The Issue Whether the Respondent, Michelle's Café, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating public food service establishments operating within the State of Florida. See §§ 509.032 and 509.261, Florida Statutes (2007). At all times material to the allegations of this case the Respondent, Michele’s Café, was a licensed public food establishment governed by the provisions of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2006). The Respondent’s address of record is 299 East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On July 31, 2006, in his capacity as a trained inspector for the Petitioner, Mr. Torres visited the Respondent’s place of business in order to conduct an inspection. Mr. Torres performs between 800 to 1000 inspections per year of licensed food establishments to assure that such businesses are in compliance with all food service rules and regulations. At the time of the inspection, Jessica Sanchez, the manager on duty, represented the Respondent. The inspection report for July 31, 2006, identified several critical violations that needed to be corrected. Mr. Torres notified Mr. Villeda, as the owner and/or operator of the licensed entity, of the inspection results. Mr. Villeda later identified himself as the manager of the café. Critical violations are items that must be corrected because, if not corrected, they pose a threat for imminent food- borne illness, contamination, or environmental hazard. Non- critical violations are less serious but can also lead to a potential health hazard. As to each type of violation, the Petitioner expects the licensee to take appropriate action to correct the cited deficiency. Mr. Torres notified Mr. Villeda of the findings of his inspection of July 31, 2006, because he anticipated that the violations would be corrected in advance of a “call back” inspection. The “call back” inspection was performed on September 18, 2006. This inspection was also performed by Mr. Torres and disclosed the following uncorrected deficiencies (these had been identified to the Respondent in the July 31, 2006 inspection report): There was no thermometer to measure the temperature of food products. This is a critical violation. Food products must be stored and maintained at an acceptable temperature to prevent bacteria from growing. Without a thermometer there is no verifiable system to confirm that acceptable temperatures are being maintained. Additionally, to retain prepared food on-site for sale or use, the prepared food item must be labeled to detail the date of its initial preparation. Ready to eat food can be retained for a maximum of seven days. After that period, there is a presumption that the item may not be safely consumed. Consequently, all prepared food must be clearly labeled to assure it is disposed of at the appropriate time. Because the sale of out-of-date food presents a health hazard, the labeling requirement is considered critical. The failure to follow the guideline is, therefore, considered a critical violation. Sanitizing chemicals used in the cleansing of dishes or food service preparation equipment must be tested to assure a proper level is utilized. The sanitizing chemicals may be toxic, therefore too much can lead to the contamination of the food service item and too little may fail to sanitize and kill bacteria. Accordingly, when used in conjunction with a three-compartment sink or dish machine, a chemical testing kit allows the user to easily verify that the amount of sanitizing chemical is correct. The failure to have and use a test kit is considered a critical violation as the improper use of chemicals may pose a public health hazard. The Respondent did not have the chemical kit to measure the product being used at its location. Food dispensing equipment, such as soda machines, must be kept clean. A build-up of slime on the soda dispenser nozzle poses a threat as mold can form and be dispensed with the soda to the user’s beverage. As illness can result, this deficiency is also considered a critical violation. In this regard the Respondent's soda machine had a build-up of slime on its dispensing nozzle. Food containers must also be kept clean. The interior of Respondent’s reach-in cooler had accumulated a residue of food or soil. As this could contaminate food placed in the cooler, this deficiency is also considered critical. Similarly, food contact surfaces must also be kept smooth and easily cleanable. In this regard, the Respondent’s use of ripped or worn tin foil to cover a shelf was not appropriate. As to each of the deficiencies noted above, the Respondent failed or otherwise refused to timely correct the item. Mr. Villeda represented that the violations were corrected by the last week of September 2006. Implicit in that representation is the admission that such violations were not corrected by September 18, 2006, the date of the “call back” inspection. The Respondent does not have a mop sink. The Respondent’s representation that the owners of the building have a mop sink elsewhere (that is used for the licensed area) has been deemed plausible. If a building janitor uses a mop sink located elsewhere to clean up spills (as was represented), the absence of a mop sink within the licensed area does not demonstrate that no mop sink existed. In this regard the Respondent has been given the benefit of the doubt. The Respondent did not explain why the deficiencies were not corrected before the “call back” inspection. It is accepted that the corrections were later made and the Respondent has been given consideration of this effort in the penalty recommended in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00 against the Respondent, Michelle’s Café. S DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesus Villeda Michelle's Cafe 13161 Northwest 11th Court Sunrise, Florida 33323 Joshua B. Moye, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 William Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monore Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monore Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether or not on April 27, 1987 the Respondent violated specific rules as alleged in its Notice to Show Cause dated May 27, 1987. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE At the commencement of formal hearing, Louis F. Petrillo sought to represent Respondent corporation as its qualified representative. Petitioner initially opposed this representation but subsequently withdrew its motion to disqualify. A resolution of the Respondent corporation, under its seal, authorizing Louis F. Petrillo to represent the corporation at formal hearing had previously been filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Upon the record, the undersigned inquired of the Respondent's president, Louis A. Petrillo, who acknowledged, under oath, that the resolution was authentic and that it was his desire, as the corporate president and the officer requesting formal hearing, that his father, Louis F. Petrillo, represent the corporation. 1/ Upon examination, the undersigned found Louis F. Petrillo to be a qualified representative to act for Respondent pursuant to Rules 22I-6.008 and 28-5.1055, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner had admitted three exhibits and presented the oral testimony of Norman Hayes and David Petty. Respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to prove the allegations of the Notice to Show Cause made prior to Petitioner's completing its case in chief was denied without prejudice. The motion was not renewed. Official recognition was taken of a certified copy of Respondent's 1987 Annual Report. Petitioner requested that judicial notice be taken of Rules 7C-4.0001; 10D- 13.026(2) and (3); 10D-13.026(1)(m) and (5); 10D-13.027(4) ; 10D-13.027(5) ; 10D-13.027(8) ; 10D-13.028(2) ; 10D- 13.028(3) and 10D-13.028(4), Florida Administrative Code, and Respondent opposed the request. Petitioner was permitted to file copies of the aforesaid rules with a speaking motion for official recognition within five days of the conclusion of formal hearing, and same was filed. Thereafter, Respondent never filed any formal opposition thereto, and upon consideration that these are matters for which official recognition is mandated, official recognition has been granted. However, it is axiomatic that only those statutes and rules in effect on April 27, 1987 and charged in the May 27, 1987 Notice to Show Cause, may be prosecuted against or applied to Respondent in this present license disciplinary proceeding. Respondent offered no documentary evidence, but Messrs. Louis A. Petrillo and Louis F. Petrillo each testified orally. No transcript was provided. Petitioner filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the findings of fact of which have been ruled upon in the appendix to this recommended order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. Respondent filed no post-hearing proposals.
Findings Of Fact The Notice to Show Cause, dated May 27, 1987, charges the following offenses existed on April 27, 1987: Violation of Florida Statutes, Section 509.032(1)(2) and (3). In particular, the following violations will be described and reference to the statutes, rules or regulation as follows: Florida Administrative Code - F.A.C. A. Violation of 10D-13.26(2)(3) , F.A.C. Failure to provide proper non-food contact surface. Repair loose door to deep fat fryer. B. Violation of 10D-13.26(1)(m)(5) F.A.C. Failure to provide chemical test kit. Violation of 10D-13.27(4) F.A.C. Failure to provide properly installed and main- tained plumbing. Reinstall kitchen lavatory. Violation of 10D-13.27(5) F.A.C. Failure to provide convenient, accessible, ade- quate toilet and handwashing facilities. Violation of 10D-13.27(5)(b) F.A.C. Failure to maintain and/or equipment [sic] restroom with proper handwashing and drying equipment. Violation of 10D-13.27(8) F.A.C. Failure to protect outer openings. Violation of 10D-13.28(2) F.A.C. Failure to provide properly maintained walls and attached equipment. Violaiton [sic] of 10D-13.28(3) F.A.C. Failure to provide proper shielding for kitchen ceiling lights. Violation of 10D-13.28(4) F.A.C. Failure to vent rooms and/or equipment required. The rules defining these offenses were all renumbered in August, 1987 and some rules were further amended. However, the rules as charged in the charging document and as in effect on the material date, April 27, 1987, govern this proceeding. Respondent, Petrillo Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Chicken Unlimited (hereinafter Chicken Unlimited), license 23-186220, was licensed at all times material as a public food establishment at 6757 Bird Road, Miami, Florida, and remained licensed as of the date of formal hearing, although it had ceased operation before the date of hearing. On April 22, 1987, Chicken Unlimited was operating as a public food service establishment and David Petty, an Environmental Health Supervisor for the Dade County Department of Public Health, made out a food service inspection report reflecting Respondent's noncompliance with 16 sanitary regulations of Petitioner. He ranked each as a "minor" violation. Mr. Petty was not asked at hearing if he observed these violations on that day, but on the basis of his testimony concerning certain violations corrected while he was still present on April 22, 1987 and other violations observed again by him upon his revisit to the public food establishment on April 27, 1987, I infer that he actually observed the conditions cited in the April 22, 1987 inspection report, which conditions Petty considered to be code violations. On April 27, 1987, Chicken Unlimited was operating as a public food service establishment and Mr. Petty conducted a reinspection to determine whether the violations not corrected on April 22 had now been corrected. During the reinspection, Mr. Petty observed 10 of the prior conditions which had not been corrected. These were as follows: A loose door on the deep fat fryer had not been repaired. The kitchen lavatory needed to be reinstalled. The rear kitchen door had not been sealed to prevent the entrance of vermin; missing wall tiles had not been replaced in the kitchen; proper shielding had not been installed for the kitchen ceiling lights; sanitizing test papers had not been procured; and a current manager certification in food management was not displayed or produced by personnel on the premises. (The failure of certification was noted in the reinspection report but never charged in the Notice to Show Cause against this Respondent.) In Petty's opinion, Chicken Unlimited also had failed to provide convenient, accessible and adequate toilet and handwashing facilities on both inspection dates. The ventilator fan in the men's restroom was not working. Petty personally observed that the fan was not working and that a broken sink was in the restroom under a counter on the reinspection date. When challenged on cross-examination regarding his qualifications to determine whether the fan was working, since he is not an electrical engineer, Mr. Petty replied that "if you turn the fan on at the switch and the blades don't rotate, something is wrong." His observation was made from inside the men's room looking up into the fan. Mr. Louis A. Petrillo, president and manager, was not present on the premises while Mr. Petty was there either on April 22 or 27, 1987. Respondent did not refute any of Mr. Petty's testimony. Louis A. Petrillo testified that copies of the statutes and rules applicable to Chicken Unlimited were not provided to him by Petitioner at the time his license was issued and that his own employee who received copies of the inspection report on April 22, 1987 and of the reinspection report on April 27, 1987 failed to transmit them to him. He maintained that for these reasons, he was unable to maintain the Chicken Unlimited premises according to the applicable rules and was also unable to timely correct the violations once they were cited.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent corporation guilty of the following eight violations as charged in paragraphs A (one violation), B (one violation), C, D, F, G, H, and I, constituting eight violations, respectively, 10D-13.26(2), 10D-13.26(5), 10D-13.27(4), 10D- 13.27(5), 10D-13.27(8), and 10D-13.28(2), (3) and (4), and fining Respondent $100 per offense for a total of $800. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1988.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated December 29, 2009, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is the state agency responsible for inspecting and regulating public food service establishments in Florida. See section 509.032(1), Florida Statutes. Carvel is a food service establishment licensed and regulated by the Department and located at 3148 Coral Way, Miami, Florida 33145. On July 22, 2009, Jorge Gandolff, a senior inspector of public food service establishments employed by the Division, inspected the premises of Carvel. As an inspector for the Division, Mr. Gandolff was required to complete a Food Service Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-016 and -015 ("Form HR 5022-016 and -15"), for each public food service establishment that he inspected. During the inspection of Carvel, Mr. Gandolff noted that Carvel was not in compliance with a number of the items listed on the Form HR 5022-016 and -15 inspection report. Mr. Gandolff noted that, among other things, he "observed soiled reach-in freezer gaskets"; "observed buildup of soiled material on mixer head"; "observed buildup of slime in the interior of ice machine"; observed that "covered waste receptacle not provided in women's bathroom"; "observed food stored on floor"; "observed food container not properly labeled." It was Mr. Gandolff's practice, and the usual practice of Division inspectors, to complete the Form HR 5022-016 and -15 inspection report and record the violations he observed at a public food service establishment on a personal digital computer. At the end of the inspection, it was his practice to obtain the signature of the person in charge on the Form HR 5022-016 and -15 inspection report, print a copy of the report, and review the violations that had been noted with the person in charge. Mr. Gandolff followed his usual practice in completing the inspection of Carvel on July 22, 2009. He prepared a Form HR 5022-016 and -15 Food Service Inspection Report setting forth his findings and noted on the report that Carvel "MET INSPECTION STANDARDS during this visit" and that "ANY VIOLATIONS noted herein must be corrected by the NEXT UNANNOUNCED INSPECTION." (Emphasis in original.) Zoila Fernandez, an employee of Carvel, signed the inspection form, and Mr. Gandolff went over the inspection findings with her. Mr. Gandolff inspected the premises of Carvel for the second time on November 24, 2009. In addition to several other violations, Mr. Gandolff noted on the Form HR 5022-016 and -15 inspection report that he again "observed soiled reach-in freezer gaskets"; "observed buildup of soiled material on mixer head"; "observed buildup of slime in the interior of ice machine"; observed that "covered waste receptacle not provided in women's bathroom"; "observed food stored on walk-in cooler floor Cardboard boxes of chocolate chip"; "observed food container not properly labeled ice cream containers not labeled stored inside self service freezer in customer area." These six items were considered repeat violations; that is, these items were found to be out of compliance with the Food Code at the July 22, 2009, inspection. In addition, these six items were marked with an asterisk on the Form HR 5022-016 and - 15 inspection report, which designated them as "critical" violations. Mr. Gandolff recommended that these items be included as violations in an Administrative Complaint. Mr. Gandolff also noted on the Form HR 5022-016 and -15 inspection report that the "Inspector determined violations require further review, but are not an immediate threat to the public." Zoila Reyes, an employee of Carvel who was on the premises during the November 24, 2009, inspection signed the inspection report. She was not able to accompany Mr. Gandolff during the entire inspection because the store was busy, but Mr. Gandolff went over the inspection report with her. Ms. Shah was not present during either of the inspections. It is her practice to come into the store early and prepare the store to open. Her preparations include cleaning the premises and the equipment. Mr. Gandolff found three items during both the July 22, 2009, and November 24, 2009, inspections that he wrote up as a single violation of the Food Code and that he considered the most serious violation of the Food Code. The first item was the build-up of food on the mixer head that was not just the normal amount of build-up that occurs during a workday but was old, dry, and crusted. Mr. Gandolff considered this a serious condition because this piece of equipment came in direct contact with food and could contaminate it. The second item was the slime build-up inside the interior of the ice machine, which Mr. Gandolff considered a serious condition because the ice came into direct contact with the interior of the ice machine and could be contaminated by the slime. The third item was the soiled gaskets on the reach-in freezer that was a black residue probably resulting from the buildup of old product. Mr. Gandolff considered this a serious condition because the freezer gaskets are very close to the product in the freezer, and the product could be contaminated if it came into contact with the gaskets. The violation Mr. Gandolff considered the next most serious violation of the Food Code found during both the July 22, 2009, and November 24, 2009, inspections was a cardboard box containing chocolate chips stored directly on the floor of the walk-in cooler because the food product inside the box could be contaminated by water or any other residue on the floor of the cooler, especially if, as here, the food product is stored in a cardboard box that could absorb water from the cooler floor. In addition, Mr. Gandolff considered the absence of labels on containers of ice cream stored in a freezer accessible to customers to be a serious violation of the Food Code because a customer must be able to look at the label on the food product and know the ingredients in the product and the date the product was prepared so the customer can make a determination if the product is safe for them to eat. Mr. Gandolff also considered the uncovered trash receptacle in the women's bathroom a serious violation of the Food Code because such receptacles must be covered to avoid exposure of women's sanitary napkins. These violations are all critical violations because they pose a significant danger to the public health and because they are identified as critical violations on the inspection report forms Mr. Gandolff completed on July 22, 2009, and November 24, 2009, recording his observations of the Carvel premises. Ms. Shah has owned the Carvel store for approximately 14 years, and, during that time, the store has not been cited for any violations as a result of inspections by the Division. The Carvel store owned by Ms. Shah is very small and, because of the poor economic conditions of recent years, Ms. Shah makes very little money at the store and is barely able to keep the business open. Summary The evidence presented by the Division is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that there were five repeat violations of the Food Code on the premises of Carvel during the November 24, 2009, inspection. Ms. Shah failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the violations observed by Mr. Gandolff were not present. First, her explanation of the missing cover on the waste receptacle in the women's bathroom, that the receptacle had just been emptied and that the cover was sitting on the floor beside the receptacle, could have explained the missing cover during the first inspection, but the same explanation would have presented too much of a coincidence to be a persuasive explanation for the missing cover at the second inspection. Second, Ms. Shah's categorical denial that any equipment on the store's premises was soiled or otherwise not perfectly clean, her testimony that she cleans everything in the store every morning; that the equipment is cleaned continually during the day; and that all supplies are stored properly in the walk-in cooler and her testimony is not sufficient to refute the specific observations noted by Mr. Gandolff on the inspection reports. Finally, Ms. Shah's testimony that all pre-packed ice cream available for purchase in the store's self-service freezer is packed in containers with labels provided by Carvel, Inc. In the absence of information regarding the content of the labels provided by Carvel, Inc., Ms. Shah's testimony does not refute the Mr. Gandolff's contention that the containers of ice cream did not have labels disclosing the date the ice cream was packed into the containers and the ingredients in the ice cream.
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 Carvel Ice Cream Bakery guilty of having violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-4.010(1)(c) and Food Code Rules 3-305.11; 3-602.11(A); 4-602.11(C) and (D); and 5-501.17; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $525.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Patricia M. Hart Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2011.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in an Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Petitioner), against Town and Country Skate World (Respondent) are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2011). At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a restaurant operating at 7510 Paula Drive, Tampa, Florida, 33615, and holding food service license number 3203942. On May 6, 2010, Rich Decker (Mr. Decker), employed by the Petitioner as a senior sanitation and safety specialist, performed a routine inspection (May 6 inspection) of the Respondent and observed conditions that violated certain provisions of the Food Code. Food Code violations are classified as "critical" or "non-critical." A critical violation of the Food Code is one that poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and is a risk factor for food-borne illness. A non- critical violation of the Food Code is one that does not meet the definition of a critical violation. At the conclusion of the May 6 inspection, Mr. Decker noted the observed violations in an inspection report. A manager for the Respondent was present during the inspection. The manager signed the inspection report and received a copy of the report at that time. According to the inspection report, a follow-up "callback" inspection was scheduled to occur on July 6, 2010, prior to which critical violations were to have been corrected. On July 21, 2010, Kathy Dorsey (Ms. Dorsey), employed by the Petitioner as a senior sanitation and safety specialist, performed the callback inspection (July 21 callback inspection) and observed some of the same Food Code violations noted on the May 6 inspection report. At the conclusion of the July 21 callback inspection, Ms. Dorsey noted the observed violations in an inspection report. An employee of the Respondent present at the time of the inspection signed and received a copy of the callback inspection report. The Petitioner subsequently filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding. Pursuant to state regulations, the Respondent was required to have designated a certified food protection manager responsible for the operation of food service. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the designated food protection manager's certification had expired and that the Respondent was operating without a properly-certified food protection manager. This was a critical violation of the Food Code, because the lack of a properly-certified food protection manager presents a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare through the transmission of food-borne illness by improper food preparation. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that no thermometer to ascertain the temperature of food products was present, a critical violation. Foods held at improper temperatures are susceptible to development of bacterial contamination and are a risk factor for transmission of food-borne illness. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the Respondent, which utilized a chemical system for sanitation of dishes and utensils, had no chemical test kit provided at the location of the sanitation sink. The test kit is required to ascertain whether the composition of the disinfection liquid is appropriate and capable of sanitizing the items. This was a critical violation because improperly sanitized dishes and utensils pose a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare through the transmission of food-borne illness. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the gaskets located at the reach-in food refrigeration unit were soiled, a critical violation because the situation presents an opportunity for bacterial contamination of food products and transmission of food-borne illness. Sinks used for preparation of food products are not to be used for hand washing, and, accordingly, the Food Code prohibits having hand-washing aids at a food prep sink. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the Respondent had hand-washing materials located at a food-prep sink. This was a critical violation because dual use of sinks provides an opportunity for bacterial contamination of food or utensils and transmission of food-borne illness. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the Respondent's gas tanks (helium and/or carbon dioxide) were not properly secured, which was a non-critical violation of state regulations cited herein. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that ceiling tiles in the kitchen were water-stained, indicating the presence of an unidentified leak above the ceiling tiles, and other tiles were missing. These were non-critical violations of state regulations cited herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order imposing an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $1,550. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Alan Blizard Town and Country Skate World 7510 Paula Drive Tampa, Florida 33615 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of various violations of Florida statutes and rules in the operation of his restaurant and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license control number 46-04280R, which is in effect from December 1, 1999, through December 1, 2000. The license authorizes Respondent to operate a restaurant known as Speedy Two Shop at 2957 Martin L. King Boulevard in Fort Myers. Petitioner has previously disciplined Respondent. By Stipulation and Consent Order filed May 22, 1997, the parties agreed that Respondent would pay an administrative fine of $1100 and correct all violations by April 30, 1997. The Stipulation and Consent Order incorporates the findings of inspections on February 25 and March 7, 1997. These inspections uncovered seven violations, including missing hood filters over the cooking surface, heavy grease accumulations on the inside and outside of the hood, a fire extinguisher bearing an expired tag (May 1995), and operation without a license. In Petitioner's District 7, which includes Fort Myers, the licensing year for restaurants runs from December 1 to December 1. Respondent's relevant licensing history includes annual licenses for the periods ending December 1, 1997; December 1, 1998; and December 1, 1999. However, Respondent has operated his restaurant for substantial periods without a license. Respondent renewed his license ending in 1997 after four months of operating without a license, his license ending in 1998 after 17 months of operating without a license, his license ending in 1999 after six and one- half months of operating without a license, and his license ending in 2000 after one and one-half months of operating without a license. For each of these late renewals, Respondent paid a $100 delinquent fee. Petitioner conducts periodic inspections of restaurants. These inspections cover a broad range of health and safety conditions. Certain violations, as marked on the inspection forms, "are of critical concern and must be corrected immediately." This recommended order refers to such violations as "Critical Violations." On January 22, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted an inspection of Respondent's restaurant. The inspection uncovered seven Critical Violations. Two Critical Violations involved Respondent's compliance with licensing and training requirements. Respondent was operating the restaurant without a license, and no employee had a food manager's card, which evidences the successful completion of coursework and a test in managing a restaurant. The report warns that if Respondent did not renew his license before February 1, 1998, Petitioner would impose a fine and possibly revoke his license. The report requires Respondent to ensure that an employee obtains a food manager's card by March 3, 1998. Two Critical Violations involved Respondent's noncompliance with fire safety requirements. The fire extinguisher and built-in fire suppression system both bore outdated tags. The former tag expired in April 1997, and the latter tag expired in May 1997. The remaining three Critical Violations were that the restaurant lacked a filter in his hood over the stove, ceramic tiles over the three-compartment sink, and sanitizing solution in the bucket that was supposed to contain sanitizing solution. Respondent's employee explained that the hood filters were being cleaned, but apparently offered no explanation for the other two Critical Violations. Despite the specific warnings concerning the licensing and training violations, the January 1998 inspection report requires only that Respondent correct the violations by the next routine inspection. On March 26, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted an reinspection of Respondent's restaurant. The inspection uncovered the same Critical Violations, except for the sanitizing solution. The report states that Respondent must come to Petitioner's office in the next seven days to renew his license. On April 2, 1998, Petitioner served upon Respondent an Administrative Complaint alleging that, on January 1, 1998, Respondent was operating without a license. Neither this nor any subsequent charging document cites any of the other six Critical Violations found in the January 22, 1998, inspection as bases for discipline, so this recommended order treats these other violations as background, rather than as independent grounds for discipline. On June 30, 2000--over two years after issuing the Administrative Complaint--Petitioner transmitted the Administrative Complaint to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the purpose of conducting a formal hearing, and DOAH assigned this case DOAH Case number 00-2694. On April 29, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted another reinspection. Upon identifying himself to Respondent's employee, the employee denied the inspector access to the premises and told him to return at 2:00 PM. The inspector replied that the reinspection would take only five minutes and that he could not return at 2:00 PM, but the employee continued to deny the inspector entry. On May 12, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted another reinspection and found the same seven Critical Violations present during the January 1998 inspection. New Critical Violations were the presence of one "small mouse and roaches" under the three-compartment sink and the presence of cooked sausage patties and links with an internal temperature too low to prevent the proliferation of bacteria. As for the food manager's card, Respondent told the inspector that he had left it at home. The report warns that Respondent must correct the violations by May 18, 2000, 8:00 AM. On September 29, 1998, Petitioner served upon Respondent a Notice to Show Cause alleging the violations found during the inspections of March 26, April 29, and May 12, 1998. On June 30, 2000--one year and nine months after issuing the Administrative Complaint--Petitioner transmitted the Administrative Complaint to DOAH for the purpose of conducting a formal hearing, and DOAH assigned this case DOAH Case number 00-2697. On July 31, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted another reinspection and found five of the same Critical Violations: operating without a license, no employee with a food manager's card, fire suppression system bearing an outdated tag, ceramic tile missing over the three-compartment sink, and heavy grease accumulation on the hood filters, which had been reinstalled. Petitioner never cited these five Critical Violations in any charging document, so this recommended order treats these other violations as background, rather than as independent grounds for discipline. On October 2, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted an inspection and found four of the original Critical Violations: no license, no employee with a food manager's card, no current tag on the fire suppression system, and no ceramic tile over the sink. Although the fire extinguisher was presumably current, it was improperly placed on the floor. Other Critical Violations included the storage of sausage at the improperly warm temperature of 51 degrees, the absence of a thermometer in the home-style refrigerator, the presence of rodent feces on the floor, the absence of working emergency lights, the absence of a catch pan in the hood system, a broken self-closer on the side door, a clogged hand sink, an extension cord serving a toaster, and the evident expansion of the restaurant without an approved plan. The report gives Respondent until October 9, 1998, at 11:00 AM to correct the violations. On October 12, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted a reinspection and found all of the Critical Violations cited in the preceding paragraph still uncorrected. On October 20, 1998, Petitioner served upon Respondent an Administrative Complaint alleging the violations found during the inspections of October 2 and 12, 1998. On June 30, 2000--one year and eight months after issuing the Administrative Complaint--Petitioner transmitted the Administrative Complaint to DOAH for the purpose of conducting a formal hearing, and DOAH assigned this case DOAH Case number 00-2695. For some reason, Petitioner neither prosecuted the pending charges nor conducted repeated inspections for several months after October 1998 inspections and Administrative Complaint. The next inspection of Respondent's restaurant took place on April 30, 1999. Despite the six and one-half months that Petitioner effectively gave Respondent to correct the numerous Critical Violations cited in the October 12, 1998, inspection, Respondent continued to violate many of the same provisions for which he had been cited throughout nearly all of 1998. The inspection report discloses that, again, Respondent was operating without a license. The report notes that he lacked a license for the licensing years ending in 1998 and 1999. One of Petitioner's inspectors testified that Respondent had been making progress on the licensing issue. However, the implication that Respondent was unable to pay the $190 licensing fee (usually accompanied by a $100 delinquent fee) is quietly rebutted by the notation, also in the April 30, 1999, report, that Respondent had completed the expansion project--still, without the required plan review. Again, no employee at the restaurant had a food manager's card. Again, the fire suppression system was in violation--this time because the indicator revealed that it needed to be recharged. Again, the hood filters were missing above the cooking surface. Again, the hand sink was inoperative- -this time, it was not only clogged, but it also lacked hot water. Again, emergency lighting was inoperative. Again, the ceramic tile was missing over the three-compartment sink. Again, food was maintained too warm in the refrigerator--this time, chicken was at 69 degrees. A new Critical Violation was the exposure of live electrical lines and insulation. The April 1999 inspection report gives Respondent until May 14, 1999, at 11:00 AM to correct the violations. On May 14, 1999, Petitioner's inspector conducted a reinspection and found that Respondent still had not obtained a license for the licensing year ending in 1999, still lacked an employee with a food manager's card, still had not obtained approval of its expansion plan, still lacked ceramic tile over the three-compartment sink, still had a clogged hand sink without hot water, still lacked working emergency lights, still tolerated exposed electrical line and insulation, and still lacked hood filters above the cooking surface. On June 2, 1999, Petitioner served upon Respondent an Administrative Complaint alleging the violations found during the inspections of April 20 and May 14, 1999. On June 30, 2000--one year and one month after issuing the Administrative Complaint-- Petitioner transmitted the Administrative Complaint to DOAH for the purpose of conducting a formal hearing, and DOAH assigned this case DOAH Case number 00-2696. Over a period of 16 months, Petitioner conducted eight inspections of Respondent's restaurant. On what would have been a ninth inspection, one of Respondent's employees denied access to the inspector. On each of these eight inspections, Respondent was operating without a license, lacked an employee with a food manager's card, and lacked ceramic tile over the three- compartment sink. On seven of these eight inspections, the fire suppression system was expired or discharged, and the hood filter was missing or excessive grease had accumulated on the filter or the liner. On three of these eight inspections, the fire extinguisher was outdated, and, on a fourth inspection, it was improperly stored on the floor. On three of these eight inspections, sausage or chicken was at improper temperatures--the 86 degrees at which sausage was served on one occasion was only 17 degrees warmer than the 69 degrees at which chicken was stored on another occasion. On three of these eight inspections, the hand sink was unusable because it was clogged or lacked hot water, the emergency lights did not work, and restaurant expansion was taking place or had taken place without review or approval of the plans. On two of these eight inspections, the inspector saw signs of rodents in the kitchen--one time actually seeing a small mouse. On two of these eight inspections, exposed electrical lines and insulation were present in the kitchen. Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed all of the cited violations. Uncorrected violations over 16 months amount to more than a failure to take advantage of the numerous opportunities that Petitioner gave Respondent to bring his restaurant into compliance. These uncorrected violations constitute a refusal to comply with the basic requirements ensuring the health and safety of the public. The penalty must weigh, among other things, Respondent's blatant disregard of fundamental requirements in licensing, training, and fire and food safety; Petitioner's demonstrated lack of diligence in enforcing Respondent's compliance with these requirements; and the peril posed by these failures upon the public health and safety.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order revoking Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan R. McKinley, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurant Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Gail Hoge, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angelo E. Ruth 2774 Blake Street Fort Myers, Florida 33916
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 The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated December 2, 2009, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Restaurant was licensed as a public food service establishment in the State of Florida by the Department, having been issued license type 2010 and license number 2323257. At all times material hereto, the Restaurant was located at 762 Northwest 183rd Street, Miami Gardens, Florida 33169. A critical violation in food service is considered to be a violation that, if not corrected, is directly related to food-borne illness, food contamination, or health risk. A non-critical violation in food service is considered to be a violation that, if not corrected, can become a critical violation. On August 14, 2009, Daniel Unold, an inspector with the Department, conducted a routine inspection of the Restaurant. During the inspection, Inspector Unold found violations, which were considered to be critical and non- critical violations. Further, during the inspection, Inspector Unold prepared a food inspection report, setting forth the alleged violations and the date for the callback inspection, which was October 14, 2009. The inspection report was signed by Inspector Unold and a representative of the Restaurant. Inspector Unold made the representative aware of the alleged violations and that the violations had to be corrected by the callback date of October 14, 2009, and he provided the representative with a copy of the inspection report. On October 19, 2009, Inspector Unold performed the callback inspection. Among other things, four critical violations were not corrected from the routine inspection of August 14, 2009. During the callback inspection, Inspector Unold prepared a food callback inspection report, setting forth, among other things, the alleged critical violations. The callback inspection report was signed by Inspector Unold and a representative of the Restaurant. Inspector Unold made the representative aware of the alleged violations. The most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on August 14, 2009, and was not corrected by October 19, 2009, was no certified food manager for the Restaurant. This violation is critical because it is necessary for the person operating a food service establishment to be knowledgeable regarding food contamination, hygiene, cloth contamination, and food-related diseases. That person is a certified food manager, and the certification process requires class training and a test. The next most serious alleged critical violation not corrected by October 19, 2009, was no proof of required employee training. This violation is a critical violation because it is necessary for every food service employee to have basic knowledge regarding hand washing and food contamination. The next most serious alleged critical violation not corrected by October 19, 2009, was the hand wash sink lacking the proper hand drying provisions. This violation is a critical violation because hand drying is an important part of the hand washing procedure, and, if not performed correctly, it is as if hand washing had not occurred at all. The next most serious alleged critical violation not corrected by October 19, 2009, was the Restaurant operating without a current Hotel and Restaurant license. The new owner of the Restaurant, Elise Benabe, had not completed a change of ownership application. This violation is a critical violation because the State of Florida requires all public food service establishments to be licensed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Five Star Haitian Restaurant violated Florida Administrative Code 61C-4.023(1), Section 509.049, Florida Statutes (2009), Food Code Rule 6-301.12, and Section 509.241(2), Florida Statutes (2009); and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,875.00 against Five Star Haitian Restaurant. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Louise Wilhite-St Laurent, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Elise Benabe Five Star Haitian Restaurant 762 Northwest 183rd Street Miami Gardens, Florida 33169 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Louise Wilhite-St Laurent Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-220
The Issue 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 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 Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent operated Humphrey's On 33rd, a bar/restaurant (with a "full kitchen") located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the holder of a license issued by Petitioner (license number 16-18150-R) authorizing it to operate Humphrey's On 33rd as a public food service establishment. Edward Humphrey is the majority owner of Respondent. On December 29, 2004, Michele Schneider, a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with Petitioner, conducted a routine inspection of the premises of Humphrey's On 33rd. Her inspection revealed, among other things, the following (which hereinafter will be referred to, collectively, as the "Conditions"): Respondent, upon request, was unable to produce evidence of "food handlers' training for employees by a certified food manager"; there were paper products and other potentially combustible items "on top of and around" a gas- powered hot water heater (which had an "open flame at the bottom"); there was no indication that violations (of the standards of the National Fire Protection Association) previously-noted by a "certified fire inspector" during an inspection of the hood range in the kitchen (which had an ansel fire suppression system) had been corrected; the service tag on the fire extinguisher in the establishment did not indicate the year the extinguisher was last serviced; and there was grease, garbage, and other debris in the "can wash area" outside the establishment, "right behind the back door." Before leaving the establishment, Ms. Schneider advised Mr. Humphrey that these Conditions were violations for which Respondent could be disciplined by Petitioner if not corrected by February 1, 2005. Ms. Schneider conducted a "callback" inspection of the premises of Humphrey's On 33rd on February 1, 2005, which revealed that each of the Conditions described in Finding of Fact 4 still existed. At neither the time of the December 29, 2004, routine inspection, nor the time of the February 1, 2005, "callback" inspection, was food being served at Humphrey's On 33rd. Respondent had "closed the kitchen down" in or around September of 2004. It was not until approximately six months later, after the December 29, 2004, and February 1, 2005, inspections, that Respondent started serving food again at the establishment. At no time during this six-month period that it stopped serving food did Respondent relinquish its license authorizing it to operate Humphrey's On 33rd as a public food service establishment. Its license remained in effect throughout this period.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order finding that Respondent committed Alleged Violation Nos. 1 through 5 and disciplining Respondent therefor by imposing a fine in the total amount of $250.00 and requiring Respondent's majority owner to attend, at his own expense, an "educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program." DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2005.
