Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, HRS had jurisdiction over Respondent, which lawfully operates Hillhaven Convalescent Center, a nursing home facility in Sarasota, Florida. At all times pertinent hereto, the patient census at Hillhaven Convalescent Center exceeded 61. During the period July 13 through 15, 1982, an inspector employed by HRS conducted a survey of Respondent's facility. Among several deficiencies found, all of but one of which were corrected, was one indicating that the duties of the individual hired by Respondent as food services supervisor regularly included food preparation. The individual in question spent 24 hours of a 40 hour workweek as a full time cook. This deficiency was noted on the inspection report and brought to the attention of the provider's representative. A follow-up inspection of the facility was conducted by HRS representatives on February 15 through 17, 1983, at which time it was noted that the prior noticed deficiency had not been corrected. Though the number of hours the food services supervisor cooked had been reduced to 16 per 40 hour workweek, inspectors concluded this was still unsatisfactory and again cited the facility in the report for this as well as other deficiencies in the social services area. In a follow-up inspection on April 7, 1983, the inspector again found that the dietary services supervisor was acting as a cook for 16 or more hours per week. This deficiency was in addition to the continuing social services deficiencies which Respondent admits also continued. Hardy C. Kinney, a nutrition specialist with HRS and one of the individuals involved in the development of the agency's rules regarding food service which are allegedly violated here, indicated that as long as approximately six years ago, a committee was formulated within HRS to develop rules in the area of institutional food services such as here. The committee's concerns were to insure that the food service supervisor be a well trained individual whose job would be to consider the therapeutic nutritional needs of the patients--not to prepare and serve food. It was the feeling of the committee members, garnered from observations of other facilities where the supervisor does both, that when the food service supervisor is cooking and serving, he or she does not have the time to devote to proper patient care. There is a close relationship between food and diet and the welfare of the patient. When a patient is admitted to the facility, the physician writes that patient's nutritional orders. There is some variance permitted for taste and texture changes in the diet to make the food more interesting to the patient. Experience has shown that when the food is more interesting and attractive, the patient takes it better and thereby benefits from eating. As a result, the supervisor needs to talk with patients to determine the patients' preferences as to what foods they like and how they like it cooked. He or she also needs to spend the available work time working out strategies to meet the nutritional needs of the patients and supervising the procuring, receiving and storing of food. In short, the intent of the committee was to minimize the number of distractions the supervisor had to deal with as a nutritionist so as to promote proper patient food care. Mr. Kinney indicated the idea of the committee which developed the rule in question was not to block totally the participation of the supervisor from food preparation in emergency situations. However, it was most definitely the intent of the rule drafters that the food preparation and service was not to be even a minuscule portion of the supervisor's duties, except for emergencies. According to Mr. Kinney, even if a food services supervisor works one hour per week in a nonemergency situation, if this requirement is written into the job description, or is accomplished as a routine task on a recurring basis, the agency considers it a primary duty which is prohibited by the rule in question. It is pertinent to note here that in the instant case, the inspectors were not in any way contending that the rule violation resulted in a diminishment of patient care. To the contrary, Mr. Mitchell, the then incumbent food services supervisor, had, in general, done all that was required. He was not able to accomplish it all in the normal work time, however. His work schedule during the period December 10, 1982, to February 24, 1983, was as follows: Dec. 10-16: 24 hrs. cook; 16 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 60 percent cook Dec. 17-23: 24 hrs. cook; 16 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 60 percent cook Dec. 24-30: 16 hrs. cook; 16 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 50 percent cook Dec. 31-Jan. 6: 16 hrs. cook; 24 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 50 percent cook Jan. 7-13: 24 hrs. cook; 16 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 60 percent cook Jan. 26-27: 8 hrs. cook; 8 hrs. supervise = 50 percent cook Jan. 28-Feb. 3: 24 hrs. cook; 16 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 60 percent cook Feb. 4-10: 32 hrs. cook; 8 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 66 percent cook Feb. 11-17: 24 hrs. cook; 16 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 60 percent cook Feb. 18-24: 32 hrs. cook; 8 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 66 percent cook From the above, it can readily be seen that during the period in question, prior to and just subsequent to the first inspection, the food services supervisor spent between 50 and 66 percent of his time in food preparation and service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be fined $100 for the violation alleged in the administrative complaint dated April 22, 1983, and $100 each for the violations alleged in Paragraphs (3)(b), (c) and (d) in the administrative complaint dated June 16, 1983, for a total of $400. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert P. Daniti, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen H. Durant, Esquire 3000 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether FMG met the qualifications to bid as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. Specifically involved is whether or not FMG met the requirement of having been engaged successfully in the business of food service management for at least a ten (10) year period prior to the date of the bid. As a secondary issue, FMG argued that the requirement is a minor irregularity which, by rule, should be waived.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner, FMG organized and filed its Articles of Incorporation on November 8, 1985. The Florida corporation has remained active with all fees due the Secretary of State having been paid through December 31, 1987. On July 14, 1986, Thomas David Witten, became the majority shareholder and president of FMG. Mr. Witten's prior work experience included seventeen years of food service management with the Marriott Corporation followed by six years with Canteen. Mr. Witten left Canteen in 1985. While with Canteen, Mr. Witten had Successfully negotiated the contract at South Florida State Hospital for the food service management program. Canteen had obtained this contract after the bid process in 1981. On May 4, 1987, HRS mailed an Invitation to Bid (ITB) to obtain competitive prices for the food service management program contract to commence July 1, 1987. The ITB required the bidders to have engaged Successfully in the business of food service management for at least ten years prior to the date of the bid. The bidder was also required to furnish, as a part of its bid, a written statement evidencing its ability to accomplish the Specified work. As part of the written statement, the bidder was required to include information as to the immediate availability or ownership of the necessary equipment to perform the work, and the financial worth or reputability of the bidder together with the experience which the bidder has had in Successfully completing projects of a similar size, scope and responsibility The ITB also set forth specification; one of which was a performance and payment surety bond in the amount $250,000 to be furnished by the bidder to the hospital upon award of the contract. On May 14, 1987, HRS conducted a pre-bid conference. In attendance were representatives from Canteen, FMG, ServiceMaster, Food Service, and Service America Corporation (not a party to these proceedings). At this pre-bid conference no question was raised by FMG as to the qualification requiring ten (10) years experience in the business of food service management. The bid proposal submitted by FMG responded to the bidder's qualification by enclosing the curriculum vitae for members of FMG's professional staff. Documents regarding the experience of T. David Witten, Jimmy Blicharz, Williams Cox and Robert J. Trinley were included. Mr. Blicharz's career summary described thirteen years of operational and marketing management in the food service industry. Mr. Witten's curriculum vitae described twenty-three years of food service management experience as previously described. Mr. Cox's experience dated to 1966 and detailed food service activity as both food service director and dietician for various health care providers. Mr. Trinley's experience included over twenty-five years of administrative work with various health care providers. FMG described its bidder experience by listing work which had been performed by its individual employees at various institutions. In each of the instances, the experience noted was as a member of the staff of another company- not FMG. FMG, the company, was the bidder for bid number 595-530. HRS opened the proposals for bid number 595-530 on June 10, 1987. Additional information was requested from all bidders. On June 11, 1987, HRS requested the following information from FMG: Demonstration of ten (10) years of corporate history and corporate management of food services for institutions of Similar size and complexity. A written statement evidencing FMG's ability to accomplish the Specified work. FMG's reply to the HRS request maintained that the experience of its principal employees qualified FMG under the bid requirement Clearly, FMG had not successfully engaged in the business of food Service management for at least ten years prior to its bid proposal. HRS did not waive the ten year requirement. HRS, Food Service, ServiceMaster, and Canteen have agreed to readvertise bid number 595-530. The results of the bid tabulation for bid number 595- 530 were as follows: A. Food Service $103,979 B. ServiceMaster $110,000 C. FMG $ 96,900 D. Canteen $106,000 Four other potential bidders did not submit a proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That HRS enter a Final Order denying the protest filed by FMG. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 87-3131BID, 87-3132BID, 87-3133BID Rulings on Petitioner, FMG's Proposed Findings of fact: Accepted, finding of fact paragraph 1 Accepted, finding of fact paragraph 2 Paragraphs 3 and 4 are accepted but deemed unnecessary since, at best, the described activities have only occurred within the last two years. Paragraph 5 is accepted, finding of fact paragraph 2. Paragraphs 6 and 7 accepted but are unnecessary to the resolution of the issues in this cause. Paragraph 8 is accepted in material part in finding of fact, paragraph 6. Paragraph 9 is accepted and addressed in material part in findings of fact paragraphs 2 and 6. Paragraph 10 is accepted as provided in findings of fact, paragraphs 2 and 6 the balance of paragraph 10 is deemed unnecessary. Paragraph 11 is accepted as addressed in finding of fact, paragraph 6. Paragraph 12 is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 13 is accepted only to the extent addressed in findings of fact, paragraphs 10 and 11. The balance is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as an argumentative conclusion outside the scope the issues to be resolved. Paragraph 15 is accepted in finding of fact, paragraph 14. Paragraph 16 is rejected . Mr. Witten's individual experience is not at issue. Mr. Witten, individually, was not the bidder. FMG chose to submit the proposal and waived its right to challenge the bid qualification requiring ten years experience. The conclusion reached in Paragraph 16 is contrary to the weight of the evidence and the law. Paragraph 17 is rejected. The conclusion reached is argumentative and contray to the weight of evidence and the law. Rulings on HRS' Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted but deemed unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Accepted as addressed in finding of fact, paragraph 3. Accepted as addressed in finding of fact paragraph 3. Accepted as to date for incorporation otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Paragraph 10 and 11 are addressed in material part in finding of fact, paragraphs 6, 7, 10, and 11. Paragraph 12 is accepted. Paragraph 13 is accepted to the extent that its alleges the requirement was considered indispensable, otherwise rejected as unnecessary or not supported by evidence. Paragraphs 14 and 15 are accepted. Rulings on Canteen's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted but unnecessary to the resolution issues in this cause. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted but unnecessary. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted but unnecessary as the parties agreed the sole issue was whether or not FMG met the bid qualification requiring ten years of experience. Rejected. All parties had waived any right to challenge the ten years requirement. Rejected as argumentative Allegation that bid was done as corporation not individually is accepted. Accepted. Rejected. FMG's position is that qualification should be waived. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Williams, Esquire Fuller & Johnson, P.A. 111 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Phil Dresch 2304 Parklake Drive, North East Building 9, Suite 290 Atlanta, Georgia 30345 Roy C. Young, Esquire Young, VanAssenderp, Varnadoe & Benton, P.A. 225 South Adams Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., Esquire District 10 Legal Counsel East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1885 Celeste Rossi, President Duval Street West, Florida 33040 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert S. Power, Agency Clerk Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, in the operation of a public food establishment, is guilty of various violations of the law governing such establishments and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact No Name Pub holds a Permanent Food Service license 5400281, for operation of a public food establishment on Watson Boulevard, Big Pine Key, Florida. On April 16, 2009, at 11:58 a.m., an inspector of Petitioner visited Respondent's public food establishment to perform a routine inspection. The inspector cited the following violations, among others: 1) failure to provide the required consumer advisory for food that is raw, undercooked, or not otherwise processed to eliminate pathogens; 2) use of working food containers without label as to contents; 3) failure to provide hot water at employee hand wash sink; and 4) failure to provide handwashing cleanser at handwashing lavatory. At the time of this inspection, Respondent corrected the first, third, and fourth violations in the presence of the inspector. On December 7, 2009, the inspector performed another routine inspection of the public food establishment. Among other things, the inspector observed the recurrence or continuation of the four violations described in the preceding paragraph. The four violations cited in the Administrative Complaint are all critical violations. A critical violation is more likely than a noncritical violation to cause foodborne illness. Respondent's testimony, even if credited, does not rebut the violations with the exception of the first violation-- the lack of a consumer advisory. Twice, a trained inspector could not find such a warning. The testimony offered by Petitioner is credited over that offered by Respondent.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order determining that Respondent is guilty of the four violations identified above and imposing an administrative fine of $1600 on Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Veach, Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Douglas P. Leps No Name Pub Post Office Box 430818 Big Pine Key, Florida 33043
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed to operate the Front Porch Manor, an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) located at 157-9th Avenue in St. Petersburg, Florida. As part of its regulation of ACLF's, Respondent conducts routine inspections of ACLFs to ascertain that they are providing for the health, safety and welfare of its residents, to promote continued improvement of such facilities, to encourage the development of innovative and affordable facilities and to insure that needed economic, social, mental health, health and leisure services are made available to its residents. In keeping with such purposes, Respondent conducted surveys of Petitioner's ACLF on July 21, 1987, January 19 and 22, 1988; April 29, 1988 and August 9, 1988. During Respondent's survey of Petitioner's ACLF on July 21, 1987, several deficiencies were noted and were again found to exist during follow up surveys of January 19 and 22, 1988. These deficiencies included Petitioner's failure to insure that resident files contained physician orders and meal patterns for therapeutic diets and that therapeutic diets were prepared and served as ordered by the physician. During the first survey, Petitioner also failed to assure and document the nutritional adequacy of regular menus in that two servings from the milk or milk equivalent, four servings from the fruit and vegetable group and two servings from the fruit group were offered consistently on a daily basis. Petitioner also failed to maintain an up-to-date and approved diet manual as a standard reference in planning of regular and therapeutic diets; failed to maintain at all times a one week supply of non-perishable food based on the number of weekly meals the facility had contracted to serve and failed to assure that food service standards were met as evidenced by the fact that milk for drinking purposes was not being served from the original container or from a bulk dispenser and the ventilation hood, filter and extinguishing pipes in the kitchen were dirty and needed a thorough cleaning. Petitioner also failed to maintain a written work schedule for all employees. Petitioner was allowed through August 21, 1987 to correct the deficiencies and failed to do so. Respondent made follow-up visits and the deficiencies were not corrected as required by August 21, 1987. The next survey visit was made by Respondent on January 19, 1988 and at that time, the above cited items were all corrected by Petitioner during follow up visits on April 29 and August 9, 1988 with the exception that one resident's file did not have a doctor's order or a therapeutic diet and the diet manual was not available to review the meal pattern for a liberal diabetic diet. This item was however, partially corrected during the final follow-up visit on August 9, 1988. The uncorrected portion dealt with the Respondent's citation for the incompleteness of a resident's file and that matter was satisfactorily explained by Petitioner during the hearing. During the survey on January 19, 1988 Respondent observed that Petitioner's ventilation hood, filter and extinguishing pipes and the vinyl tablecloths in the dining room were clean although there was a noticeable accumulation of dust in the ACLF on August 9, 1988. Petitioner's ACLF was newly licensed at the time of Respondent's visit during the first survey of July 21, 1987. Petitioner was not fully knowledgeable of Respondent's staffing guidelines and therefore made several mistakes in posting the work schedule of its staff. In this regard, one of Petitioner's staff quit during the week of the March 28, 1988 survey and that disgruntled employee contacted Respondent to advise that there was inadequate staff at Petitioner's facility pursuant to Respondent's rules and regulations. Mrs. Knight had a heart attack and her husband attempted to cover both facilities during her absence. There were no disruption of meals and care and the residents were properly cared for during this period. Upon Ms. Knight's return to work from her recuperation, she endeavored to, and in fact complied with, the posting requirements respecting the scheduling of staff. Respecting Respondent's claim that Petitioner failed to maintain a therapeutic diet for one of its diabetic patients, a review of that patient's physician order indicates that her attending physician classified her diet as "liberal" on health assessment which he defined as a normal regular diet with the exception that the patient should not have sugared desserts, jelly, candy, and foods cooked in sugar syrup except for the treatment of suspected low blood sugar. The attending physician noted that that patient had been receiving the proper meals and no change in her diet was indicated. Petitioner does not serve any of the items listed in the exception. Petitioner attempted to comply with Respondent's directive that milk be served in either one-half pint containers or in large original containers. This attempt proved to be cumbersome when Petitioner used a large container. When Petitioner tried using a five gallon jug with a tap, the milk would often dry and clog the drain or it would squirt on the floor leaving a residue of milk creating a potential health hazard. Despite Petitioner's attempt to comply with this regulation, it appears that Respondent later withdrew the regulation and is no longer enforcing it. Petitioner's ACLF is situated on a dusty street, approximately two blocks from the beach where cars often pass at a high rate of speed. This creates a dusty condition in the ACLF although Petitioner endeavors to maintain the premises in a clean and sanitary manner at all times. Petitioner's husband regularly removes the screen from the ventilating hood and hoses it down with a pressure hose. He spends a great deal of time cleaning the hood based on his lifelong fear of creating a fire hazard. Finally, Respondent's staff admitted that Petitioner was cooperative throughout the surveys and eventually corrected all of the deficiencies that were cited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00, payable to Respondent within thirty (30) days of the date of its final order. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1990.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in an Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Petitioner), against Town and Country Skate World (Respondent) are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2011). At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a restaurant operating at 7510 Paula Drive, Tampa, Florida, 33615, and holding food service license number 3203942. On May 6, 2010, Rich Decker (Mr. Decker), employed by the Petitioner as a senior sanitation and safety specialist, performed a routine inspection (May 6 inspection) of the Respondent and observed conditions that violated certain provisions of the Food Code. Food Code violations are classified as "critical" or "non-critical." A critical violation of the Food Code is one that poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and is a risk factor for food-borne illness. A non- critical violation of the Food Code is one that does not meet the definition of a critical violation. At the conclusion of the May 6 inspection, Mr. Decker noted the observed violations in an inspection report. A manager for the Respondent was present during the inspection. The manager signed the inspection report and received a copy of the report at that time. According to the inspection report, a follow-up "callback" inspection was scheduled to occur on July 6, 2010, prior to which critical violations were to have been corrected. On July 21, 2010, Kathy Dorsey (Ms. Dorsey), employed by the Petitioner as a senior sanitation and safety specialist, performed the callback inspection (July 21 callback inspection) and observed some of the same Food Code violations noted on the May 6 inspection report. At the conclusion of the July 21 callback inspection, Ms. Dorsey noted the observed violations in an inspection report. An employee of the Respondent present at the time of the inspection signed and received a copy of the callback inspection report. The Petitioner subsequently filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding. Pursuant to state regulations, the Respondent was required to have designated a certified food protection manager responsible for the operation of food service. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the designated food protection manager's certification had expired and that the Respondent was operating without a properly-certified food protection manager. This was a critical violation of the Food Code, because the lack of a properly-certified food protection manager presents a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare through the transmission of food-borne illness by improper food preparation. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that no thermometer to ascertain the temperature of food products was present, a critical violation. Foods held at improper temperatures are susceptible to development of bacterial contamination and are a risk factor for transmission of food-borne illness. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the Respondent, which utilized a chemical system for sanitation of dishes and utensils, had no chemical test kit provided at the location of the sanitation sink. The test kit is required to ascertain whether the composition of the disinfection liquid is appropriate and capable of sanitizing the items. This was a critical violation because improperly sanitized dishes and utensils pose a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare through the transmission of food-borne illness. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the gaskets located at the reach-in food refrigeration unit were soiled, a critical violation because the situation presents an opportunity for bacterial contamination of food products and transmission of food-borne illness. Sinks used for preparation of food products are not to be used for hand washing, and, accordingly, the Food Code prohibits having hand-washing aids at a food prep sink. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the Respondent had hand-washing materials located at a food-prep sink. This was a critical violation because dual use of sinks provides an opportunity for bacterial contamination of food or utensils and transmission of food-borne illness. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the Respondent's gas tanks (helium and/or carbon dioxide) were not properly secured, which was a non-critical violation of state regulations cited herein. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that ceiling tiles in the kitchen were water-stained, indicating the presence of an unidentified leak above the ceiling tiles, and other tiles were missing. These were non-critical violations of state regulations cited herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order imposing an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $1,550. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Alan Blizard Town and Country Skate World 7510 Paula Drive Tampa, Florida 33615 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement as a Dietitian/Nutritionist should be granted or denied for the reasons stated in the Notice of Intent to Deny dated April 15, 2008.
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: The Council, which serves under the supervision of the Board of Medicine, is the entity responsible for certifying persons for licensure by endorsement as a dietitian/nutritionist. § 468.509, Fla. Stat. (2008)1; Fla. Admin. Code R. 64B8-40.003(1)(a). On or about January 16, 2008, the Council received Ms. Alonso's application for licensure by endorsement as a dietitian/nutritionist pursuant to Section 468.513, Florida Statutes. At the time of her application, Ms. Alonso was a certified nutritionist in the State of Washington, having been issued license number NU00001939 on April 11, 2007. Ms. Alonso is not licensed in the State of Washington as a certified dietitian, nor has she taken a state or national examination for licensure as a dietitian or as a nutritionist. In 1994, Ms. Alonso earned a Bachelor's of Science degree from Cornell University in biochemistry, and, in 2000, she earned a Master's of Science degree from the University of Texas, School of Public Health, in nutrition and immunology. Prior to moving to Florida in early 2008, Ms. Alonso worked as a nutritionist in Washington State. Prior to receiving her certification as a nutritionist in Washington State, she worked as a nutritionist in several clinics under the supervision of medical and naturopathic doctors for approximately four years. During this time, she performed nutritional assessments and developed nutritional programs for the clinics' patients and provided nutritional support for the doctors working in the clinics. Ms. Alonso was licensed pursuant to Section 18.138.030, Revised Code of Washington, which sets forth the requirements for certification as a dietitian and as a nutritionist in the State of Washington. Section 18.138.030, Revised Code of Washington, provides in pertinent part: An applicant applying for certification as a certified dietitian or certified nutritionist shall file a written application on a form or forms provided by the secretary setting forth under affidavit such information as the secretary may require, and proof that the candidate has met qualifications set forth below in subsection (2) or (3) of this section. Any person seeking certification as a "certified dietitian" shall meet the following qualifications: Be eighteen years of age or older; Has satisfactorily completed a major course of study in human nutrition, foods and nutrition, dietetics, or food systems management, and has received a baccalaureate or higher degree from a college or university accredited by the Western association of schools and colleges or a similar accreditation agency or colleges and universities approved by the secretary in rule; Demonstrates evidence of having successfully completed a planned continuous preprofessional experience in dietetic practice of not less than nine hundred hours under the supervision of a certified dietitian or a registered dietitian or demonstrates completion of a coordinated undergraduate program in dietetics, both of which meet the training criteria established by the secretary; Has satisfactorily completed an examination for dietitians administered by a public or private agency or institution recognized by the secretary as qualified to administer the examination; and Has satisfactorily completed courses of continuing education as currently established by the secretary. * * * Any person seeking certification as a "certified nutritionist" shall meet the following qualifications: Possess the qualifications required to be a certified dietitian; or Has received a master's degree or doctorate degree in one of the following subject areas: Human nutrition, nutrition education, foods and nutrition, or public health nutrition from a college or university accredited by the Western association of schools and colleges or a similar accrediting agency or colleges and universities approved by the secretary in rule. The State of Washington has two certifications, one for dietitians and one for nutritionists. Pursuant to Section 18.139.030(4), Revised Code of Washington, a person qualifies to be licensed as a "certified nutritionist" if the person either meets the requirements for certification as a dietitian or has received a master's degree in the enumerated areas of study. Section 468.509, Florida Statutes, provides: Any person desiring to be licensed as a dietitian/nutritionist shall apply to the agency [for Health Care Administration] to take the licensure examination. The agency shall examine any applicant who the board certifies has completed the application form and remitted the application and examination fees specified in s. 468.508 and who: 1. Possesses a baccalaureate or postbaccalaureate degree with a major course of study in human nutrition, food and nutrition, dietetics, or food management, or an equivalent major course of study, from a school or program accredited, at the time of the applicant's graduation, by the appropriate accrediting agency recognized by the Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation and the United States Department of Education; and 2. Has completed a preprofessional experience component of not less than 900 hours or has education or experience determined to be equivalent by the board; or 1. Has an academic degree, from a foreign country, . . . * * * The board shall waive the examination requirement for an applicant who presents evidence satisfactory to the board that the applicant is a registered dietitian. The agency shall license as a dietitian/nutritionist any applicant who has remitted the initial licensure fee and has passed the examination in accordance with this section. In contrast to Washington State, Florida has only one certification for dietitians and nutritionists. Pursuant to Section 468.509, Florida Statutes, a person qualifies to be licensed as a "dietitian/nutritionist" if the person either meets the requirements for certification set forth in Section 468.509(2), Florida Statutes, or is a registered dietitian. The requirements for licensure as a dietitian in Washington State are substantially equivalent to the requirements for certification as a dietitian/nutritionist in Florida. The requirements for certification as a nutritionist in Washington State are not, however, substantially equivalent to the requirements for licensure as a dietitian/nutritionist in Florida, because a person in Washington State can be certified as a nutritionist without meeting the requirements for certification as a dietitian if the person has an advanced academic degree.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding that Larisa Alonso failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 468.513(2), Florida Statutes, and denying her application for licensure by endorsement as a dietitian/nutritionist. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 19th day of December, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to timely correct discrepancies noted during the survey of January 31, 1992 and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact During the Annual Survey of Respondent ACLF on January 31, 1992 numerous discrepancies were found and at the exit interview Respondent was notified of these discrepancies and given a time frame in which to correct these discrepancies. In a follow-up inspection on April 29, 1992 more than one month later than Respondent was given to correct the discrepancies, the following deficiencies reported on the January 31, 1992 survey still existed. Residents were not provided the opportunity to plan the menus; Menus were not reviewed by a registered or licensed dietitian on a regular basis; The therapeutic diets provided did not document on the menu the food items which enable residents to comply with their therapeutic diet; and Respondent failed to have an annual nutritional review by a registered or licensed dietitian.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that Willie Mae Johnson d/b/a Leisure Living be assessed an administrative fine of $250 each for the two violations for a total administrative fine of $500. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of March, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Caufman, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Licensure and Certification 7827 North Dale Mabry Drive Tampa, Florida 33614 Willie Mae Johnson, Owner Leisure Living 401 S.W. 9th Avenue Mulberry, Florida 33860 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
