, the alleged critical violations. The unannounced inspection report was signed by Inspector Khatoon and a representative of the Restaurant, and Inspector Khatoon provided the representative with a copy of the inspection report. Inspector Khatoon made the representative aware of the alleged violations and that an administrative complaint would be recommended. The most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on October 27, 2010, and was not corrected by June 16, 2011, was raw animal food was stored over ready-to-eat food--raw eggs were being stored over yogurt--in the reach-in cooler. This violation is critical because the ready-to-eat food (yogurt) has already been cooked and gone through the process of pathogenic destruction and will not go through that process again; whereas, the raw animal food (eggs) has not been cooked and not gone through the process of pathogenic destruction. Cross-contamination could occur from the raw animal food by dripping onto or touching of the ready-to-eat food, and any pathogens present on the ready-to-eat food, as a result of the cross-contamination, would pass-on to consumers when the ready-to-eat food is served. Mr. Rocchio's testimony that eggs are stored on the bottom of the refrigerator (reach-in cooler) is found to be credible; however, most importantly, the evidence fails to show that, on the day of the inspection, eggs were stored on the bottom of the refrigerator. The next most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on October 27, 2010, and was not corrected by June 16, 2011, was the hand wash sink in the kitchen was not accessible for employee use at all times. A garbage can was placed in front of the hand wash sink in the kitchen, making the sink inaccessible to employees at all times to wash their hands. Even though Mr. Rochhio testified, and his testimony is found to be credible, that the garbage can was "not a large garbage can," the evidence fails to show, most importantly, that the garbage can did not cause the hand wash sink to be inaccessible to the employees at all times. This violation is a critical violation because the hands of employees become contaminated as employees work and, if the handwash sink is not accessible, the employees will be discouraged from washing their hands. The next most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on October 27, 2010, and was not corrected by June 16, 2011, was handwashing cleanser was lacking at the hand washing lavatory in the kitchen. This violation is a critical violation because hands are a vehicle of contamination, and the use of soap by employees, when washing their hands, removes bacteria and viruses that can contaminate the employees' hands.
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 Valentinos Cucina Italiana violated section 509, Florida Statutes, through a violation of Food Code Rules 3-302.11(A)(1), 5-205.11(A), and 6-301.11; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $750.00 against Valentinos Cucina Italiana. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 2012.
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 April 22, 2008, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is the state agency responsible for inspecting and regulating public food service establishments in Florida. Respondent, Big Apple Pizza Company @ Millenia, Inc., is a permanent food service establishment holding License No. 5811720.2 On August 22, 2007, Andrea Piel inspected the premises of Respondent. A Food Service Inspection Report was prepared on site which noted a number of violations. This Food Service Inspection Report was received and signed by "Vinnie Burruto [sic]" on the day of the inspection. Respondent was notified both verbally and in writing on the inspection report that violations must be corrected by the next unannounced inspection. A critical violation is one that, if not corrected, is more likely than other violations to cause an imminent food-borne illness, contamination, or environmental hazard. A non-critical violation is one that relates to good retail practices, such as general cleanliness, organization, and maintenance of the facility. On October 22, 2007, Andrea Piel attempted to perform a follow-up inspection on Respondent's premises, but was denied access to the kitchen. This was acknowledged by Respondent's witness. The excuse offered for refusing Petitioner's inspector access, that he had just received a food shipment, is unacceptable. On October 29, 2007, Respondent's premises were re-inspected by Michael Campbell. A Call Back Inspection Report was prepared which noted the following "critical violations": no soap at hand-wash sink in kitchen; no required food manager certification available; and no required proof of employee food handler training available. In addition, the following "non- critical" violations were noted: prep surfaces were not sanitized after use and prior to reuse; no sanitizing buckets were available with any measurable sanitizer in them; a sponge was found in the three-compartment sink; ceiling tiles were missing in the kitchen; and carbon dioxide tanks were not properly secured. Each of these violations is a repeat violation, not corrected from the initial inspection. Petitioner withdrew and did not offer any evidence regarding violations of National Fire Protection Association (Code) 96, 11.1.2., and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61C-1.002(5)(B), 61C-1.004(11), and 61C-4.010(7). Vinchaso Burtuto, Respondent's witness, was not on Respondent's premises during the "call-back" inspection. The credibility of his testimony is eroded by the fact that he was not present. The inspection reports and citations of specific violations of Inspectors Piel and Campbell are credible and present clear and convincing evidence of the reported violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order finding that: Respondent, Big Apple Pizza, committed the violations as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; An administrative fine of four thousand dollars ($4,000.00) be imposed for the violations incidental to Respondent's failure to cure the violations as determined during the "call-back" inspection of October 29, 2007; An additional administrative fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) be imposed for the October 22, 2007, violation wherein Petitioner's inspector was denied access to Respondent's premises; and The owner(s) of Respondent be required to attend, at personal expense, an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2008.
