The Issue Whether Chef Creole Seafood, Inc., d/b/a Chef Creole (Respondent), committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 5, 2014, and if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Chef Creole Seafood, Inc., d/b/a Chef Creole (Respondent), was a restaurant subject to the regulation of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Petitioner). Respondent’s license number is 2330245. Respondent is required to comply with all relevant provisions set forth in chapter 509, Florida Statutes; Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61C; and the Food Code. Respondent has multiple locations. Respondent’s address at issue in this proceeding is 200 Northwest 54th Street, Miami, Florida 33127 (the subject premises). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Wilkinson Sejour was Respondent’s owner and president. Sharon Bures is employed by Petitioner as a sanitation and safety specialist. Ms. Bures is properly trained to conduct inspections of food service facilities to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Ms. Bures performed approximately 720 inspections during the fiscal year that preceded the formal hearing. On April 21, 2014, beginning at 3:57 p.m., Ms. Bures performed a routine inspection of the subject premises. As part of the inspection, Ms. Bures prepared a Food Service Inspection Report (Petitioner’s Exhibit 2) setting forth her findings. Ms. Bures prepared this report utilizing an electronic device while at the subject premises. Ms. Bures reviewed her findings with Mr. Sejour, the person in charge of the subject premises, and discussed with Mr. Sejour the deficiencies identified on Petitioner’s Exhibit 2. Mr. Sejour signed Petitioner’s Exhibit 2. Petitioner’s Exhibit 2 reflects that the subject premises was required to correct the noted deficiencies, and advised that a callback inspection would be conducted on or after June 21, 2014. Petitioner’s Exhibit 2 identified each of the alleged violations at issue in this proceeding. Ms. Bures performed the callback inspection of the subject premises on June 23, 2014, beginning at approximately 2:55 p.m. Ms. Bures prepared a callback Report (Petitioner’s Exhibit 3) setting forth her findings. Ms. Bures reviewed her findings with Mr. Sejour and explained to him the reasons for the deficiencies identified by Petitioner’s Exhibit 3. Ms. Bures’ findings included deficiencies that had been noted in the inspection on April 21, 2014, but had not been corrected. The uncorrected deficiencies found during the callback inspection include the five alleged violations at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner has classified two of the alleged violations as “basic,” two as “intermediate,” and one as “high priority.” A “basic item” is, pursuant to rule 61C-1.001(5), an item defined in the Food Code as a “Core Item.” Rule 61C- 1.005(5)(c) defines a basic violation as follows: (c) “Basic violation” means a violation of a basic item, as defined in Rule 61C-1.001, F.A.C., or a violation of Chapter 509, F.S., or Chapter 61C, F.A.C., which relates to general sanitation, operational controls, standard operating procedures, facilities or structures, equipment design, or general maintenance and not meeting the definition of high priority violation or intermediate violation and is not otherwise identified in subsection (6) of this rule. An “intermediate item” is, pursuant to rule 61C- 1.001(19), an item defined in the Food Code as a “Priority Foundation Item.” Rule 61C-1.005(5)(b) defines an intermediate violation as follows: (b) “Intermediate violation” means a violation of an intermediate item, as defined in Rule 61C-1.001, F.A.C., or a violation of Chapter 509, F.S., or Chapter 61C, F.A.C., which relates to specific actions, equipment or procedures that contribute to the occurrence of a high priority violation, but does not meet the definition of high priority violation or basic violation and is not otherwise identified in subsection (6) of this rule. A “high priority item” is, pursuant to rule 61C- 1.001(17), an item defined in the Food Code as a “Priority Item.” Rule 61C-1.005(5)(a) defines a high priority violation as follows: (a) “High priority violation” means a violation of a high priority item, as defined in Rule 61C-1.001, F.A.C., or a violation of Chapter 509, F.S., or Chapter 61C, F.A.C., determined by the division to pose a direct or significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and is not otherwise identified in subsection (6) of this rule. On both inspection dates, Ms. Bures observed a large tub of seasoning, peppers and hot peppers stored on the kitchen floor. Except for circumstances not applicable to this proceeding, Food Code rule 3-305.11(A)(3) requires that food shall be protected from contamination by storing the food at least 15 cm (6 inches) above the floor. Petitioner proved by the requisite evidentiary standard that Respondent violated the cited rule.2/ The testimony of Ms. Bures established that this violation is properly classified as a basic violation. On both inspection dates, Ms. Bures observed water dripping onto buckets containing raw poultry in a walk-in cooler. Sheets of plastic were used as lids to cover the buckets. On both inspection dates, water was dripping on the plastic “lids.” Food Code rule 3-305.12(G) prohibits the storage of food under a leaking water line. Petitioner proved by the requisite evidentiary standard that Respondent violated the cited rule.3/ The testimony of Ms. Bures established that this violation is properly classified as a basic violation. On both inspection dates, Ms. Bures observed an employee handle peppers and onions after having handled raw poultry without changing gloves. Food Code rule 1-201.10 defines ready-to-eat food as food that is edible without additional preparation to achieve food safety. Peppers and onions are ready-to-eat food. Raw poultry is not ready-to-eat food. Food Code rule 3-304.15 prohibits the use of single-use gloves for the working with ready-to-eat food after having worked with raw poultry. Petitioner proved by the requisite evidentiary standard that Respondent violated Food Code rule 3-304.15. The testimony of Ms. Bures established that this violation is properly classified as a high priority violation due to the danger of contaminating ready-to-eat food.4/ On both inspection dates, Ms. Bures observed that Mr. Sejour’s food protection manager’s certificate had expired. Mr. Sejour’s certificate had been issued March 10, 2009, and was valid through March 10, 2014. On both inspection dates, there were six or more employees working at the subject premises. Petitioner proved that on both inspection dates, Respondent violated rule 61C- 4.023(1) by failing to have a duly-licensed food protection manager on duty while six or more employees were working. The testimony of Ms. Bures established that this violation is properly classified as an intermediate violation because of the need for a certified food protection manager with up-to-date knowledge of the rules and regulations dealing with food-borne illnesses and other risk factors to be present to prevent mistakes and to instruct employees as to proper food temperatures, proper hygiene, and methods of prevention of food- borne illnesses. By “Final Order on Waiver” entered by Petitioner on May 7, 2013, Petitioner disciplined Respondent for certain violations in an unrelated proceeding for having violated rule 61C-4.023(1) by failing to have a duly-certified food protection manager on duty while six or more employees were working. By “Final Order on Waiver” entered by Petitioner on April 30, 2014, Petitioner disciplined Respondent for certain violations in another unrelated proceeding for having violated rule 61C-4.023(1) by failing to have a duly-certified food protection manager on duty while six or more employees were working.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order find Chef Creole Seafood, Inc., d/b/a Chef Creole guilty of violating Food Code rule 3-305.11(A)(3) as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $400.00 for that basic violation. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent guilty of violating Food Code rule 3-305.12(G) as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $400.00 for that basic violation. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent guilty of violating Food Code rule 3-304.15(A) as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $800.00 for that high priority violation. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent guilty of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-4.023(1) as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 for that intermediate violation. The total of the recommended fines is $2,600.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2015, 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 2nd day of February, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Restaurant was a licensed public food service establishment located at 595 West Church Street, Suite L, Orlando, Florida. The Restaurant was first licensed in July 2006, and its food service license number is 5811488. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of hotels (public lodging establishments) and restaurants (public food service establishments) pursuant to chapter 509. Will Goris is a sanitation and safety specialist for Petitioner. Mr. Goris has worked for Petitioner for eight years. Prior to working for Petitioner, Mr. Goris worked for the U.S. Army for eight years as a food safety inspector. Mr. Goris received Petitioner's standardized training on the laws and rules governing public food service establishments.2/ Mr. Goris is a certified food manager and obtains monthly in-house training from Petitioner on his job duties. On February 22, 2011, Mr. Goris performed a routine inspection of the Restaurant starting at approximately 12:39 p.m. The Restaurant was fully operational at the time, as it was the lunch hour. Mr. Goris observed live roach activity (infestation) at the Restaurant in the following locations: under a mat by the three-compartment sink; on a peg board adjacent to a hand-sink; under a box of onions; inside a box of pasta; by the water heater; and by the wheels of the reach-in cooler. Mr. Goris also observed dead roaches in various locations at the Restaurant. Critical violations are those violations that, if uncorrected, are most likely to contribute to contamination, illness or environmental health hazards. Insects and other pests are capable of transmitting diseases to humans by contaminating the food or food contact surfaces, and this roach infestation was identified by Mr. Goris as a "critical" violation. Maria Radojkovic is the manager of the Restaurant. As Mr. Goris was conducting the inspection, he asked Ms. Radojkovic to observe the same roach activity he was observing. At the conclusion of the February 22, 2011, inspection, Mr. Goris recorded the observed violations in an inspection report which he printed out. Ms. Radojkovic signed the inspection report and received a copy of it at that time. There was no evidence to dispute the allegations. Ms. Radojkovic confirmed that the roaches "got brought in by deliveries and boxes." The Restaurant had at least two extermination companies to combat the roach infestation problem. When the first company was unsuccessful, Ms. Radojkovic hired a different company. However, it took several months for the second company to "get rid of" the roaches. Ms. Radojkovic expressed her understanding that the Restaurant needs to be clean, and she is aware of the various access points for roaches to enter it. Although she maintains it is impossible for any restaurant to be roach-free, Ms. Radojkovic maintains that it "just takes time to contain" them. None of the other putative violations mentioned in the inspection report (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) were addressed at final hearing and are therefore irrelevant to this proceeding. No evidence was introduced that a patron had become ill as a result of the infestation. On February 22, 2011, the Restaurant was served an Emergency Order of Suspension (ESO) following the inspection of that date. Although there was no testimony as to when the ESO was actually lifted, at the time of the hearing, the Restaurant was open for business. On February 28, 2010, a Final Order was issued involving the Restaurant regarding an Administrative Complaint that was issued on September 29, 2009. This Administrative Complaint was based on a June 16, 2009, inspection and a September 9, 2009, re-inspection. The issue therein was unrelated to the issue at hand.
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 which confirms the violation found and imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 due and payable to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 June, 2012.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated June 27, 2011, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Restaurant was licensed as a public food service establishment in the State of Florida by the Department, having been issued license type 2010 and license number 1620035. At all times material hereto, the Restaurant was located at 1145 South Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316. A critical violation in food service is considered to be a violation of the Food Code that, if not corrected, will most likely cause and is directly related to food-borne illness, food contamination, or environmental hazards. A non-critical violation in food service is considered to be a violation that is less likely to cause and will not directly contribute to food-borne illness or food contamination. On October 27, 2010, Lynden Lewis, an inspector with the Department, conducted a routine inspection of the Restaurant. During the inspection, Inspector Lewis found violations, which were considered to be critical and non- critical violations. Further, during the inspection, Inspector Lewis prepared a food inspection report, setting forth the alleged violations and that the violations were required to be corrected by the next unannounced inspection. The inspection report was signed by Inspector Lewis and a representative of the Restaurant. Inspector Lewis made the representative aware of the alleged violations and that the violations were required to be corrected by the next unannounced inspection, and he provided the representative with a copy of the inspection report. On June 16, 2011, Inspector Lewis and Begum Khatoon, an inspector with the Department, conducted an unannounced routine inspection of the Restaurant. Among other things, three critical violations were not corrected from the routine inspection of October 27, 2010. During the unannounced inspection, Inspector Khatoon prepared a food inspection report, setting forth, among other things, the alleged critical violations. The unannounced inspection report was signed by Inspector Khatoon and a representative of the Restaurant, and Inspector Khatoon provided the representative with a copy of the inspection report. Inspector Khatoon made the representative aware of the alleged violations and that an administrative complaint would be recommended. The most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on October 27, 2010, and was not corrected by June 16, 2011, was raw animal food was stored over ready-to-eat food--raw eggs were being stored over yogurt--in the reach-in cooler. This violation is critical because the ready-to-eat food (yogurt) has already been cooked and gone through the process of pathogenic destruction and will not go through that process again; whereas, the raw animal food (eggs) has not been cooked and not gone through the process of pathogenic destruction. Cross-contamination could occur from the raw animal food by dripping onto or touching of the ready-to-eat food, and any pathogens present on the ready-to-eat food, as a result of the cross-contamination, would pass-on to consumers when the ready-to-eat food is served. Mr. Rocchio's testimony that eggs are stored on the bottom of the refrigerator (reach-in cooler) is found to be credible; however, most importantly, the evidence fails to show that, on the day of the inspection, eggs were stored on the bottom of the refrigerator. The next most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on October 27, 2010, and was not corrected by June 16, 2011, was the hand wash sink in the kitchen was not accessible for employee use at all times. A garbage can was placed in front of the hand wash sink in the kitchen, making the sink inaccessible to employees at all times to wash their hands. Even though Mr. Rochhio testified, and his testimony is found to be credible, that the garbage can was "not a large garbage can," the evidence fails to show, most importantly, that the garbage can did not cause the hand wash sink to be inaccessible to the employees at all times. This violation is a critical violation because the hands of employees become contaminated as employees work and, if the handwash sink is not accessible, the employees will be discouraged from washing their hands. The next most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on October 27, 2010, and was not corrected by June 16, 2011, was handwashing cleanser was lacking at the hand washing lavatory in the kitchen. This violation is a critical violation because hands are a vehicle of contamination, and the use of soap by employees, when washing their hands, removes bacteria and viruses that can contaminate the employees' hands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Valentinos Cucina Italiana violated section 509, Florida Statutes, through a violation of Food Code Rules 3-302.11(A)(1), 5-205.11(A), and 6-301.11; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $750.00 against Valentinos Cucina Italiana. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 2012.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 19, 2007, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Demills Family Restaurant (hereinafter referred to as "Demills Family Restaurant" or "establishment"), a public food establishment, is licensed and regulated by the Division. The establishment's license number is 2200535. Demills Family Restaurant is located at 6501 Park Boulevard, Pinellas Park, Florida 33781. Larry Burke is employed by the Department as a senior sanitation and safety specialist. Upon being employed with the Department, Mr. Burke was trained in laws and rules for both food service and public lodging establishments. Mr. Burke is certified as a food manager and attends continuing education on a monthly basis. As part of his job responsibilities, Mr. Burke conducts approximately 1000 inspections a year, many of which include inspections of public food establishments. On April 26, 2007, Mr. Burke conducted a routine unannounced inspection of the Demills Family Restaurant. During the inspection, Mr. Burke observed several violations at the establishment which were critical violations that were required to be corrected within 24 hours. Mr. Burke set forth his findings in a Food Service Inspection Report on the day of the inspection and provided a copy of the report to Debra Nunez, one of the owners of the establishment. A violation of the Food Code or other applicable law or rule, which is more likely than other violations to contribute to food contamination, illness, or environmental health hazards, is considered a critical violation. In the April 26, 2007, Food Service Inspection Report, Mr. Burke specified that certain critical violations had to be corrected within 24 hours. However, there were other critical violations observed on April 26, 2007, for which the owners of the establishment were given a warning and an additional 30 days to correct the violations. On April 27, 2007, Mr. Burke conducted a call-back inspection at the Demills Family Restaurant to determine if the critical violations he had observed the previous day had been corrected. During the "call back" inspection, Mr. Burke observed that all the critical violations found during the April 26, 2007, which were required to be corrected within 24 hours, had been corrected within that time period. Also, some of the non-critical violations observed on April 26, 2007, had been corrected when the "call-back" inspection was conducted. (The violations cited in the April 26, 2007, routine inspection and that were corrected during the call-back inspection the following day are not at issue in this proceeding.) During the April 27, 2007, call-back inspection, Mr. Burke prepared a Callback Inspection Report on which he noted violations first observed during the routine inspection conducted on April 26, 2007, but which had not been corrected on April 27, 2007. In accordance with applicable guidelines, Mr. Burke issued a warning to the establishment's owners and gave them 30 days or until May 27, 2007, to correct the uncorrected violations observed on April 27, 2007. This warning appeared on the April 27, 2007, Callback Inspection Report which was given to Mrs. Nunez. On May 31, 2007, Mr. Burke performed a second call-back inspection at Demills Family Restaurant. During this call-back inspection, Mr. Burke observed and cited the violations previously cited on the April 27, 2007, Call-Back Inspection Report that had not been corrected. These violations are discussed below. Violation No. 02-13, one of the uncorrected violations, involved the establishment's failure to provide a consumer advisory on raw/undercooked meat. This violation was based on information provided by personnel in the kitchen that hamburgers in the establishment are "cooked to order." In light of this policy, there are some customers who will likely order hamburgers that are undercooked. In those instances, pathogens may not be eliminated from the meat. Thus, establishments, such as Respondent, are required to inform customers of the significantly increased risk of eating such meat. After the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection and prior to this proceeding, the owners of the establishment posted signs throughout the dining room area which warned customers about the risks of consuming raw or undercooked foods (i.e., meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish or eggs). Violation No. 02-13 is a critical violation, but not one that is required to be corrected within 24 hours. Rather, this was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation after it was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Violation No. 32-15-1, one of the uncorrected violations, involved Respondent's failure to have hand-wash signs at the sinks designated for use by employees. The display of hand-washing signs at these sinks is important because it reminds employees to wash their hands, which helps prevent the transmission of food-borne disease by employees. This was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation and one which was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Mr. Nunez does not dispute that at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, there were no hand-wash signs. However, since that time, he has placed signs that notify employees to wash their hands. These signs are placed at all hand-wash sinks used by employees, including the one in the cooks' kitchen and in the waitresses' station, and are clearly visible to the employees. The establishment also has hand-wash signs at all sinks in the establishment, including those used by customers. Violation No. 37-14-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on part of the ceiling in the establishment being in disrepair. Specifically, the section of the ceiling that was in disrepair was above a food storage area which contained "open food product." This offense is not classified as a critical violation under the Food and Drug Administration or under Florida law. Mr. Nunez does not dispute that part of the ceiling in the establishment was in disrepair at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection and the previous April 2007 inspections. Although Mr. Nunez was aware of the problem, he had to rely on the landlord of the building in which the establishment was located to repair the roof. The problems with the roof contributed to the ceiling being in disrepair. Finally, after about four years of asking the landlord to repair the roof, after the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, the landlord had the roof repaired. The roof repairs are still not complete. However, based on the roof repairs that were completed by early to mid September 2007, Mr. Nunez was able to repair the section of the ceiling at issue in this proceeding. These ceiling repairs were completed by or near the middle of September 2007. Violation No. 37-14-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on Mr. Burke observing that the establishment's exit sign in the dining room was not properly illuminated. The requirement for exit signs to be illuminated is a safety issue. This was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation and one that was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Mr. and Mrs. Nunez do not dispute that at the time of the call-back inspection of May 31, 2007, the exit sign was not illuminated. The problem was caused by a problem with a wire in the sign. The person who does electrical work in the establishment had been out-of-town for several weeks and was unavailable to repair the exit sign. However, about three days after the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, after the repair person returned, he repaired the exit sign; since then, it is properly illuminated. Violation No. 47-16-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on Mr. Burke observing an uncovered electrical box. The box needed to be covered to protect the breaker and to protect the employees and anyone else who had access to the box. This uncorrected violation was a critical violation at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection. Mrs. Nunez does not dispute that there was an electrical box that was uncovered on May 31, 2007. However, Mrs. Nunez testified that during the initial walk-through in April 2007, Mr. Burke showed her the uncovered electrical box that was located above the walk-in freezer. At that time, the cover was off the electrical box and the wires were exposed. Mrs. Nunez thought that the electrical box above the walk-in freezer was the only electrical box that was cited as a violation after the April 27, 2007, call-back inspection. Based on that understanding, that violation was corrected. However, during the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, Mr. Burke showed Mrs. Nunez another electrical box in the establishment that was in violation of applicable provisions. Until that time Mrs. Nunez had not been told, and was not aware, that the second electrical box constituted a violation. This mistake on her part was likely caused by the fact that the structure of the second electrical box was completely different from that of the electrical box over the walk-in freezer. The electrical box over the walk-in freezer had wires which were exposed when the box was not covered. On the other hand, the second electrical box resembles a fuse box and did not have any exposed wires. Violation No. 28-02-1 involved the reuse of single- service articles. This violation is based on Mr. Burke observing Respondent's employees reusing plastic food containers, such as the ones sour cream and cottage cheese are in when delivered to the establishment. Such plastic containers should not be used once the food is exhausted. The reason is that the plastic in such containers is not "food service grade for sanitation purposes." Violation No. 28-02-1 is a non- critical violation. The owners of the establishment do not contest Violation No. 28-02-1, related to the reuse of single-service articles. Mrs. Nunez testified that she purchased containers that could be reused and instructed appropriate staff to use those containers. After being given those instructions, the employees told Mrs. Nunez that they were no longer reusing containers for single-service articles although they were doing so. However, as a result of the violation cited during the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, Mrs. Nunez is committed to checking to ensure that employees are not reusing the plastic containers for single-service articles. Violation No. 61-13-1 is based on Mr. Burke observing that no Heimlich sign was posted in the establishment. The purpose of the Heimlich sign is to provide information in the event a customer in the restaurant is choking. This is a non- critical violation because it makes customers aware in the event of a choking situation. In July 2007, Mr. Nunez left his job as a project engineer to become involved in the day-to-day operations of the Demills Family Restaurant after he realized there were problems at the restaurant that required his attention. Among the issues Mr. Nunez had to initially deal with were the violations cited in the May 31, 2007, Call-Back Inspection Report. Throughout the initial inspection and the call-back inspections, the owners have cooperated with Mr. Burke and corrected most of the violations for which the establishment was cited. Mr. Burke has not conducted an inspection of the Demills Family Restaurant since the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection. However, since that time, all the violations which are the subject of this proceeding have been corrected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent, Demills Family Restaurant, violated Food Code Rules 3-603.11, 4-502.13(a) and 6-301.14; Florida Administrative Code Rules 61C-1.004(2)(C), 61C-1.004(6) and 61C-1.004(10); and NFPA Rule 70.300.31. Imposing a total administrative fine of $2,800 for the foregoing violations. Requiring Respondent (through its employees and/or owners) to attend, at personal expense, an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 2007.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent has violated Food Code Rules 3-501.17(B), 3-501.16(A), 3-501.15, and 3-305.11, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mama B.’s is a restaurant located in Orlando, Florida. The Department is the state agency which is charged with the licensing and regulation of public food establishments in Florida pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. On July 13, 2005, Andrea Piel, an inspector for the Department, went to Mama B.’s to perform a food service inspection. Ms. Piel found that the sandwich cooler located at Mama B.’s was not maintaining potentially hazardous food at 41 degrees Fahrenheit or below. Specifically, she found that the temperature of the ham, turkey, and seafood in the reach-in cooler was 47 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature of the salami in the reach-in cooler was 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and the temperature of the pepperoni and pastrami stored in the reach-in cooler was 48 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature of the cheese in the reach-in cooler was 42 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same inspection, Ms. Piel also found that hot foods were not being held at a temperature of at least 135 degrees Fahrenheit. She found the following on the front line: cooked mushrooms at 115 degrees Fahrenheit, pastrami at 112 degrees Fahrenheit, and cooked onions at 130 degrees Fahrenheit. On her inspection on July 13, 2009, Ms. Piel also observed that Mama B.’s was not using proper cooling methods to cool hot food from 135 to 41 degrees Fahrenheit within six hours. Steak was being cooled in deep containers with tight fitting lids. Ms. Piel saw tomatoes being stored less than six inches above the floor. There was ready-to-eat cheese, which had been rewrapped and undated, stored in a cooler. On July 13, 2009, Mama B.’s was given a warning by Ms. Piel, and a call-back inspection was scheduled for July 14, 2009. Ms. Piel went back to Mama B.’s on July 15, 2009, for the call-back inspection. She again observed that tomatoes were being stored about an inch off the ground. There was food being stored in the sandwich cooler at temperatures above 41 degrees Fahrenheit. The cooler contained ham and salami at 48 degrees Fahrenheit; capicola and seafood at 50 degrees Fahrenheit; turkey, cheese, and egg salad at 46 degrees Fahrenheit; and gyro meat at 45 degrees Fahrenheit. On July 15, 2009, Ms. Piel also saw steak and onions, which were being cooled in deep containers with tight fitting lids. She also saw hot pastrami being held at 125 degrees Fahrenheit. Ms. Piel testified that the pastrami being held was not for orders waiting to be filled. Ms. Piel did not explain how she knew that there were no other orders for pastrami sandwiches. Mr. Adamik, an owner of Mama B.’s who was present at the time of the July 15, 2009, inspection, testified that there were several orders for pastrami sandwiches, which were being filled at the time Ms. Piel observed the pastrami. According to Mr. Adamik, the rolls were already placed on the board awaiting the placement of the pastrami, but, because the preparation area was so small, it was impossible to completely prepare more than one pastrami sandwich at a time. Mr. Adamik’s testimony is credited. The pastrami, which Ms. Piel observed, was being used for immediate service in response to consumer orders. The cooler in which the food was being stored above 41 degrees Fahrenheit had been in operation at Mama B.’s since the late 1990’s. The machine cools from beneath and does not also cool from the top as newer models do. After the violations were noted on July 15, 2009, the old cooler was replaced. Mama B.’s had contacted a repairman after the July 13, 2009, inspection, but the cooler could not be repaired so as to make it cool foods at 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Mr. Adamik knew that the location of the tomatoes was a violation, but he did not correct it by the July 15, 2009, because he was busy trying to get the cooler repaired. Mr. Adamik had no explanation why the ready-to-eat food, which had been opened at Mama B.’s, did not have appropriate date marks. Violations of Food Code Rules 3-305.11, 3-501.15, 3-501.16(A), and 3-501.17(B) are considered to be critical violations by the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mama B.’s violated Food Code Rules 3-305.11, 3-501.15, 3-501.16(A), and 3-501.17(B); imposing a fine of $250 for the violation of Food Code Rule 3-305.11; imposing a fine of $300 for the violation of Food Code Rule 3-501.15; imposing a fine of $500 for the violation of Food Code Rule 3-501.16(A); and imposing a fine of $400 for a violation of Food Code Rule 3-501.17(B). DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 16th day of February, 2010.
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 Harrison’s is licensed by the Division as a permanent food service establishment. Harrison’s license number is 6213138. Laura Kennedy, a sanitation and safety inspector for the Division, conducted a routine inspection of Harrison’s on March 16, 2005. Based upon her inspection, Ms. Kennedy documented 28 areas in which Harrison’s was in violation of the statutes and rules governing restaurant operations. One of the violations, No. 35A-01, was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation of ten dead roaches in Harrison’s dry storage area. She required Harrison’s to correct that violation within 24 hours. Ms. Kennedy conducted a “call-back” inspection of Harrison’s on March 17, 2005, to determine whether the roaches had been cleaned up, which they had been. Ms. Kennedy gave Harrison’s 30 days to correct the remainder of the violations that she documented during her inspection on March 16, 2005. Ms. Kennedy conducted a “call-back” inspection of Harrison’s on April 19, 2005, to determine whether the other violations had been corrected. During the inspection, Ms. Kennedy noted that some of the violations had been corrected, but that others had not been corrected. Five of the uncorrected violations were “critical” violations because, according to Ms. Kennedy, they posed an immediate threat to the public health. Three of the uncorrected violations were “non-critical” because, according to Ms. Kennedy, they posed a risk to the public health but not an immediate threat. The critical violations that had not been corrected at the time of Ms. Kennedy’s “call-back” inspection on April 19, 2005, were Nos. 45-17, 45-10, 45-30, 46-11, and 8A-04. Violation No. 45-17 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation that the tag on the fire suppression system on the hood over the cooking area was out of date. The tag is supposed to be updated every six months, but the tag observed by Ms. Kennedy at Harrison’s was dated July 2003. Violation No. 45-10 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation that the portable fire extinguishers were out of date. Fire extinguisher tags are supposed to be updated every year, but the tags on the extinguishers at Harrison’s reflected that two of them had not been inspected since December 2002 and another had not been inspected since July 2003. Violation No. 45-30 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation that Harrison’s did not have the required inspection report for the fire suppression system for the hood over the cooking area. The purpose of requiring a current tag and inspection report on the hood fire suppression system and current tags on the portable fire extinguishers is to ensure that those devices are in good working order in the event of a fire. As a result, the out-of-date tags are considered to be critical violations. Violation No. 46-11 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation that the emergency exit signs over Harrison’s side doors and the back door were not illuminated. This is a critical violation because the purpose of the illuminated signs is to guide restaurant patrons to an exit in the event of an emergency. Violation No. 8A-04 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation of uncovered food in the walk-in cooler. This is a critical violation because uncovered food is subject to contamination. The non-critical violations that had not been corrected at the time of Ms. Kennedy’s “call-back” inspection on April 19, 2005, were Nos. 32-14, 22-02, and 23-01. Violation No. 32-14 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation that there was no hand-washing soap at a sink in the kitchen. The absence of soap did not pose an immediate threat to the public health, but it is required so that employees involved in the preparation of food can wash their hands for their own hygiene and for the protection of the restaurant’s patrons. Violation No. 22-02 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation of built-up of grease in the oven. Violation No. 23-01 was based on Ms. Kennedy's observation of built-up of grease on the sides of equipment in the cooking area. The built-up grease did not pose an immediate threat to the public safety, but cleanliness in the cooking area is important so as not to attract vermin and to prevent contamination of the food being cooked. Ms. Kennedy documented the violations described above on the Food Service Inspection Reports that she prepared at the time of her inspections. Copies of the reports were provided to Harrison’s at the end of each inspection, as reflected by the signature of Rafma Balla on each report. Mr. Balla is identified on the reports as Harrison’s manager/owner. The record does not reflect whether the violations described above have been corrected by Harrison’s since Ms. Kennedy’s last inspection on April 19, 2005. Harrison’s was provided due notice of the date, time, and location of the final hearing, but no appearance was made on its behalf at the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division issue a final order that: Imposes an administrative fine of $2,600 on Harrison’s for Violation Nos. 45-17, 45-10, 45-30, 46-11, 8A-04, and 32-14, payable on terms prescribed by the Division in the final order; and Requires Harrison’s to correct the critical violations related to the portable fire extinguishers, hood fire suppression system, and exit signs within 15 days of the date of the final order, and to provide proof thereof to the Division; and Requires Harrison's owner and/or manager to attend an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program within 60 days of the date of the final order, and to provide proof thereof to the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2005, 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 28th day of October, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the following acts alleged in the Notice to Show Cause dated July 8, 1998, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed: Violation of the Food Code, Chapter 61C-1, Florida Administrative Code, by failing to maintain hot, potentially hazardous, foods at or above 140 degrees Fahrenheit (Fº) at all times on the steam table. Violation of the electrical code by failing to provide a spacer for missing circuit breakers in the electrical box near the waitress station. Violation of the Food Code by failing to provide and use a food thermometer to monitor food temperatures. Violation of the Food Code by failing to provide a properly designed bulk food product scoop with a handle for use in the kitchen.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, is the state agency responsible for regulating public food service establishments within the State of Florida and is authorized to impose penalties for violations of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (1997). Respondent is a public food service establishment that operates in the State of Florida under the Division's License Control Number 03843-R. Derrick Fritts is a Sanitation and Safety Inspector employed by the Petitioner. On February 3, 1998, at approximately 3:55 p.m., Fritts visited the Seaport Restaurant food establishment located at 680 George J. King Boulevard, Port Canaveral, Florida 32920, for the purpose of performing a routine callback inspection. At the time of the inspection, the vegetable mix on the steam table was at a temperature of 116 degrees F. The baked potatoes were at 95 degrees F and the tomato sauce was at 111 degrees F. Dinners were being served from this steam table. Respondent's defense that the steam table are being broken down for diner and customers were not being served is not credible. At the time of the inspection, there was no thermometer that was readily accessible to the server at the steam table to monitor potentially hazardous foods to ensure that they are within the temperature range specified in the Food Code. At the time of the inspection, a large bulk supply of flour was being dispensed with a plastic cup rather than a scoop with a handle. There was insufficient evidence to prove that a fire code violation was present in the electrical circuit breaker box in the main dining room. The Petitioner performs inspections between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and occasionally after-hours, in order to better observe operating procedures. It is the Petitioner's policy to inspect food service establishments during operating hours. In the Petitioner's view, operating hours includes anytime anyone is working on the premises of a public food service establishment. Although Fritts arrived for the inspection relatively late in the day, the inspection still occurred within the 9-5 time frame. Representatives of Respondent were present for 80 percent of the inspection. Respondent was cited for violations of the 1997 Food Code under the following sections: 3-501.16(A), 4-302.12, and 3-301.11(C), C.F.R. Petitioner sent out an Industry Advisory on January 1, 1998, with the following information for licensees about the 1997 edition of the Food Code: Although the Code and Rule have been adopted, enforcement of these new provisions will not begin until April 1, 1998. Respondent received the above Industry Advisory and erroneously interpreted it to mean that none of the provisions of the 1997 Food Code would be enforced until April 1, 1998. The Food Code contains recommendations made by the United States Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration. Therefore, the Food Code is not mandatory and binding on licensees until it is adopted by the State of Florida. Chapter 61C-1.001, Florida Administrative Code, incorporates by reference the 1997 Food Code into the Florida Administrative Code, thereby adopting it. It then became binding on licensees as an official rule of Petitioner after January 1, 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of the following charges and that the following penalties be imposed against Respondent: Food Code Rule 3-501.16(A), imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00; Food Code Rule 4-302.12, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00; Food Code Rule 3-301.11(C), imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $250, and that Respondent attend, at personal expense, an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. It is further. RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found not guilty of violation of Rule 61C-1.004(11), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Melvin T. Stith, Jr., Esquire Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Alan C.D. Scott, II, Esquire 101 Orange Street St. Augustine, Florida 32804 Dorothy W. Joyce, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurant Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2006). At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a restaurant located at 7551 West Waters Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33615, holding Food Service license number 3903935. On July 11, 2006, Richard Decker, a senior inspector representing the Petitioner, performed a routine inspection of the Respondent that resulted in emergency closure of the restaurant due to a roach infestation problem. The inspection report stated that the deadline for correcting the roach problem was July 12, 2006, and the matter was apparently resolved in a timely manner. Mr. Decker found additional violations of applicable Food Code regulations on July 11, 2006, which were cited in a written Food Service Inspection Report, a copy of which was provided to restaurant owner Anthony Della Monica on the date of the inspection. Mr. Decker's inspection identified critical and non- critical violations. Critical Food Code violations pose serious public health risk due to potential transmission of food-borne illness. Critical life safety violations such as blocked exits increase the risk of public injury. Violations that do not pose a direct and imminent public health risk are identified as non- critical. Other than as set forth herein, the violations cited during the July inspections were to have been corrected by the time of Mr. Decker's August 15, 2006, re-inspection. Many of the previously cited violations had not been corrected at that time. The August 15, 2006, re-inspection report was received by Mr. Della Monica on the date of the inspection. Mr. Decker again re-inspected the restaurant on October 20, 2006. Several violations previously cited in July remained uncorrected at that time. The October 20, 2006, re- inspection report was received by Head Chef Kurt Clasen on the date of the inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for failing to have a certified food manager on the premises and for lacking of proof that employees had received food safety training. Such training was intended to reduce the potential for transmission of food-borne illness. These violations were deemed critical. Although Mr. Decker established an extended deadline of October 11, 2006, to correct the certified food manager and employee training violations, they remained uncorrected by the October 20, 2006, re-inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for lacking a hand sink in the dishwashing area and noted that a hand sink at the rear of the kitchen was being used for food preparation. The requirements related to hand sinks were intended to reduce the potential for transmission of food- borne illness. The violations of the requirements were deemed critical. The Respondent still lacked a hand sink in the dishwashing area at the time of both re-inspections. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for using extension cords on a non-temporary basis to power equipment in the kitchen. The Respondent's improper electrical cord use was a fire hazard and was deemed a critical violation. By law, extension cords can only be used on a temporary basis. The cited extension cords remained in use by the Respondent at the time of both re-inspections. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for removing food products from original packaging and storing them in unlabeled containers, a critical violation that increased the risk of confusing food products with non- edible products such as cleaning chemicals. The violation remained uncorrected at the time of both re-inspections. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for lacking a chemical testing kit used to ascertain that the dishwasher sanitization function was operating properly. Lack of proper sanitation increased the potential for transmission of food-borne illness. The violation, deemed critical, was not corrected by the time of either re-inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for failing to have a visible thermometer in a pizza- holding unit. The inability to monitor food-holding temperatures increased the potential for transmission of food- borne illness and was a critical violation. The violation was uncorrected at the time of the August re-inspection as it should have been, but it had been remedied by the October re- inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for the lack of light bulb shields in a food service area, which increased the risk that food could be contaminated by glass in the event of light bulb breakage. This was deemed a non-critical violation and remained uncorrected at the time of either re-inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order imposing a fine of $3,800 against the Respondent and requiring the Respondent to complete an appropriate educational program related to the violations identified herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Della Monica Mama D's Pasta & Grille 1819 Audubon Street Clearwater, Florida 33764 Jessica Leigh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 William Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether on June 23, 2014, Respondent, Zorba's Pizza Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a Zorba's Greek Restaurant (Zorba's), was in compliance with food safety requirements set forth in administrative rules of Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), Division of Hotels and Restaurants, and, if not, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida responsible for monitoring the operations of hotels and restaurants to ensure compliance with food safety and sanitation standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Zorba's is a licensed and regulated business under the jurisdiction of the Department's Division of Hotels and Restaurants. Zorba's business license number is 46-01794. Jonathan Johnson works for the Department as a senior sanitation and safety specialist. Mr. Johnson has worked for the Department for approximately four and one-half years. Before that, he worked for two years in restaurants. Mr. Johnson undergoes periodic training for his present position as an inspector. He is also a certified food manager. Mr. Johnson performs approximately 1,000 or more inspections for the Department annually. Mr. Johnson's training, experience, and demeanor make him a very credible witness. On May 6, 2014, at 5:09 p.m., Mr. Johnson inspected Zorba's restaurant. Mr. Johnson observed tomatoes, hummus, and cheese in the "reach-in" coolers behind the cook line at temperatures between 44ºF and 46ºF. Tomatoes, hummus, and cheese are "priority items," under the Food Code, making them "high priority items" under Florida Administrative Code 61C-1.001(17). § 3-501.16(A), Food Code. Under the Food Code, they must be held at a temperature below 41ºF. § 3-501.16(A), Food Code.2/ A "high priority violation" is a violation of the rules regulating a "high priority item" and is determined by the Department to pose a direct or significant threat to the public health. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(a). As a result of his inspection, Mr. Johnson prepared an inspection report setting forth his findings and issued Zorba's a warning. Mr. Johnson scheduled a callback inspection for May 7, 2014. Within 11 hours after receiving the inspection report, Zorba's employed a refrigeration repair company to inspect the restaurant's refrigeration equipment at a cost of $234.00. A service order, admitted as hearsay evidence, suggests the technician measured the ambient temperature of the walk-in cooler at 33ºF and the reach-in cooler at 38ºF. Since the document is uncorroborated hearsay and the foundation for a business record was not proven, the service order cannot be the basis of factual finding as to the cooler's ambient temperature. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Mr. Johnson returned to Zorba's on May 7, 2014, at 8:00 a.m. The cheese, tomatoes, and deli meat in the reach-in coolers were at temperatures between 44ºF and 46ºF. The walk-in cooler contained soups and sauces at temperatures between 48ºF and 50ºF and chicken and butter at 44ºF. At the conclusion of the inspection, Mr. Johnson told Ms. Euse about the violations and, again, issued Zorba's a warning. At this time, Mr. Johnson told Ms. Euse that all violations documented during the inspection needed to be corrected by June 23, 2014. He noted the violations were not an immediate threat to the public. Zorba's acknowledged the violations on both reports dated May 6 and 7, 2014. As a result of a stipulation, the Department issued a Final Order on May 16, 2014, imposing a fine of $200.00 for these violations. Mr. Johnson performed a callback inspection, as contemplated by the Final Order, at Zorba's restaurant on June 23, 2014. The inspection revealed that the cheese, tomatoes, and deli meat held within the reach-in cooler were at temperatures between 44ºF and 46ºF. Mr. Johnson prepared a Callback Inspection Report, which was signed by a Zorba's representative. The Callback Inspection Report recommended filing an Administrative Complaint. After receiving the non-compliance violation report, Zorba's contacted a different refrigeration repair company to perform an additional inspection of the refrigeration equipment. A service order, admitted as hearsay evidence, suggested that a technician measured the temperature of the reach-in cooler at 38ºF on June 30, 2014. Since it is uncorroborated hearsay and the foundation for a business record was not proven, the service order cannot be the basis of factual finding as to the cooler's ambient temperature. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Ms. Euse replaced the restaurant's plastic storage containers with aluminum containers because the technician suggested it. The clear and convincing evidence proves that on June 23, 2014, Zorba held hazardous food at levels above the 41ºF standard required by section 3-501.16(A)(1) of the Food Code. Zorba's attempted to cooperate with the Department's inspection report by hiring refrigeration technicians to perform maintenance on and evaluate the subject coolers. Nonetheless, the Department presented evidence that Zorba's violated the Food Code on the day on which the inspection was conducted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order imposing a $500.00 fine upon Respondent, Zorba's Pizza Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a Zorba's Greek Restaurant, for violations of the Food Code requirements. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 3rd day of November, 2014.
