Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Richard J. Campbell, d/b/a Granny's Donut Shop, was, at all times material hereto, engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, packing, holding or selling food at retail. Petitioner held food permit number 68877 issued by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department), for the premises located at 306 Northeast Eight Street, Homestead, Florida. The Department is charged with the administration and enforcement of Chapter 500, Florida Statutes, including the rules promulgated thereunder, relating to food safety and the selling of food to the consuming public. The Violations Department food safety inspectors conducted food safety inspections at Granny's Donut Shop on December 12, 1994, December 27, 1994, and January 12, 1995. On each of the three inspections, Granny's Donut Shop received an overall rating of "poor." These ratings resulted from the fact that on each of the three inspections the inspector observed multiple unsanitary conditions that constituted violations of applicable statutory and rule provisions; however, most of the violations were not critical violations. The Department's initial inspection of December 9, 1994, resulted in an overall rating of "poor" based on a finding of 16 sanitary violations; however, only one violation, the presence of insect activity, was a critical violation. The Department reinspection of December 27, 1994, again resulted in an overall rating of "poor" based on a finding of 20 sanitary violations. Again, only one violation, the storage of toxic items (cleaning supplies) on a shelf with food products, was a critical item, and the previous critical violation had been corrected. While not critical, approximately seven of the violations noted on the first inspection persisted, including, the frame of the fryer was not clean, the rolling racks were not clean, the floor was dirty, the flour was not properly stored, the walls were dirty, some soiled linen was stored with food, and the coolers were dirty. The Department's reinspection of January 12, 1995, again resulted in an overall rating of "poor" based on a finding of 18 sanitary violations; however, only one violation, the storage of toxic items (cleaning supplies) above a three-compartment sink, was noted as a critical item, and the previous critical violation had been corrected. Again, while not critical, approximately seven of the violations noted on the previous inspection persisted, including, the frame of the fryer was not clean, the rolling racks were not clean, the floor was dirty, the flour was not properly stored, the walls were dirty, the wall over the handwashing sink had holes in it, and some soiled linen was stored on a work table. Finally, during the course of the January 12, 1995, inspection, the Department issued a stop use order for a mixer that was found "dirty with old product residue [and] build-up on both food [and] non-food contact surfaces," which it deemed an immediate serious danger to the public health. The Penalty At hearing, the Department offered proof that it is its policy to recommend an administrative fine against an establishment which has received two "poor" ratings in a row and on the third inspection does not achieve an improved rating of "fair" or "good." The Department further observed that under the provisions of Section 500.121(1), Florida Statutes, it is authorized to impose an administrative fine not excededing $5,000 against a food establishment that has violated Chapter 500, Florida Statutes; however, the Department did not offer any proof as to what penalties, if any, it had imposed in prior similar cases, and did not submit a proposed recommended order advocating the assessment of an administrative fine in any particular amount. Compared with the paucity of proof offered by the Department concerning an appropriate fine, petitioner offered proof, which is credited, that Granny's Donut Shop was a small, family owned business, that the demands of the business were taxing, that the business is now closed, and that the business took a severe financial toll on petitioner. While not excusing sanitary violations that could pose a threat to the consuming public, such factors, under the circumstances of this case, provide useful evidence in assessing a penalty that will deter others from similar violations, yet not be unduly harsh toward petitioner's violations. Considering such mitigating factors, as well as the nature of the violations established, an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) is deemed appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding petitioner violated the provisions of Chapter 500, Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00). DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, 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 24th day of April 1996.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 23, 2011, and if so, whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the operation of hotel and restaurant establishments pursuant to section 20.165 and chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a Florida corporation named Stugotz, Inc., doing business as Joey's On Beach. The corporation is wholly owned by Joseph Di Meglio. Respondent holds a public food establishment license issued by the Department. Respondent's business address is 2521 Thomas Drive, Unit A, Panama City Beach, Florida 32408. Inspector Smith has been employed by the Department as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist for approximately five years. She has received training in laws and rules regarding public food service and lodging, is a certified food manager, and performs approximately 1,000 inspections each year for the Department. Formerly, Inspector Smith was a restaurant manager for 15 years. On March 2, 2011, Inspector Smith performed a food service inspection of Joey's On Beach located at 2521 Thomas Drive, Unit A, Panama City Beach, Florida 32408. During the inspection, Inspector Smith prepared and signed an inspection report on her electronic personal data assistant setting forth violations she allegedly encountered during the inspection. Ann Marie Di Meglio, the wife of the owner of Joey's On Beach, was present during the inspection and signed the report on the electronic device. According to the inspection report, the March 2, 2011 inspection of Joey's On Beach occurred at 11:11 a.m. Joey's On Beach opens at 11:00 a.m. The inspection occurred during active food preparation. Inspector Smith made the Respondent aware that all violations noted during the inspection needed to be corrected by May 2, 2011. All of the pages of the three-page March 2, 2011, inspection report are prefaced with the heading "FOOD SERVICE INSPECTION REPORT LEGAL NOTICE" with the warning that "Failure to comply with this Notice may initiate an administrative complaint that may result in suspension or revocation of your license and fines." The third page of the March 2nd report set forth alleged violations as follows: Warning(s) 12A-09-1: Observed food employee wearing jewelry other than a plain ring on their hands/arms while preparing food. 22-25-1: Observed buildup of soiled material on mixer head. 08A-28-11: Observed bag if [sic] bread crumbs on foor [sic] in walkin cooler. 08A-29-1: Observed sauce and bread crumbs uncoverd [sic] in walkin cooler. 02-22-1: Ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on site and held more than 24 hours with not properly date marked. Sausage 08A-23-1: Observed shell eggs over sausage in walkin cooler 08A-28-1: Observed jug of oil stored on the floor. 53B-08-1: No proof of required employee training provided. All public food service establishments must provide the division with proof of employee training upon request, including, but not limited to, at the time of any division inspection of the establishment. This violation must be corrected by: 5/2/11. 32-16-1: Hand wash sink lacking proper hand drying provisions. Corrected on site. 09-04-1: Observed bare hand contact of ready-to-eat food by employees and establishment has no approved Alternative Operating Procedure in effect. Corrected On Site. On May 3, 2011, Inspector Smith performed a callback inspection of Joey's On Beach. According to the report, the inspection was performed at 10:18 a.m. Respondent had not yet opened for business and the callback inspection was conducted during active food preparation. During the callback inspection, Inspector Smith did not discuss specifics of the case with the owner, Joseph Di Meglio, because, according to Inspector Smith, inspectors are "not allowed to discuss the case at an inspection." Inspector Smith prepared and signed a two-page report for the May 3rd callback inspection on her electronic personal data assistant indicating that some of the violations noted on the March 2, 2011, inspection report had not been corrected. Mr. Di Meglio signed the May 3, 2011, inspection report. Both pages of the May 3 inspection report had the same "Legal Notice" as the earlier report, stating "Failure to comply with this Notice may initiate an administrative complaint that may result in suspension or revocation of your license and fines." Alleged uncorrected violations recommended for an administrative complaint were noted on the May 3 inspection report as follows: The following item(s) have been recommended for Administrative Complaint: Violation 53B-08-1 No proof of required employee training provided. All public food service establishments must provide the division with proof of employee training upon request, including, but not limited to, at the time of any division inspection of the establishment. This violation must be corrected by: 5/2/11. At callback no training provided for Ann Marie. Violation 22-25-1 Observed buildup of soiled material on mixer head. Violation 08A-29-1 Observed sauce and breadcrumbs uncovered in walkin cooler Violation 08A-28-1 Observed bag if [sic] breadcrumbs on floor in walkin cooler Violation 02-22-1 Ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on site and held more than 24 hours with not properly date marked, sausage, and at callback sausage and meat balls not date marked in walkin cooler The Administrative Complaint in this case charged Respondent with the same five alleged violations recommended in the May 3rd callback inspection report, in the following order (Counts 1 through 5): (1) Observed ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on site and held more than 24 hours with not properly date marked in walk-in cooler [referencing 02-22-1, and citing 3-501.17(A), Food Code]; (2) Observed bag of bread crumbs on floor in walk-in cooler [referencing 08A-28-1, and citing 3-305.11, Food Code]; (3) Observed sauce and break [sic] crumbs uncovered in walk-in cooler [referencing 08A-29-1, and citing 3-302.11A)(4), Food Code]; (4) Observed build up of soiled material on mixer head [referencing 22-25-1, and citing 4-601.11(A), Food Code]; and (5) Observed no proof of required training provided, at call back no training provided for Ann Marie [referencing 53B-08-1, and citing 509.049, Florida Statutes]. At the final hearing, the Department announced that Count 5 of the Administrative Complaint, alleging a lack of training in violation of section 509.049, Florida Statutes, had been dropped because Mr. Di Meglio had established to the Department's satisfaction that Respondent's employees were properly trained. The Department presented some evidence in support of the remaining allegations. As discussed below, however, the Department only met its burden of persuasion as to Count 2 alleging that breadcrumbs were improperly stored in an open container on the floor of the walk-in cooler. As to Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint, at the final hearing, Inspector Smith referred to both inspection reports and observed that the reports indicated that Respondent had failed to properly date mark ready-to-eat potentially hazardous food (sausage and meatballs) held on site for more than 24 hours in the walk-in cooler. She explained that such failure was a critical violation because food must be date- marked to indicate the day it was prepared, and the day that it expires. She further explained that potential hazardous foods, such as precooked sausage and meatballs, are only good for seven days from the date prepared. Respondent's witness, Ann Marie Di Meglio, works at the restaurant and was there when the first inspection took place. Her husband, Mr. Di Meglio, was not. According to Ms. Di Meglio, it is Respondent's procedure to date-mark the containers in the walk-in cooler. She further testified that at the time of the inspection, there was active preparation, and it is hard to keep things covered during active preparation. Mr. Di Meglio, through his testimony, further explained that they date-marked the covers of the sausage and other prepared foods in the cooler, but remove the lids to gain access to the food during active preparation. He testified that there were labels on the lids of the sausage and meatball containers at the time of the inspections, but that the lids had been set aside because of preparation. Inspector Smith suggested that she would have cited the sausage and meatball containers for being open, but could not recall whether they were open or not. She did not see the labels on the lids. There were no photographs or specific descriptions of the containers or observations by Inspector Smith. During the final hearing, when asked whether there were dates on the lids of the containers, Inspector Smith testified, "I can't answer that because I'm not there. I didn't write anything about it being uncovered." Based upon the explanations provided by the Di Meglios, the timing of the inspections, the lack of specific recollection by Inspector Smith, and considering that the Department has the burden of persuasion, it is found that the Department did not prove that Respondent failed to properly date its containers of potentially hazardous foods as alleged in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint. As to Count 2, Inspector Smith stated in both the March 2 and May 3, 2011, inspection reports that she observed an open bag of breadcrumbs stored on the floor in Respondent's walk-in cooler. Storage of breadcrumbs on the floor in an open container is a critical violation because when food is stored on the floor, it can become contaminated by exposure to wastewater or germs from walking back and forth outside to the bathroom. While perhaps an open container could be explained by the fact that there was active food preparation, no excuse or explanation was offered as why an open bag of breadcrumbs was found on the floor during both inspections. Respondent's witnesses did not otherwise address the improper storage of breadcrumbs on the floor as alleged in Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint. As to Count 3 relating to the open containers of breadcrumbs and sauce, it is found that Respondent's explanation of active food preparation was reasonable given the timing of the inspections. In other words, the Department failed to prove that Respondent was storing foods in open containers because it is found that the containers were only opened temporarily during active food preparation.3/ As to Count 4, relating to an alleged dirty mixer head, the inspection reports for both the March 2 and May 3, 2011, inspections indicate there was a "buildup of soiled material on mixer head." While Ms. Di Meglio testified that she did not know if there was something on the mixer head at the time of the inspections, she testified that the mixer is cleaned every day, and that the material on the mixer head, if any, was not old. Rather, she explained, she had used the mixer around 10:00 a.m. the very morning of the first inspection to make dough and cut cheese. Ms. Di Meglio further explained that Respondent's mixer is very old and has some discoloration. And, while admitting that there may have been some dust or flour on the mixer from recent use, both she and her husband denied that there was any soil on the mixer or the mixer head. Inspector Smith's testimony regarding the state of the mixer, and the brief descriptions in the inspection reports referring to "soiled material" on the mixer head, without more, provided less than clear and convincing evidence of a violation. While Inspector Smith testified that she would not cite the equipment as being dirty if it was soiled with everyday use dirt, she was unable to definitively recall her observations. When questioned about the mixer head at the final hearing, Inspector Smith observed: I just noted that it was extremely2/ soiled when I was there at the initial inspection and at the callback. Not the top, but the mixer head being - - that goes over the unit, from what I can remember. When further asked to explain the difference between "soiled" and "dusty," Inspector Smith testified: It was all food debris with - - I mean, I just remember it just being soiled. It was over a year ago. I can't describe in detail what was on it. I would not cite it unless it was old food debris, or it was mold-like substance maybe with a combination. I don't cite everyday dirt. Considering Inspector Smith's less than specific recall, Respondent's explanation, and the Department's lack of specific details or photographs contrary to the testimony of Respondent's employees, it is found that the Department failed to prove the violation alleged in Count 4 of the Administrative Complaint. While the inspection reports were accepted into evidence as corroborative hearsay, it is found that, under the facts and circumstances, they are documents prepared in anticipation of litigation.4/ Specifically, the reports contain warnings and requirements of compliance, with specific mention of the fact that failure to comply may "initiate a complaint." Moreover, the evidence showed that the investigator could not discuss the allegations with Respondent's owner because inspectors are "not allowed to discuss the case at an inspection." Even if the inspection reports were not merely hearsay, their lack of detail when compared to the recollections of Respondent's employees regarding operations and the state of affairs during the inspections, was insufficient to meet the Department's burden of persuasion necessary to prove Counts 1, 3, and 4 of the Administrative Complaint. Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint alleging improper storage of bread crumbs on the floor, however, was uncontroverted, and the Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's improper storage of bread crumbs was a critical violation.5/
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order which dismisses Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 and confirms Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint, and imposes an administrative penalty in the amount of $250 for Respondent's critical violation of Rule 3-305.11, relating to improper storage of breadcrumbs discovered during the inspections conducted on March 2 and May 3, 2011. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether on April 5 and October 18, 2011, and on February 28, 2012, Respondent was in compliance with the food safety requirements of section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and implementing administrative rules of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and if not, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division) is responsible for monitoring all licensed food-service establishments in the state to ensure that they comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Mr. Douglas Peterson has been employed as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Division for five and one-half years. He previously worked in the restaurant industry for over 21 years, including eight years as a kitchen manager and five years as a restaurant assistant manager. He has had training, including monthly in-house training and field training, in food inspection. On average, he conducts about five safety and sanitation inspections of food-service establishments per day, and about 1000 inspections per year. China King is a licensed permanent public food-service establishment operating at 4941 East Busch Boulevard, Suite 120, in Tampa, Florida. The owner of China King, Mr. Chi Kin Chan, speaks very little English. Representing the restaurant was Mr. Chan’s daughter, Ms. Man Chan, who assists her father with the restaurant. Under all of the circumstances, including the facts that Ms. Chan helps operate the restaurant, demonstrated basic knowledge of applicable statutes and rules, and demonstrated her ability to capably and responsibly represent Respondent, Ms. Chan was accepted as a Qualified Representative. China King was inspected by Mr. Peterson on August 25, 2010, and October 26, 2010. The Administrative Complaint alleged violations based upon these inspections, and testimony and exhibits as to these violations were offered at hearing. However, an earlier Administrative Complaint relating to these inspections has already been settled, as discussed below. The Stipulation and Consent Order in the earlier case settled any violations based upon these inspections, and no purpose is served by delineating the details of those inspections here. On April 5, 2011, Inspector Peterson conducted another food service inspection on China King. Inspector Peterson prepared a Food Service Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022- 015, using his Personal Data Assistant (PDA) to record the violations that he observed during the inspection. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the report on behalf of China King. During the April inspection, Mr. Peterson observed that China King had ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on-site and held more than 24 hours that had not been properly date-marked in the walk-in cooler, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that lack of proper date marking poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. Mr. Peterson also observed during the April inspection that China King was storing food on the floor in the cooks’ line and in the preparation area, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that storing food on the floor poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. During the April inspection, Mr. Peterson observed the improper use of a plastic food container or other container with no handle being used to scoop or dispense food that was not ready-to-eat, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that using containers without handles to scoop or dispense food fails to minimize food contact with bare hands, and poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Division has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. On October 18, 2011, Mr. Peterson conducted another inspection of China King. Inspector Peterson again prepared an inspection report on DBPR Form HR 5022-015 using his PDA to record the violations that he observed. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the report on behalf of China King. During the October inspection, Mr. Peterson again observed ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on- site and held more than 24 hours that had not been properly date-marked in the walk-in cooler, including egg rolls, cooked chicken, pork, and shrimp. He recorded this information in his report, along with a notation that it was a repeat violation. Mr. Peterson also observed food stored on the floor in the walk-in during his October inspection. He recorded this, noting that it was a repeat violation. During the October inspection, Mr. Peterson observed the improper use of a bowl or plastic food container without a handle as a scoop to dispense non ready-to-eat foods such as flour and starch, as well as ready-to-eat foods such as salt and sugar. He noted this in his report, along with a notation that this was corrected on-site. Mr. Peterson also observed an employee with no hair restraint during the October inspection. He noted this in his report along with the fact that it was corrected while he was on-site. On February 28, 2012, Mr. Peterson conducted a stipulation call-back inspection, as well as a full inspection of the China King. A stipulation call-back inspection is an inspection that is required as part of a stipulation which is conducted for the limited purpose of determining whether specific violations noted earlier have been corrected. Inspector Peterson prepared a Call Back Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-005, as well as DBPR Form HR 5022-015 on February 28, 2012, using his PDA to record the violations that he observed. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the reports on behalf of China King. On February 28, 2012, Mr. Peterson again observed that ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food that had been prepared on-site and held more than 24 hours had not been date-marked. He noted this in his reports. Mr. Peterson again observed food stored on the floor in the walk-in and cooks’ line during his February inspection and made note of this in his reports. Mr. Peterson again observed a can without a handle being used to scoop rice on February, 28, 2012, as was noted in his reports. Mr. Peterson also observed an employee without a hair restraint during his February inspection, noting this in his reports. In response to questioning from Respondent at hearing, Inspector Peterson stated that he was familiar with the description of the inspection process set out on the Division of Hotels and Restaurants’ website. Inspector Peterson was aware that these procedures state that an inspector will invite the manager to accompany him on the inspection walk-through, and that the inspector will go over each item on the inspection report. Mr. Peterson testified that at each inspection he advised persons at the restaurant of the violations and the need to correct them. Mr. Chi Kin Chan, owner of China King, testified that Mr. Peterson did show his badge when he conducted the inspection on February 28, 2012, although he did not announce who he was. Mr. Chan testified that Mr. Peterson just went through the restaurant on his own and did not invite Mr. Chan or anyone else from the restaurant to accompany him on his inspection. Mr. Chan testified that Mr. Peterson then just went to the front of the restaurant and prepared his report without discussing any of the alleged violations with Mr. Chan or operators of the restaurant. Mr. Taoso Tevega is engaged to be married to Ms. Man Chan, and so is the prospective son-in-law of Mr. Chan. Mr. Tevega occasionally assists the Chan family with the restaurant, but does not receive any paycheck from China King. He works in the receiving department of Advance Auto Parts. Mr. Tevega was present at China King during the February 28, 2012, inspection. Mr. Tevega testified that on February 28, 2012, Inspector Peterson just showed up in the back of China King without identifying himself and that he did not ask anyone to accompany him as he went about the restaurant conducting his inspection. Mr. Tevega testified that Mr. Peterson did not discuss or explain the violations to anyone, but just had Ms. Chan sign the report. Mr. Peterson testified that he was in business casual attire, with his employee identification tag secured from a lanyard worn around his neck, and that he presented identification before beginning each inspection. Mr. Peterson identified himself by displaying his badge before and during the February 28, 2012, inspection, as testified to by Mr. Chan and Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson did not invite anyone to accompany him as he conducted the inspection on February 28, 2012, as Mr. Chan and Mr. Tevega testified. Mr. Peterson advised operators at the restaurant of the violations and the need to correct them, as he testified. The Division issued an Administrative Complaint against China King for the above violations on or about March 7, 2012. Additional evidence introduced at hearing showed that China King had a previous disciplinary Final Order entered within 24 months of the Administrative Complaint issued in this case. That Stipulation and Consent Order was signed by China King Manager Ko Chan on January 13, 2012, and was filed on January 24, 2012. In the Order, China King agreed to pay a fine of $900.00, but neither admitted nor denied the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint. Some of those allegations would have constituted critical violations. The January 24, 2012, Stipulation and Consent Order was in settlement of an Administrative Complaint issued on November 8, 2010. That Administrative Complaint alleged violations of the Food Code based upon inspections conducted on August 25, 2010, and October 26, 2010, two of the inspections for which testimony and documentary evidence was submitted in this case, but which are discussed here only for penalty purposes.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a Final Order finding China King in violation of three critical violations and one non-critical violation and imposing a fine of $2,625, to be paid within 30 calendar days of the filing of the Final Order with the Agency Clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 2012.
The Issue 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 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 Pita's Restaurant (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 (2010).1/ At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a restaurant operating at 8412 West Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33615, and holding food service license number 3912285. On October 28, 2009, Rich Decker (Mr. Decker), employed by the Petitioner as a sanitation & safety specialist, performed a routine 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 October 28, 2009, inspection, Mr. Decker noted the observed violations in an inspection report. The owner of the Respondent signed the report and received a copy at the time of the inspection. Mr. Decker advised the owner that a follow-up "callback" inspection was scheduled to occur on December 28, 2009, and that the violations needed to be corrected by that date. The callback inspection did not occur on December 28, 2009. Mr. Decker performed the callback inspection on January 5, 2010, and observed some of the same Food Code violations noted on the October 28, 2009, inspection report. At the conclusion of the January 5, 2010, inspection, Mr. Decker again noted the observed violations in an inspection report. The manager of the Respondent signed the report and received a copy at the time of the inspection. The Petitioner subsequently filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed raw eggs being stored above prepared, ready-to-eat pita bread. This violation was deemed to be critical because raw food stored above ready-to-eat food can lead to bacterial contamination of the ready-to-eat food. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed unidentified medicine being stored in a refrigeration unit along with food supplies. This violation was deemed to be critical, because the medicine could have contaminated the food. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed prepared, ready-to-eat, and potentially-hazardous food being stored without having been date-marked to identify the last date upon which the food could be consumed. Prepared food has a limited shelf life during which it may be safely consumed. The failure to date-mark prepared food was a critical violation, because such failure may result in the consumption of unsafe food. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed that there was no consumer advisory warning related to consumption of raw or undercooked foods posted on the premises. The Food Code requires the posting of such a notice, and the failure to comply is deemed a critical violation, because consumption of certain raw or undercooked foods poses a health risk to some consumers. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed an employee engaged in food preparation without wearing a hair net. Although food can be contaminated by human hair, this violation was deemed to be non-critical, because no immediate threat to human health was presented by the violation.
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 a fine of $1,350 against the Respondent and requiring that the Respondent complete an appropriate educational program related to the violations identified herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 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 20th day of May, 2011.
The Issue The issues in this disciplinary proceeding arise from Petitioner's allegation that Respondent, a licensed restaurant, violated several rules and a statutory provision governing food service establishments. If Petitioner proves one or more of the alleged violations, then it will be necessary to consider whether penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the State agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a restaurant operating at 16850 Collins Avenue, Golden Beach, Florida, and holding food service license number 2326334. On February 26, 2008, and April 29, 2008, Respondent was inspected by Ricardo Unold, a Senior Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Division. During both visits, Mr. Unold noticed several items that were not in compliance with the laws which govern the facilities and operations of licensed restaurants. Through the testimony of Mr. Unold and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, Petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence that as of April 29, 2008, the following deficiencies subsisted at Respondent New San Telmo: (1) In-use utensils stored in standing water less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit, in violation of Food Code2 Rule 3- 304.12(F); (2) The public bathroom was not equipped with a tight-fitting, self-closing door, in violation of Food Code Rule 6-202.14 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(2)(b); (3) An unlabeled spray bottle, in violation of Food Code Rule 7- 102.11; and (4) No proof of required employee training, in violation of Section 509.049, Florida Statutes. The deficiencies relating to the lack of proof of employee training, the unlabeled spray bottle, and the bathroom door are all considered critical violations by the Division. Critical food code violations are those that, if uncorrected, present an immediate threat to public safety. The final deficiency (storing in-use utensils in water less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit), while not categorized as a critical violation, is serious nonetheless because it directly relates to food preparation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order: (a) finding Respondent guilty in accordance with the foregoing Recommended Order; and (b) ordering Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $1400, to be paid within 30 days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent has committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with the licensing and regulation of public food service establishments, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a restaurant holding food service license number 6500911. Respondent is owned by Barbque Ventures, Inc. Daniel Fulton is employed by the Department as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist. In that capacity, he conducts inspections of food service and lodging establishments for compliance with Chapter 509, Florida Statutes; the Food Code; and the relevant Florida Administrative Code Rules. Mr. Fulton is a certified food manager. Critical violations are violations of the relevant rules and statutes that are more likely to contribute to a food-borne illness, an environmental hazard, or to food contamination. Non-critical violations are those violations that are less likely to contribute to a food-borne illness, an environmental hazard, or to food contamination. On March 21, 2007, Mr. Fulton inspected the premises of Bono's Barbeque Sports Bar at 1001 A1A Beach Boulevard, in St. Augustine, Florida. During the inspection, Mr. Fulton prepared a Food Service Inspection Report setting forth the findings from his inspection. The Food Service Inspection Report was provided to and signed for by Debra Barnes, who was listed as manager for the restaurant. During the March 21, 2007, inspection, Mr. Fulton recorded a number of violations of the Food Code. Only four of them are relevant to the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Mr. Fulton observed that foods in the walk-in cooler were not labeled and dated. This is considered a critical violation because food that has been cooked is allowed only a certain number of hours to cool to 41 degrees. If previously prepared food is not marked, it cannot be determined whether it has met the schedule for cooling. Failure to mark and date previously-prepared food is considered a critical violation. The failure to label and date food was noted in the March 21 inspection report at the top of the third page, stating: 02-06-1: Observed combined ready-to-eat potentially hazardous food held more than 24 hours not date marked according to earliest date of opening/preparation. However, Mr. Fulton did not testify that the meat in question had been held over 24 hours. He testified only that it was placed in the walk-in cooler 18 hours before. Mr. Fulton also observed that the food in the walk-in cooler was between 44 and 46 degrees. According to Mr. Fulton, this is considered a critical violation because bacteria will grow above 41 degrees, and the longer the food is above 41 degrees, the more the bacteria will grow. The violation was noted on page three of the March 21 inspection report as "03A-07-1: Observed potentially hazardous food cold held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit." The walk-in cooler was replaced after the call-back inspection and three repairs. Mr. Fulton observed uncovered food in the walk-in cooler. Walk-in coolers are not considered to be food-contact surfaces, and in order to protect the food, it needs to be off the floor and covered at all times. Failure to cover the food in the walk-in cooler is considered a critical violation. This violation was recorded in the inspection report as "08A-29-1: Observed uncovered food in holding unit/dry storage area. TEA Corrected on Site." Finally, Mr. Fulton observed two sinks that had no hand towels available for handwashing. Without proper handwashing, employees' hands are "virtually bacteria spreaders." Failure to provide hand towels at hand sinks hampers the employees' hand washing efforts, and is considered a critical violation. The violation was listed on the inspection report as "32-16-1: Hand wash sink lacking proper hand drying provisions. TWO SINKS." On May 1, 2007, Mr. Fulton returned to Bono's Barbeque for a call-back inspection. At that time he completed a Call Back Inspection Report, which was signed by Debra Barnes as the manager. The Call Back Inspection Report contains the following: The following items(s) have been recommended for Administrative Complaint: Violation 32-16-1 Hand wash sink lacking proper hand drying provisions. TWO SINKS. Violation 08A-29-1 Observation uncovered food in holding unit/dry storage area. WIC Violation 03A-07-1 Observed potentially hazardous food cold held at greater than 41 degrees /Fahrenheit. EVERYTHING IN WIC IS AT 44 TO 46 F. Violation 02-06-1 Observed combined ready-to-eat potentially hazardous food held more than 24 hours not date marked according to earliest date of opening/preparation. BBQ COOKED AND COOLED ON 04/30/07 IN WIC. The Food Inspection Report, the Call-Back Inspection Report, the Administrative Complaint and the copies of relevant rules provided at hearing all reference provisions of the Food Code. However, none of these documents indicate what version of the Food Code is being referenced.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penaity should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the operation of hotel and restaurant establishments pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2003). 2. Respondent is an eating establishment located in Jacksonville, Florida. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent held license number 2610901-R issued by the Division. 3. John Phelan is a sanitation and safety specialist employed by the Division. Mr. Phelan has a bachelor's degree in criminology. He has been employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation for 14 years. He also has received training in laws and rules regarding public food service and lodging, as well as fire safety and hazard training. 4. On September 25, 2003, Mr. Phelan conducted an inspection of Respondent's premises and issued an inspection report while on the premises. Shana Phillips, the store manager, signed for the inspection report. 5. During the September 25, 2003, inspection, Mr. Phelan observed several violations and issued a warning that the violations must be corrected by October 25, 2003. 6. Mr. Phelan conducted a call-back inspection on November 6, 2003, during which he observed that several of the violations noted on September 25, 2003, had not been corrected. 7. One violation that Mr. Phelan found that had not been corrected is that there were four employees on duty, and none of those four had a food manager certification in their possession. This is a critical violation because a food manager must be on the premises with that number of employees on duty. 8. At the time of the first inspection, Mr. Phelan observed that the fire extinguisher had been discharged. During the call-back inspection, he could not locate any ABC fire extinguisher on the premises. This is a critical violation because not having a fire extinguisher on the premises is a fire safety hazard. The food establishment is required to have a fire extinguisher on the premises. 9. During the original inspection, Mr. Phelan also observed an open space at the bottom of the rear door. This was listed as a violation, because it is a vermin control issue. There is a danger of "[r]oaches, mice, rats--something might crawl in and contaminate the food." This violation had not been corrected at the time of the call-back inspection. 10. Mr. Phelan observed that the tops of the ice machine and convection oven were greasy and dusty. This had not been corrected at the time of the call-back inspection. This is a violation because grease buildup can attract vermin. 11. Mr. Phelan observed a crusty white buildup on the interior of the ice machine. This had not been corrected at the time of the call-back inspection. He listed this as a violation because something could break off from the crusty white substance and fall into the ice, thereby risking contamination. 12. Mr. Phelan observed the lid to the bulk sugar container to be broken. This had not been corrected at the time of the call-back inspection. This is a violation because the lid can fall into the bulk container and contaminate the food. 13. Mr. Phelan observed a scoop handle used for dispensing in the bulk sugar container. He observed this during both inspections. This is hazardous because it allows for possible contamination from bare hand contact with the food. 14. Mr. Siplin offered mitigating circumstances regarding some of the deficiencies noted by Mr. Phelan. 15. Regarding the allegation that no food service manager had a certification, Mr. Phelan asserts that Shana Phillips is certified, but had gone to the bank to make a deposit at the time of the inspection. Ms. Phillips had her certification in her wallet. While Mr. Siplin asserts that the certifications are now hanging on the restaurant wall to avoid this happening again, the employee's card was not available at the time of the inspection as required. 16. Regarding the allegation that the oven had a grease buildup, Mr. Siplin asserted that biscuits are baked in the ovens all day and that some buildup could be expected from day to day. Mr. Siplin disagreed that the amount of grease buildup was such that it constituted a violation, asserted that any buildup was simply a result of everyday use, and that the restaurant is cleaned nightly. However, Mr. Phelan insisted that the amount of grease was more than just one day's accumulation, that there was a buildup of grease. Mr. Phelan's testimony in this regard is more persuasive. 17. Mr. Siplin explained that the existence of any white buildup on the interior of the ice machine would be as a result of lime in the water. His assertion in this regard is accepted as credible. 18. Regarding the cracked lid on the sugar container, Mr. Siplin acknowledged that the lid was cracked, but that there was a replacement on order at the time of the second inspection. Mr. Siplin orders replacements for broken equipment. from an authorized supplier, and he was waiting for the replacement at that time. His assertion in this regard is accepted as credible. 19. Regarding the allegation that there was no fire extinguisher, Mr. Siplin asserted that there was another ABC fire extinguisher on the premises. He acknowledged that the fire extinguisher in the back of the restaurant had been discharged, but there was another one in the front of the restaurant. His assertion in this regard is accepted as credible. 20. Regarding the allegation that a scoop was in the bulk sugar, Mr. Siplin's explanation related to the ice bin, rather than the sugar bin.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 For Respondent: Lewis Siplin, pro se Lewis Siplin Enterprises 1617 Rowe Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32208
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter a final order which confirms the violations found, dismisses the violations not found, imposes an administrative penalty in the amount of $1,000, and requires Respondent to attend a Hospitality Education Program. 13 DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 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.
