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 Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent operated Humphrey's On 33rd, a bar/restaurant (with a "full kitchen") located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the holder of a license issued by Petitioner (license number 16-18150-R) authorizing it to operate Humphrey's On 33rd as a public food service establishment. Edward Humphrey is the majority owner of Respondent. On December 29, 2004, Michele Schneider, a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with Petitioner, conducted a routine inspection of the premises of Humphrey's On 33rd. Her inspection revealed, among other things, the following (which hereinafter will be referred to, collectively, as the "Conditions"): Respondent, upon request, was unable to produce evidence of "food handlers' training for employees by a certified food manager"; there were paper products and other potentially combustible items "on top of and around" a gas- powered hot water heater (which had an "open flame at the bottom"); there was no indication that violations (of the standards of the National Fire Protection Association) previously-noted by a "certified fire inspector" during an inspection of the hood range in the kitchen (which had an ansel fire suppression system) had been corrected; the service tag on the fire extinguisher in the establishment did not indicate the year the extinguisher was last serviced; and there was grease, garbage, and other debris in the "can wash area" outside the establishment, "right behind the back door." Before leaving the establishment, Ms. Schneider advised Mr. Humphrey that these Conditions were violations for which Respondent could be disciplined by Petitioner if not corrected by February 1, 2005. Ms. Schneider conducted a "callback" inspection of the premises of Humphrey's On 33rd on February 1, 2005, which revealed that each of the Conditions described in Finding of Fact 4 still existed. At neither the time of the December 29, 2004, routine inspection, nor the time of the February 1, 2005, "callback" inspection, was food being served at Humphrey's On 33rd. Respondent had "closed the kitchen down" in or around September of 2004. It was not until approximately six months later, after the December 29, 2004, and February 1, 2005, inspections, that Respondent started serving food again at the establishment. At no time during this six-month period that it stopped serving food did Respondent relinquish its license authorizing it to operate Humphrey's On 33rd as a public food service establishment. Its license remained in effect throughout this period.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order finding that Respondent committed Alleged Violation Nos. 1 through 5 and disciplining Respondent therefor by imposing a fine in the total amount of $250.00 and requiring Respondent's majority owner to attend, at his own expense, an "educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program." DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 20th day of December, 2005.
The Issue The issues in this disciplinary proceeding arise from Petitioner's allegation that Respondent, which operates a bar and lounge, violated several statutes and rules 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 At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Whistle Stop Lounge, Inc. ("Whistle Stop") operated a duly licensed "bar and lounge" at a location in Boca Raton, Florida. Because the business activities of this enterprise also brought it within the statutory definition of a "food service establishment," Whistle Stop was required to be, and was, separately licensed as such. As a licensed food service establishment, Whistle Stop is subject to the regulatory and disciplinary jurisdiction of Petitioner Department of Health ("Department"). The Department is charged with the duty of inspecting food service establishments for compliance with sanitation rules designed to protect the public against food-borne illnesses. Accordingly, agents of the Department have inspected Whistle Stop's premises on many occasions, as a routine matter. Whistle Stop, however, has had ongoing problems with compliance since at least 2004, with the result that the Department has inspected its establishment more frequently than otherwise might have been the case. Indeed, from January 2008 though March 2009, the Department inspected Whistle Stop's premises 16 times——at least once in each of 10 separate months——and determined that Whistle Stop's compliance was "unsatisfactory" during 14 of those visits. During the referenced period, the Department twice concluded that Whistle Stop's establishment constituted an imminent danger to the public health. Consequently, the Department issued stop-sale orders on March 13, 2008, and November 7, 2008, each of which required Whistle Stop to close its doors. Although both stop-sale orders were lifted several weeks after their respective dates of issuance, the underlying problems subsisted, albeit in lesser degrees of severity. The problems that most concerned the Department can be divided into three categories: (a) the persistent presence on the premises of roaches, rodents, and flies; (b) the persistent presence on the premises of "potentially hazardous food"; and (c) the persistent presence on the premises of improperly stored garbage. The evidence clearly proves, and the undersigned finds, that Whistle Stop's establishment suffered from chronic infestations of roaches, flies, and rats, which persisted from January 2008 until at least December 11, 2008. During this period, Whistle Stop failed (or was unable) to take effective measures to protect against the entrance of such vermin. The undersigned finds, based on clear and convincing evidence, that within Whistle Stop's premises were routinely kept a variety of "potentially hazardous food" in kinds and quantities that were inconsistent with the owner's explanation that such food was the employees' personal property being temporarily stored for their convenience. Although the Department's agents did not observe potentially hazardous food being served to, or consumed by, Whistle Stop's patrons, they did witness such food in a frozen state and being thawed. For example, on November 7, 2008, chicken breast strips were seen to be decaying in a freezer on the premises. That same day, ground sausage was observed in a cooler, at a temperature that was above freezing and inadequate for long-term storage. On December 11, 2008, the Department's agents witnessed shrimp that was defrosting in the refrigerator, and butter that had been "out of temperature" for more than four hours and needed to be discarded. It is evident that on these occasions (and others), potentially hazardous food items at Whistle Stop's premises were subjected to activities that involved temperature changes, which is a form of "food preparation" according to the relevant regulatory definition of the term. There is clear and convincing evidence that garbage was often stored within Whistle Stop's premises in uncovered containers without first having been placed in plastic bags or wet-strength paper bags, and the undersigned so finds. The Department's agents observed such improper storage of garbage on November 7, 2008; November 13, 2008; and December 11, 2008. Ultimate Factual Determinations It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Whistle Stop is guilty of failing to comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-11.007(7), which requires food service establishments to take effective measures for controlling vermin on the premises. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Whistle Stop is guilty of causing or allowing potentially hazardous food to be prepared on its premises, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-11.002(4)(c), which prohibits such food preparation at a bar and lounge (unless the establishment, unlike Whistle Stop, is also licensed as a restaurant). It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Whistle Stop is guilty of failing to comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-11.007(6), which prescribes the requirements for storing and disposing of garbage at a food service establishment. Additional Findings Pertaining to Administrative Fines Having found that Whistle Stop has operated in violation of applicable rules, and in view of the Department's stated intent to impose a fine in excess of $25,000, it is necessary to make some additional findings concerning facts that bear on the amount of fine to be imposed. Each time the Department's agents inspected Whistle Stop's premises, a Food Service Inspection Report was prepared, using a form that the agency has developed for this purpose. The form contained the following notice: Items marked below violate the requirements of Chapter 64E-11 of the Florida Administrative Code and must be corrected. Continued operation of this facility without making these corrections is a violation of [applicable law]. Violations must be corrected by the date and time indicated in the Results section above or an administrative fine or other legal action will be initiated. This language expressly warned the licensee of the consequences of failing timely to fix an identified violation; implicitly, it told the licensee that if a violation were corrected within what was, effectively, a "grace period" until the next inspection, then disciplinary action (e.g., administrative fine or other legal action) would not be taken with regard to that violation. Some of the violations for which the Department wants to impose an administrative fine were timely corrected. One such violation was Whistle Stop's preparation of potentially hazardous food on November 7, 2008, for which the Department would impose a $500 fine. This problem was corrected before the next inspection on November 13, 2008, at which time this particular violation was not noted. Similarly, the Department cited Whistle Stop for preparing potentially hazardous food on December 11, 2009, and it wants to impose a fine of $500 for the violation, which was found herein to have occurred. Whistle Stop, however, had corrected the violation by January 9, 2009, when the Department next inspected its premises. The Department seeks to impose a fine of $500 per day for Whistle Stop's failure to take effective measures for controlling vermin between December 11, 2008 and January 9, 2009. Whistle Stop was cited for this violation on December 11, 2008, but not on January 9, 2009, which means that Whistle Stop corrected the problem at some point before the Department's next inspection. (There is no evidence, moreover, as to when this violation was corrected; thus, even if it were appropriate to impose a fine for a violation that the licensee corrected during the apparent grace period, which is contrary to the undersigned's view, the undersigned could not ascertain for how long the violation actually continued after December 11, 2008.) The Department intends to impose fines of $125 apiece for Whistle Stop's failures properly to store garbage on the dates of November 13, 2008, and December 11, 2008. Each of these violations had been corrected, however, before the next inspections, which took place, respectively, on November 19, 2008, and January 9, 2009. In contrast to the foregoing, there are other violations for which the Department would impose a fine that Whistle Stop did not timely correct. Whistle Stop was cited for improper storage of garbage on November 7, 2008, and that problem was not fixed by the next inspection on November 13, 2008. The Department intends to impose of fine of $125 for this violation. Finally, the Department wants to fine Whistle Stop $500 per day (which amounts to $9,500) for the period from November 7, 2008, to November 26, 2008, for the licensee's continuing failure to control vermin on the premises. This violation did, in fact, continue throughout the subject period and was not timely corrected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order: (a) finding Whistle Stop guilty in accordance with the foregoing Recommended Order; (b) ordering Whistle Stop to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $9,625; and (c) revoking Whistle Stop's food service establishment license. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 20th day of October, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Victoria Coleman-Miller, Esquire Department of Health Palm Beach County Health Department 800 Clematis Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 James S. Lewis, Esquire 200 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 102 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Rose D. Sheffler Whistle Stop Lounge, Inc. 198-199 West Camino Real Boca Raton, Florida 33432 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Alina Alonso, Director Palm Beach County Health Department Florida Department of Health 800 Clematis Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte Ros, Secretary State Surgeon General Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the subject Administrative Complaints, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Chapter 500, Florida Statutes, is the Florida Food Safety Act. Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida that is responsible for the administration and enforcement of Chapter 500. Section 500.032(1) provides as follows: [Petitioner] is charged with the administration and enforcement of this chapter in order to prevent fraud, harm, adulteration, misbranding, or false advertising in the preparation, manufacture, or sale of articles of food. It is further charged to enforce the provisions of this chapter relating to the production, manufacture, transportation, and sale of food, as well as articles entering into, and intended for use as ingredients in the preparation of food. Section 500.02(1) authorizes Petitioner to establish by rule conditions for the manufacturing, processing, packing, holding, or preparation of food and the selling of food at wholesale or retail. Pursuant to that authority, Petitioner has adopted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 5K-4.002(4), pertinent parts of the "2001 Food Code" and the "Supplement to the 2001 Food Code," published by the U.S. Public Health Service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (the Food Code). The violations alleged by Petitioner in both administrative complaints, if proven, would constitute violations of the Food Code and, consequently, violations of chapter 500. At the times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent operated a convenience store located in Miami, Florida, that sold mostly pre-packaged food products at retail, but also provided ancillary food service (the facility). The facility had a retail sales area, a backroom storage area, a walk-in cooler, and an ice machine. The food service operation included a hot case unit that prepared pre-cooked ready-to-eat food products in individual portions for consumption and drinks such as milk, juice, sodas, and beer. Violations of the Food Code can be categorized as "critical" or "non-critical". As compared to a non-critical violation, a critical violation typically involves unsanitary conditions that are more likely to cause physical harm to a consumer or someone handling a product. June 22, 2010 Inspection Jorge Ojeda, a sanitation and safety specialist employed by Petitioner, performed a routine inspection of the facility on June 22, 2010. Mr. Ojeda's inspection revealed numerous food safety violations, including violations that are deemed critical violations. The following are the critical violations found by Mr. Ojeda on June 22, 2010: Rodent droppings were present in the walk-in cooler and retail area; Ice found in bags in the retail area had not been tested for safety. An ice bag in the retail area was missing a food label. There was evidence of smoking in the retail and backroom areas. There was no established employee health policy; A food employee was observed washing utensils or equipment in a hand-wash sink. Meat patties in the heat case were kept below the minimum approved temperature. Other non-critical violations included general disrepair of the facility, holes in walls, standing water, mold on the ice machine, and failure to maintain equipment. During the June 22, 2010, inspection, Mr. Ojeda issued a Stop Sale Order for the meat patties in the hot case unit until the product was reheated to the minimum temperature. After the temperature was raised to an approved level, Mr. Ojeda lifted the Stop Sale Order for the meat patties. Mr. Ojeda also issued a Stop Sale Order for products in the walk-in cooler and in the ice machine until the walk-in cooler and the ice machine were cleaned and sanitized. As noted above, rodent droppings were found in the walk-in cooler. Mr. Ojeda testified that he found mold inside the ice machine. Mr. Ojeda assigned Respondent a "poor" rating and advised that he would return for a follow-up inspection. August 2, 2010 Inspection Mr. Ojeda conducted a follow-up inspection of the facility on August 2, 2010. The inspection revealed numerous food safety violations, some of which are repeat violations. The following are the critical violations found by Mr. Ojeda on August 2, 2010: There was evidence of rodent droppings and live roaches in the facility; Ice found in bags in the retail area had not been tested for safety. An ice bag in the retail area was missing a food label. There was evidence of smoking in the retail and backroom areas. There was no established employee health policy; A food employee was observed washing utensils in a hand-wash sink. Meat patties in the heat case were kept below the minimum approved temperature. Other violations included general disrepair of the facility, holes in walls, and failure to maintain equipment and fixtures. Administrative Complaint for Case No. 10-9186 Following the August 2, 2010, inspection, Petitioner prepared an administrative complaint that underpins DOAH Case No. 10-9186. Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the total amount of $3,700.00 for the violations found during the inspections on June 22 and August 2. August 18, 2010 Inspection Mr. Ojeda conducted an inspection of the facility on August 18, 2010. During that inspection Mr. Ojeda found numerous food safety violations. The following are the critical violations found by Mr. Ojeda on August 18, 2010: There was evidence of the presence of insects and rodents in the store. There was evidence of smoking in the retail and back room areas where food is processed or prepared, where clean equipment or utensils are stored, or were food is uncovered or exposed. There was mold present on the ice machine. Equipment and utensils were not properly sanitized. Items for sale in the retail area were not marked for individual sale. There was no established employee health policy. Food label was missing or incomplete. Juice drinks were not labeled for individual sale. Other violations included general disrepair of the facility, holes in walls, standing water, and failure to maintain equipment and fixtures. Mr. Ojeda issued a Stop Sale Order for all food items in the store due to evidence of rodents and rodent droppings throughout the store. Mr. Ojeda issued a Stop Use Order for the ice machine because he found mold inside the unit. Mr. Ojeda also issued a Stop Sale Order for the hot holding unit because the unit and associated utensils were not properly sanitized. Mr. Ojeda assigned Respondent a "poor" rating and advised that he would return for a follow-up inspection. September 9, 2010 Inspection Mr. Ojeda conducted a follow-up inspection of the facility on September 9, 2010. During that inspection Mr. Ojeda found numerous food safety violations. The following are the critical violations found by Mr. Ojeda on August 18, 2010: There was evidence of the presence of insects and rodents throughout the store. There was evidence of smoking in the retail and back room areas where food is processed or prepared, where clean equipment or utensils are stored, or were food is uncovered or exposed. Grade A milk and milk products were being sold or used beyond the expiration date on the container. Items for sale in the retail area were not marked for individual sale and were missing labels. F. There was no established employee health policy. Other violations included general disrepair of the facility, holes in walls, standing water, and failure to maintain equipment and fixtures. Mr. Ojeda issued a Stop Sale Order for the expired milk offered for sale in the retail area. The product, which expired the day before the inspection, was released to be returned to the distributor. Mr. Ojeda also issued a Stop Sale Order for all food items in the store due to evidence of rodents and rodent droppings throughout the store. Administrative Complaint for Case No. 10-10095 Following the September 9, 2010, inspection, Petitioner prepared an administrative complaint that underpins DOAH Case No. 10-10095. Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the total amount of $1,550.00 for the violations found during the inspections on August 18 and September 9. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed the violations alleged in Case No. 10-9186. The testimony of Dr. Fruin established that an administrative fine in the amount of $3,700.00 is reasonable for those violations. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed the violations alleged in Case No. 10-10095. The testimony of Dr. Fruin established that an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00 is reasonable for those violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order that finds Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Case No 10-9186 and imposes an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $3,700.00 for those violations. It is further recommended that the final order find Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Case No 10-10095 and impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,500.00 for those violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Lorena Holley, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Adam Putman Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Steven Lamar Hall, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Hamid Lakhani Super Stop Six Avenue, Inc., d/b/a Super Stop 15150 Northeast 6th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the Division as a permanent food service establishment. Its license number is 6212901. Respondent is “beach bar” located in Indian Shores. It has a C-4 alcoholic beverage license and sells “whiskey.” Respondent did not sell food to the general public at any time material to this case. Respondent’s owner, John Susor, testified that he would like to sell hot and cold sandwiches at the establishment at some point in the future. The Division conducted a routine inspection of Respondent’s establishment on May 18, 2006. The inspection was performed by Marcie Ellerman, a sanitation and safety specialist employed by the Division at the time. Ms. Ellerman documented a number of violations at Respondent’s establishment in the Food Service Inspection Report that she prepared during her inspection. The violations included “grooved and pitted cutting boards throughout the kitchen”; broken and moldy reach-in cooler and dirty soda guns; kitchen shelves not smooth and easily cleanable; dirty microwave, stove, slicer, cabinets, drawers, kitchen shelves, and soda gun holsters; clean dishes stored on dirty shelves; “cats walking on bar inside building [and] dining area”; floors not smooth and easily cleanable, floors dirty throughout kitchen and dining area; and carbon dioxide containers not secured in soda room. The violations involving the dirty food contact surfaces and the cats are considered “critical” violations because they pose an immediate threat to the public health through cross-contamination. The other violations are considered “non-critical” violations because they pose a risk to the public health, but not an immediate threat. Ms. Ellerman gave Respondent 30 days, until June 18, 2006, to correct the cited violations. Ms. Ellerman performed a “callback” inspection of Respondent’s establishment on July 7, 2006. According to the report prepared by Ms. Ellerman during the callback inspection, the only cited violations that had been corrected since the initial inspection were the dirty microwave and stove. The other violations, including the cats, had not been corrected. The uncorrected violations documented by Ms. Ellerman at the time of the callback inspection are listed in the Administrative Complaint as follows: 14-37-1 . . . OBSERVED GROOVED AND PITTED CUTTING BOARDS 14-33-1 . . . OBSERVED EQUIPMENT IN POOR REPAIR, REACH IN COOLER HAS BROKEN DOORS, GLASS 15-30-1 . . . OBSERVED SHELVES THROUGHOUT THE KITCHEN NOT SMOOTH, EASILY CLEANABLE 4. 22-23-1 . . . SODA GUN HOLSTERS SOILED THROUGHOUT SLICER SOILED CABINETS AND DRAWERS SOILED WITH OLD FOOD DEBRIS REACH IN COOLERS SOLIED WITH BLACK MOLD-LIKE DEBRIS KITCHEN SHELVES DIRTY THROUGHOUT THE KITCHEN 24-06-1 . . . OBSERVED CLEAN DISHES STORED ON SOILED SHELVES 35A-01-1 . . . OBSERVED CATS ON BAR, TABLES INSIDE THE ESTABLISHMENT 36-11-1 . . . FLOORS NOT SMOOTH AND EASILY CLEANABLE 36-15-1 . . . OBSERVED FLOORS THROUGHOUT THE KITCHEN, BAR AND DINING AREAS SOILED WITH DEBRIS 51-11-1 . . . CARBON DIOXIDE CYLINDERS STORED UNSECURED IN SODA ROOM Ms. Ellerman is no longer employed by the Division. She did not testify at the final hearing, and there is no evidence in the record regarding her qualifications or experience. Her inspection reports were received into evidence under the hearsay exception in Section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes (2006). Eric Charpentier, the witness who testified on behalf of the Division at the final hearing, has extensive experience in the restaurant industry and has conducted hundreds of restaurant inspections. He was Ms. Ellerman’s supervisor when she worked as an inspector for the Division. Mr. Charpentier has no personal knowledge of the conditions at Respondent’s establishment at the time of Ms. Ellerman’s inspections. For example, he testified that he did not know whether the cutting boards in Respondent’s kitchen could be sanitized despite the groves and pits observed by Ms. Ellerman. Mr. Susor admitted that the violations cited by Ms. Ellerman existed at the time of the inspections. He candidly testified that the violations were “true” and that he had “never seen a kitchen that damned dirty” in his 70 years in the restaurant business.2 Mr. Susor testified that he has had cats “in and out of [the restaurant] for over 40 years.” He also testified that there is a possum that comes in “[e]very once in a while,” sleeps in the fish nets hanging in the restaurant, and eats the food that is left out for the cats. Mr. Charpentier has been to Respondent’s establishment since the time of Ms. Ellerman’s inspections. He testified that some of the violations cited by Ms. Ellerman have now been corrected, but that other violations (such as the cats) still exist. Mr. Susor recently purchased new reach-in coolers and cutting boards. He also retiled, repainted, and thoroughly cleaned the kitchen. Mr. Charpentier testified that Respondent did not need a public food service establishment license from the Division if it was not selling food to the public. However, because Respondent has such a license, it is subject to the Division’s jurisdiction and is required to comply with the standards governing public food service establishments. Mr. Susor has taken steps since Ms. Ellerman’s callback inspection to bring Respondent into compliance with the Division’s rules. He is looking for guidance from the Division as to what else he needs to do before he starts selling food to the general public.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division issue a final order that: finds Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, except for Violation No. 14-37-1 related to the cutting boards; imposes an administrative fine of $1,000; and requires Mr. Susor to attend an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 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 issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a bakery, primarily selling bagels. Respondent bakes, packages, and sells bagels and other baked products wholesale and retail. In addition, it sells ready-to- eat food in individual portions for consumption on or off the premises, including eggs, bacon, sausage, salads, and soups. It also cuts, packages, and sells meats. Respondent also operates a delivery service and a catering business and is open to the public 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Respondent is regulated by the Department and is routinely inspected by the Department three times a year. Ronald Gagnon is employed by the Department's Bureau of Food and Meat Inspection as a sanitary and safety specialist. He performed a routine inspection of the Respondent's premises on May 26, 2006. Gretchen Rhodes is the sanitation and safety specialist who had been assigned to perform routine inspections of the Respondent, but she was behind schedule in her duties and was covering for her supervisor, Rodney Banks, who was on vacation. Gagnon agreed to perform the inspection of Respondent to assist Rhodes. He had never been on Respondent's premises to inspect it prior to the May 26, 2006, inspection, but he had inspected other bakeries before he inspected Respondent. Gagnon had been employed by the Department as a sanitation and safety specialist since August 2005. After he was hired, he received six months of on-the-job training accompanying other inspectors on inspections before performing an inspection by himself. He also received one week of training by the Department regarding the different statutes and rules relating to food safety. He also underwent standardization that included performing eight inspections of food establishments under the observation of a federal Food and Drug Administration inspector to ensure that he was performing inspections competently. Prior to inspecting Respondent, Gagnon had been performing inspections by himself for approximately five months. According to his estimate, he had performed approximately 300 inspections by then. Of those, only six to eight percent of the inspections he performed had been assigned a "poor" rating, which rating required a re-inspection. Upon entering Respondent's business at about 8:30 a.m., Gagnon told the cashier he was there to inspect the premises and then gave that information to Patricia Marshall, the employee who was in charge at the time. Marshall asked Gagnon to wait for an owner to arrive before he did his inspection, but he advised her that he could perform his inspection as long as there was someone in charge at the business. He invited her to accompany him, but she was busy and did not accompany him during his inspection of the back room and related areas. Shortly after Gagnon's arrival, Marshall telephoned Denise Jimenez, a manager and the wife of one of the owners, and advised her that an inspector was performing an inspection. Mrs. Jimenez did not arrive at the business until after Gagnon had completed his inspection and was preparing his written report. When Gagnon completed his inspection of the back room and related areas, he returned to inspect the retail area where Marshall was working. Although she was with him for some parts of the inspection, she was busy and did not observe him during all of his inspection of the retail area. They did have several conversations, however, regarding specific violations which he noticed. One of those conversations involved the temperature- recording device in the cooling case in the retail area. Gagnon noticed that the measuring device was in the coldest part of the case by the condenser coils; however, to properly measure the temperature of the food in the case, the device should be located in the warmest part of the cooler. Gagnon explained this problem to Marshall, and Marshall subsequently pulled out the wire of the device so that it was no longer working. Another conversation involved the soup that was in the ready-to-eat serving area. The soup was in a stainless steel container called a Bay Marie and had been lowered into a crock pot with a heating element. The container had approximately a quart of soup in it. When Gagnon measured the temperature of the soup, it was at 118 degrees Fahrenheit and not at 135 degrees, the temperature required to prevent the growth of harmful bacteria. At hearing, Gagnon testified that Marshall told him she was going to throw that soup away and make new soup for lunch. Marshall testified, however, that she had made the soup for lunch and it was not yet fully heated. The small amount of soup makes Gagnon's recollection more credible than Marshall's. At any rate, Gagnon told her to throw away the soup, and she did. Gagnon made handwritten notes to record his findings as he performed his inspection. He used the equipment he brought with him as he proceeded. He brought a thermal couple, a digital food thermometer with a probe that could be inserted into food to measure the internal temperature. He had an infrared thermometer to measure surface temperatures. He used these two devices to measure the temperature of food to determine whether it was hot enough or cold enough. If the infrared thermometer showed that the surface temperature was too low or too high, he used the probe thermometer to measure the internal temperature of the food. He also had a flashlight to look into dark areas and test strips to measure the concentration of sanitizer used to clean dishes and cooking utensils to determine whether it was too low or too high. He had alcohol swabs to cleanse the measuring device on the probe thermometer between uses on different foods. Lastly, he had his computer and printer to prepare his report and provide a copy to the business being inspected. After Gagnon concluded his inspection, he prepared a Food Safety Inspection Report while still on Respondent's premises. The numbers on the left margin of those documents represent different classifications of food safety violations. By virtue of his training, Gagnon was familiar with the different classifications and would press the number for the class of violations most closely resembling what he had observed. From the available options, he would then select the description most closely fitting what he observed. This description would be printed in lower case letters. Using bold print following that description, Gagnon wrote what he had actually observed. The computer was programmed to print an asterisk beside certain violations which had been determined by the Department to pose a more serious threat to food safety. These violations are referred to as "critical violations." Since Mrs. Jimenez arrived at the business after Gagnon finished his report, he went through his report with her verbally. She then accompanied him through the premises, starting in the back area. He pointed out to her each item which he had marked as a violation. She remained silent through most of his concerns, not offering any explanations that he might consider in finalizing his report, except for one. She explained to him that the mixer was black on the inside because the cook had been mixing pumpernickel dough which contains coloring that is black. When Gagnon and Mrs. Jimenez went into the retail area, a discussion and then argument ensued regarding the broken temperature-measuring device in the cooling case. Mrs. Jimenez insisted that Gagnon had ordered Marshall to move it, which broke the device; Gagnon denied ordering Marshall to do so. Mrs. Jimenez became quite angry and demanded that Gagnon pay to repair the cooler. She began demanding that Gagnon prove who he was, and he handed her a copy of his inspection report with his name on it and advised her that there was a telephone number for the Department on it if she wanted to call to complain. He then left the business and the confrontation. Gagnon's inspection report cited numerous violations ranging from minor to serious. Eleven of the violations were critical violations as follows: washed utensils were not properly washed; there was a live roach in the proofer box; single-serve gloves were being used more than once for tasks where glove changes were necessary; food employees were not regularly washing their hands; bacon and sausage were held at room temperature, and the soup was at 118 degrees; salads and deli meats were held at above the required temperature; eggs, ham, and cheeses in the walk-in cooler were above the required temperature; desserts were in a case with ice underneath and were, therefore, above the required temperature; eggs in the reach-in cooler and cheese in the cold case were above the required temperature; equipment was not maintaining required temperatures; and there were no dates marked on the ham. Due to the number of critical violations and the number of other violations, Gagnon gave Respondent a rating of "poor," which rating required a re-inspection two weeks later to ascertain if the violations had been corrected. Both Mr. and Mrs. Jimenez called the Department that same day complaining about Gagnon and demanding that the Department immediately send a different inspector to re-inspect the business. They were both advised that the business would be re-inspected in two weeks. Yet, Mr. Jimenez instructed his employees to change nothing so they could prove Gagnon was wrong when the next inspector came. In other words, Jimenez made the decision to not correct the violations noted in Gagnon's report. In the Food Safety Inspection Supplemental Report Gagnon completed after he had left the business, he memorialized that the key lime desserts, bacon, sausage, and soup were destroyed. As to other violations, such as eggs being held at too high a temperature, he released those products for sale after they were properly refrigerated. No competent evidence was offered as to any bias on the part of Gagnon against the business or its employees. The evidence is uncontroverted that he had finished his report before the confrontation over the wire in the cooler began. When he left the business to avoid continuing the confrontation, he left a copy of his report, and no changes are alleged to have been made to his report thereafter. Gretchen Rhodes performed the follow-up inspection on June 7, 2006. She was accompanied by her supervisor, Rodney Banks, due to the reported confrontation on May 26 between Gagnon and Respondent's employees. They observed some of the same violations found by Gagnon on May 26. There were four critical violations found: (1) a food employee in the in-store deli area failed to change single-use gloves and failed to wash his or her hands after the gloves were contaminated; (2) there was no health-risks advisory posted in the in-store deli part of the business although eggs were cooked to order there; (3) salads in the in-store deli cooler were at higher than the required temperature; and (4) heavy rodent droppings were seen in the service closet (utility room) near the ovens. As on May 26, there was no certified food manager present although there were four or more employees present. As on May 26, Rhodes observed furnishings and equipment that were dirty. As to the rodent droppings, John Jimenez, as Respondent's 50 percent owner and Respondent's representative at the final hearing, admitted that the business had a rodent problem and had had that problem since February 2006 when it was discovered. Although attempts had been made to eradicate the rodents, they were still present and the business was still cooking and serving food to the public. On June 7 there were maintenance and cleaning tools stored in the food processing area, including a generator and tires for motor vehicles, thereby creating an area of clutter in which rodents could hide. Rhodes assigned Respondent a rating of "poor" based upon the violations she found, particularly, the presence of rodents. She gave a copy of her Food Safety Inspection Report and of her Food Safety Inspection Supplemental Report to Mrs. Jimenez, who signed that she received them. Rodney Banks, a sanitation and safety supervisor since 1992, accompanied Rhodes on the June 7 inspection. He agreed with her observations and with the violations noted in her report and supplemental report which he reviewed at the conclusion of the inspection. In addition to supervising Gretchen Rhodes, he also supervises Ronald Gagnon and Cynthia Koza. In fact, he had hired Gagnon and has never received a complaint about Gagnon from any of the businesses Gagnon has inspected, except for Respondent's. Cynthia Koza, a sanitation and safety specialist, accompanied Rhodes when Rhodes returned to Respondent's premises on July 5, 2006, for a follow-up inspection. It was normal procedure to have two inspectors for the follow-up inspection if a food establishment had two "poor" ratings in a row. She agreed with Rhodes' observations during the inspection and with the contents of Rhodes' Food Safety Inspection Report and Food Safety Inspection Supplemental Report. The inspectors did not inspect the retail area of Respondent's premises on that date because there were a lot of customers in that area. They did, however, inspect the back area and once again found rodent droppings not only in the service closet but also behind a butcher block table top leaning against the wall by the walk-in cooler. They noticed that the back door of the business was standing open at the time of the inspection and was neither self-closing nor tight-fitting. This observation matched that of Gagnon on May 26 that the back door had gaps with huge openings, thereby allowing rodents and insects to enter the food processing area. The inspectors also noticed that there were chew holes in ceiling tiles near the electric conduit pipes, some ceiling tiles were missing, and there was a hole in the wall in the finishing room. Based upon Rhodes' training and experience, she recognized the chew holes as rodent chew marks. There were also black grease marks around the hole where a rodent's fur brushed against the wall as it squeezed through the hole. As on May 29 and June 7, there was no certified food manager on the premises on July 5 although there were eight employees present at the time. Rhodes again noted in her report the continued presence of clutter and the dirty equipment. Foods in the walk- in cooler still were not maintained at the required low temperature. Rhodes again gave the business a rating of "poor." She gave copies of her Food Safety Inspection Report and Food Safety Inspection Supplemental Report to Mrs. Jimenez. Dr. John Fruin is the Chief of the Bureau of Food and Meat Inspection, Division of Food Safety, of the Department. He reviewed the Food Safety Inspection Reports dated May 26, June 7, and July 5, 2006, and agreed that the proper rating for Respondent was "poor" for each of those reports based upon the number of violations, the number of critical violations, and the presence of rodents. He testified that the three "poor" ratings with repeat violations require that a fine be imposed upon Respondent for the violations observed during each inspection. On May 26 there were six critical violations but some of them were committed more than one time, meriting a fine of $1,375. On June 7 there were fewer critical and non-critical violations, meriting a fine of $950. On July 5 there were still fewer violations, meriting a fine of $300. The total fine recommended by Dr. Fruin, therefore, is $2,625.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and requiring Respondent to pay to the Department an administrative fine in the amount of $2,625 by a date certain. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 12th of January, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 David W. Young, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 John Jimenez TJ Baking, LLC 7562 West Commercial Boulevard Lauderhill, Florida 33319
