The Issue The issues in this disciplinary proceeding arise from Petitioner's allegation that Respondent, which operates a restaurant, violated several statutes and rules governing food service establishments. If Petitioner proves one or more of the alleged violations, then it will be necessary to consider whether penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At one time, Respondent Sonimar, Inc., d/b/a El Condor Pasa ("Sonimar"), held a Permanent Food Service license. This license expired, however, on December 1, 2005. Thereafter, Sonimar continued to operate a food service establishment without a valid license, and was doing so at all times relevant to this case. Sonimar is subject to the regulatory and disciplinary jurisdiction of Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (the "Division"). On two occasions——June 7, 2006, and July 26, 2006——an agent of the Division inspected a restaurant located at 953 Rock Island Road in North Lauderdale, Florida, which establishment was then (and at the time of the hearing) operated by Sonimar. During each visit, the inspector noticed several items that were not in compliance with the laws which govern the facilities and operations of restaurants. As of July 26, 2006, the following deficiencies subsisted: (1) chlorine sanitizer was not being used to clean food contact surfaces and utensils, in violation of Food Code Rule 4-501.114(A)i; (2) ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food had been held more than 24 hours with no date marking, in violation of Food Code Rule 3-501.17; (3) the operator of the establishment was not licensed, in violation of Section 509.241(2), Florida Statutesii; (4) some ceiling tiles in the kitchen had water stains (evidencing a leak) and there was a visible hole in the kitchen ceiling, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(6); (5) the door of the walk- in freezer and the floor of the walk-in cooler were in disrepair, in violation of Food Code Rule 4-501.11; and (6) the plumbing located above the three-compartment sink was leaking, in violation of Food Code Rule 5-205.15.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order: (a) finding Sonimar guilty in accordance with the foregoing Recommended Order; (b) ordering Sonimar to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $2,800, due and payable to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, within 30 calendar days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk; and (c) directing Sonimar to send an appropriate principal to an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.stae.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was licensed and regulated by Petitioner, having been issued license number 1618782. Respondent’s license authorizes Respondent to operate a public food service establishment known as Golden Corral at 7401 West Commercial Boulevard, Tamarac, Florida (the specified location). At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was operating a public food establishment at the specified location.2 At all times material hereto, Sean Grosvenor and Larry Torres were experienced and appropriately trained investigators employed by Petitioner as Sanitation and Safety Specialists. Their job responsibilities included the inspection of public food service establishments for compliance with pertinent rules and statutes. On July 7, 2005, Mr. Grosvenor led an inspection of the subject restaurant. Based on that inspection, Mr. Grosvenor prepared a report that noted multiple violations of pertinent rules. Prior to leaving the premises on July 7, Mr. Grosvenor discussed his findings with the associate manager of the restaurant. Mr. Grosvenor ordered that two of the violations be corrected immediately. He ordered the restaurant to correct the remaining violations by no later than August 7, 2005. On July 8, 2005, Mr. Grosvenor conducted a follow-up inspection of the subject restaurant for the purpose of determining whether the two violations he had ordered corrected immediately had been corrected. One of the two violations that were to be corrected immediately had been corrected and is not at issue in this proceeding. The other violation had not been corrected and is the subject of the Paragraph 1 violation. PARAGRAPH 1 The Food Code requires that food be maintained at a temperature of 41° F. or less. On July 8, 2005, Mr. Grosvenor found the following: cottage cheese located on the buffet table was at a temperature of 48° F., raw hamburger patties located in a cooler were at a temperature of 47° F., and potato salad located in a cooler was at a temperature of 47° F. Mr. Afsarmanesh, the restaurant’s manager, testified that the hamburger patties had been freshly ground and that the potato salad had been freshly made. He testified that these items were brought to a temperature above 41° F. during the preparation process, that they had been placed in coolers to cool down shortly before the inspection, and that they were above 41° F. when Mr. Grosvenor conducted his inspection because they had not had sufficient time to cool down. While his testimony explained Mr. Grosvenor’s findings as to the hamburger patties and the potato salad, Mr. Afsarmanesh had no explanation as to why the cottage cheese was above 41° F. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Section 3.501.16(B) of the Food Code as alleged in paragraph 1 by proving that Respondent failed to maintain cottage cheese on the buffet line at or below the required minimum temperature. The violations alleged in paragraphs 2-6 were based on Mr. Torres’s follow-up inspection on August 8, 2005. That follow-up inspection was conducted during a power failure which left the restaurant without electricity. Mr. Afsarmanesh requested that the follow-up inspection be rescheduled because of the power outage, but Mr. Torres decided to go forward with the inspection using flashlights. Mr. Torres testified that the absence of electricity had no bearing on his inspection. Based on the violations found, the undersigned finds that Respondent was not prejudiced by Mr. Torres proceeding with the inspection. PARAGRAPH 2 The initial inspection cited Respondent for storing uncovered lettuce, onions, and peppers in a cooler. On August 8, 2005, Mr. Torres observed that lettuce, onions, and peppers were stored uncovered in a cooler. That conduct violated Section 3-302.11(A)(4) of the Food Code. Mr. Afsarmanesh testified that his staff rushed to put these items in the cooler when the electricity went out and that they did not have sufficient time or light to cover them. The exigent circumstances created by the power outage do not excuse the violation observed by Mr. Torres, but those circumstances can be considered in mitigation when determining the penalty to be imposed. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Section 3-302.11(A)(4) of the Food Code as alleged in paragraph 2. PARAGRAPH 3 Paragraph 3 alleged that Respondent violated Section 3- 304.14(B) of the Food Code by failing to have chlorine sanitizer in a cleaning bucket at minimum strength. On August 8, 2005, Mr. Torres determined that the chlorine sanitizer in a cleaning bucket was below minimum strength. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Section 3-304.14(B) of the Food Code as alleged in paragraph 3. PARAGRAPH 4 Paragraph 4 alleged that Respondent violated Section 5- 205.11(B) of the Food Code by using a hand-washing sink for purposes other than washing hands. The inspection report does not detail what other use was being made of the hand-washing sink and Mr. Torres could not recall what he had observed to cause him to cite that as a violation. Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence the alleged violation of paragraph 4. PARAGRAPH 5 Paragraph 5 alleged that Respondent violated Section 6-202.15 of the Food Code by failing to properly seal an exterior door. On August 8, 2005, Mr. Torres observed that an exterior door to Respondent’s facility was not properly sealed and, consequently, would not prevent the intrusion of pests. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Section 6-202.15 of the Food Code as alleged in paragraph 5. PARAGRAPH 6 Paragraph 6 alleged that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(7), by failing to keep an electrical room clean and free of debris by storing items in the electric room. On August 8, 2005, Mr. Torres observed that Respondent had stored items in an electric room. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(7), as alleged in paragraph 6. A violation of applicable rules by a public food service establishment is either a critical or non-critical violation. A critical violation is one that poses a significant threat to the health, safety, and welfare of people. A non- critical violation is one that does not rise to the level of a critical violation. The paragraph 3 violation is a non-critical violation. The remaining violations found are critical violations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order that finds that Respondent committed the violations alleged in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 and imposes administrative fines against Respondent as follows: $1,000.00 for the paragraph 1 violation; $100.00 for the paragraph 2 violation; $100.00 for the paragraph 3 violation; $500.00 for the paragraph 5 violation; and $500.00 for the paragraph 6 violation. In addition, the final order should require a manager responsible for the subject restaurant to attend, at Respondent’s expense, an educational program sponsored by Petitioner’s Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2006, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 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, 2006.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 17, 2008, and, if so, what penalty is warranted.
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 located at 2054 State Road 436, Suite 128, Winter Park, Florida, holding Permanent Food Service license number 5811081. On March 12, 2008, Wilfredo Goris, a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Division, performed a food service inspection of the Respondent. During the inspection, Mr. Goris observed 17 live roaches inside a box containing light bulbs in front of the three-compartment sink, two roaches on a water heater in the same general area as the three-compartment sink, and three dead roaches in the vicinity of the three-compartment sink. Mr. Goris showed the roaches to Carlos Nevarez, the manager of Stacked Subs, to make him aware of the problem. Mr. Goris prepared and signed an inspection report detailing his findings during the inspection. Mr. Nevarez also signed the report to indicate receipt of the inspection report. The Division advises its inspectors that all reports of pest activities should be forwarded to the Tallahassee office for review. Mr. Goris sent his inspection report to Tallahassee for a determination of how to proceed against Stacked Subs, i.e., whether to allow the restaurant to remain in operation or to suspend its license until the roach infestation is eliminated. Mr. Goris testified that the Tallahassee office decided that because the roach activity was in the kitchen area, the restaurant should be closed as a threat to public health until the facility was cleaned and sanitized. Mr. Nevarez testified that all the roaches were in a box of fluorescent light bulbs that had been brought in from a storage unit a couple of weeks earlier. The box was removed immediately after the inspection. According to Mr. Nevarez, once the box was removed, the roach problem was eliminated. To corroborate his testimony, Mr. Nevarez submitted a service report from Anteater Pest and Lawn Services, a large pest and lawn company. Anteater's technician arrived at Stacked Subs at 4 p.m. on March 12, 2008, and stayed until 5:30 p.m., inspecting the facility and treating any potential entry point for pests. Anteater's technician could find no roaches inside the restaurant. Mr. Goris returned to Stacked Subs the next day, March 13, 2008. Mr. Goris found no roaches and allowed the restaurant to reopen. Mr. Nevarez submitted photographs of the restaurant to show where Mr. Goris found the box containing the roaches. Mr. Goris viewed the photographs and agreed with Mr. Nevarez as to the location of the box. The photographs indicate that the box was placed next to a hot water heater in the very back of the restaurant, well away from the food preparation area. However, the kitchen is of a long, open galley-type construction, and there were no dividing walls between the hot water heater and the food preparation area. Therefore, the box containing the roaches was technically in the kitchen. A critical violation is a violation that poses an immediate danger to the public. A non-critical violation is a violation that does not pose an immediate danger to the public, but needs to be addressed because if left uncorrected, it can become a critical violation. Roaches are carriers of diseases, including staphylococcus. The presence of roaches in the vicinity of the food preparation area constitutes a critical violation. The Division presented no evidence of prior disciplinary action against Respondent.
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 $500.00, payable under terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 September, 2008.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether Respondent is guilty of violating provisions governing the operation of restaurants and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner and operator of Mr. P's Emporium and the Spaghetti House, which are both names of the same restaurant located at 1709 West Vine St. (State Route 192), Kissimmee, Florida. Petitioner issued Respondent license number 59-00352-R to operate the restaurant. Respondent first began operating a restaurant at the West Vine St. location nearly 20 years ago. In 1976, Respondent encountered a problem with Frank Wolf, who was then a food-service inspector employed by the Osceola County Health Department. Mr. Wolf is now the Environmental Health Director of the Osceola County Health Department. Responsibility for restaurant food-service inspections appears to have been assumed by the Health Department at one time. Presently, food-service inspections are conducted by Petitioner or, pursuant to contract with Petitioner, the Office of Restaurant Programs (ORP), which is part of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Mr. Wolf and Respondent had a misunderstanding concerning Respondent's application for a beer and wine license when he was opening his new restaurant. Although the license was issued, Respondent's relations with the Health Department worsened when Mr. Wolf later took photographs during a routine inspection. In attempting to resolve Respondent's objections to the photographing of his restaurant, the Director of the Health Department worked out an arrangement with Respondent that no inspector would conduct an inspection of Respondent's restaurant without first calling him and making an appointment. If Respondent then failed to be present at the restaurant at the appointed time, the inspector would conduct the inspection without him. However, Respondent invariably made sure he was present so he could accompany the inspector. This special arrangement was not extended to any other restaurants in the area; such restaurants remained subject to unannounced food-service inspections. In 1981, Respondent moved to South Florida, leaving the Kissimmee restaurant in charge of his son, Art, Jr. The following year, Art. Jr. expressed an interest in leaving the restaurant business. When Respondent returned to run the Kissimmee restaurant, he learned that Art, Jr. had not required the Health Department inspectors to contact him in advance of inspections. Respondent immediately proceeded to restore this arrangement, not hesitating, as always, to contact supervisors of supervisors, both locally and in Tallahassee, to ensure that all problems were straightened out to his satisfaction. It appears that the old practice of prior notice before inspection was reinstated. The alleged violations set forth in DBR Case No. 04-91-199 arose as a result of an inspection on January 2, 1991. On that day, an inspector employed by the Osceola County Health Department, Dolores Miller, visited the restaurant to conduct an inspection. She found the front door locked and approached the side door. She had not made any prior arrangements with Respondent. Respondent was not in the restaurant at the time of Ms. Miller's visit. There is a dispute as to what transpired. Ms. Miller testified that a big dog attacked her after she announced, at the open side screen door, "Hello, Health Department." This testimony is discredited. Respondent lived upstairs over the restaurant with this dog, which was permitted to roam the area outside the restaurant but not inside the restaurant. Respondent testified that the dog is friendly and does not serve as a watchdog. Respondent's dog, which sometimes roamed freely outside of the restaurant, would not likely be unfriendly. Otherwise, the dog would frighten away customers. No evidence suggests that the dog could identify Ms. Miller as a food-service inspector from the Health Department, and, sharing Respondent's antipathies, selectively attacked Ms. Miller. Ms. Miller's testimony is discredited for a second reason. She testified that she left a copy of the Inspection Report, Petitioner Exhibit 3, at the restaurant and that the copy stated at the bottom, in her handwriting: "Management would not allow me to do an insp[ection.]" Respondent testified that Ms. Miller left a copy of Petitioner Exhibit 3, but it had no such language on it. Respondent produced a copy of his copy, which contained no such language. Respondent's exhibit does not appear to be altered. To the contrary, it is found that Ms. Miller added this notation to her office copy and did not leave at the restaurant a copy of the Inspection Report with the notation. Therefore, the remaining facts concerning the January 2, 1991, incident are primarily based on Respondent's version of the events. When Ms. Miller appeared at the restaurant, Respondent's dog was in the vicinity. In the course of conversing with the restaurant employees, Ms. Miller inadvertently allowed the dog to enter the kitchen, where the dog was not permitted and, on the rare occasions when the dog found its way into the kitchen, was never allowed to stay. Ms. Miller did not make an effective request of Respondent to make an inspection. She did ask Respondent's kitchen help for access to the premises for the purpose of conducting an inspection. Acting in accordance with Respondent's usual instructions, the employees denied Ms. Miller permission. Had the matter ended at this point, Respondent, through his agents, would have denied Ms. Miller access for the purpose of conducting an food-service inspection. However, Ms. Miller returned to the restaurant to alter the date on the form that she had left with the workers. While she was correcting the date on both forms, Respondent returned to the restaurant. Having accidentally allowed Respondent's dog into the kitchen once again, Ms. Miller incurred Respondent's displeasure, as he began to yell at her. Although it is understandable under the circumstances, Ms. Miller nonetheless, by her own admission, neglected to ask Respondent to allow her to inspect the restaurant. Although Respondent had authorized his employees to deny an inspector access to the restaurant in his absence, they had no such authority while he was on the premises. The employees' refusal of access, given Ms. Miller's return to the premises almost immediately after her departure, constituted only a deferral of the decision given the fact that Respondent had returned while Ms. Miller was still at the restaurant. Under these circumstances, the deferral of the decision did not ripen into a denial unless and until Ms. Miller directed to Respondent her demand of access. Petitioner has thus failed to prove the allegations of the Notice to Show Cause arising out of the January 2, 1991, "inspection." 1/ The alleged violations set forth in DBR Case No. 04-92-85 arose as a result of an encounter between Respondent and food-service inspectors on August 30, 1991. On August 22, 1991, the local office of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants received a complaint from a person who had patronized Respondent's restaurant. She complained that a sign outside Respondent's restaurant was misleading. According to the complaint, the sign advertised a lunch buffet for $2.99, but the price for the lunch buffet, if no drink were ordered, was actually 49 cents more. The rectangular sign itself consists of three parts. The uppermost strip states horizontally: "$5.99 DINNER $5.99." The lowermost strip states horizontally: "$2.99 LUNCH $2.99." The larger middle portion states in small angular script: "Italian." Beside the word, "Italian" runs horizontally the word, "BUFFET" in letters larger than any others on the sign. The four prices were in red, the words "DINNER" and "LUNCH" were in green, the word "Italian" was in green, and the word "BUFFET" was in red. Respondent only offered three items for lunch. The lunch special was salad, spaghetti, and meatballs. The price for the lunch special was $2.99, regardless whether the customer ordered a drink other than water, which was free. The Italian buffet was $2.99, but the menu clearly indicated that the price for the buffet was $3.49 if no beverage (other than water) was ordered. The third item was pizza, which was available a la carte. Respondent's sign was not false or misleading. The sign advertised a lunch available for $2.99 and a lunch--a nourishing and substantial one--was available at that price. Any expectation that the customer could obtain the lunch buffet for $2.99 was not based on a fair reading of the sign, which advertises the standard lunch entry. 2/ Significantly, there was no evidence of any other complaints concerning the accuracy of the sign, which, perhaps not surprisingly, remained unchanged until February, 1992. Unfortunately, Respondent's encounter with Mr. Laforte was no happier than his encounter eight months earlier with Ms. Miller. Respondent is an intelligent, sensitive, honest, and hard-working older gentleman operating a restaurant at which business has been better in previous years. Respondent is also impulsive, stubborn, cranky, and quick to demand special treatment. There is no doubt that the patience of most food- service inspectors would be quickly exhausted when confronted by Respondent's in-your-face style of interpersonal relations, constant carping about all but the most obvious of deficiencies noted in routine inspections, repeated insistence upon nonexistent constitutional rights to protect his property (i.e., the restaurant) from the trespasses (i.e., inspections) of government employees, frequent charges of selective enforcement, and willingness to go over the head of the inspector at what he perceived as the slightest provocation (e.g., an inspection). Omitting the subordinate details of escalating unpleasantries between Mr. Laforte and Respondent, the key event is that on August 30, 1991, Mr. Laforte and his immediate supervisor, Kendall Burkette, visited the restaurant. As a courtesy, they requested the food-service inspector from ORP to accompany them. Her name is Jo Ellen Beekman-Dean. Responsible for routine food-service inspections of Respondent's restaurant, Ms. Beekman-Dean had, and continues to have, a very good relationship with Respondent. Among other things, Respondent had allowed her to make a food-service inspection of his restaurant on July 8, 1991, although she had not made an appointment first. As the trio entered the restaurant at about 1:30 p.m., they asked a waitperson or cashier who was in charge. They were introduced to John Bauer, who was a cook. They asked to see the restaurant license, which was not posted at the cashier's station. Mr. Bauer led them to the storeroom, but they could not find the restaurant license that DBR had issued. In fact, Respondent had closed his restaurant due to declining business earlier in the year and had not paid to renew his license at the normal time in April. However, he had paid the normal fee and late charges on August 6, 1991, about three weeks prior to the August 30 inspection. Moreover, Mr. Laforte had handled the paperwork on Respondent's late renewal. Mr. Laforte had issued Respondent a receipt, which serves as a temporary license. However, Respondent did not understand this fact and had not posted the receipt/temporary license pending the arrival of the permanent license, which had not yet been sent from Tallahassee. The alleged violations set forth in DBR Case No. 04-92-84 arose as a result of the August 30 inspection conducted by Ms. Beekman-Dean, as well as subsequent activities occurring on September 9 and 10, 1991. Ms. Beekman-Dean decided to conduct a food-service inspection on August 30 because she was already at the premises. At the time, she was required to conduct four such inspections annually; if possible, quarterly. She had conducted an inspection on July 8, reinspected certain deficiencies on July 22, and reinspected on August 12 those deficiencies not remedied by July 22. The deficiencies were cleared up by then and Ms. Beekman-Dean determined that the restaurant was in compliance. As Ms. Beekman-Dean conducted her inspection, she encountered Art, Jr., who had evidently not been in the restaurant when Ms. Beekman-Dean, Mr. Laforte, and Mr. Burkette had first arrived. Saying that he was going to call his father about the inspection, Art, Jr. returned to tell her that she could conduct her inspection. During the inspection, Ms. Beekman-Dean discovered that the walk-in cooler was not working and the temperature had reached 60-67 degrees. She contacted her supervisor to obtain approval to enter a Stop Sale Order. Getting the supervisor's approval, Ms. Beekman-Dean then informed Art, Jr. of the malfunction. He had not known of the problem and promptly fixed it by flipping a reset switch. As Ms. Beekman-Dean and Mr. Laforte were sitting at a table while Ms. Beekman-Dean finished her paperwork (Mr. Burkette having already left), Respondent returned to the restaurant. Seeing Mr. Laforte, Respondent, still irritated over his feeling that Mr. Laforte had not dealt with him fairly over the signage question, pointed at him and said, "Get out." As Mr. Laforte left, Ms. Beekman-Dean prepared also to depart, but Respondent assured her that she could remain. Finishing her Inspection Report, Ms. Beekman-Dean mentioned the problem with the walk-in cooler. After confirming with his son the existence of the problem, Respondent willingly agreed to destroy the food. For this reason, the most serious deficiency uncovered by Ms. Beekman-Dean's August 30 inspection is not alleged as a deficiency in the Notice to Show Cause in DBR Case No. 04- 92-84 or, thus, DOAH Case No. 91-7103. The only other major deficiency noted on the August 30 Inspection Report, which is Petitioner Exhibit 7, is the failure of the operator to keep the rear (or side) door shut or repair the screen door and then leave it shut. An additional 13 items were noted as minor deficiencies. The deficiencies were: failing to label bulk containers; storing lemons in a sealed, hanging container in the ice machine; storing toxic items improperly; failing to clean the slicer, reach-in cooler, dry-storage shelves, mixer, outside of the ice machine, floor fan, and cooler gaskets; failing to refinish or replace rusted shelves in the reach-in freezer; failing to provide soap at a hand sink; failing to bag all garbage before placing in the dumpster, failing to clean the dumpster, and failing to keep the dumpster lid closed; failing to clean area around the dumpster; failing to clean floors, failing to ensure all surfaces are smooth and easily cleanable, and failing to install molding between the floor and wall to facilitate cleanliness; failing to repair holes in the walls and ensure that that the walls and ceiling in food prep room meet; failing to provide shields on all lights in kitchen, prep areas, coolers, and freezers; and failing to post a DBR restaurant license. As is the typical practice, Ms. Beekman-Dean gave Respondent a period of time to correct the deficiencies. In this case, she wrote on the form that a reinspection would take place on September 9, 1991. Ms. Beekman-Dean handed Respondent a copy of the Inspection Report, which prominently displayed the reinspection date. Respondent promptly contacted Petitioner's offices in Tallahassee to complain about selective enforcement and bias. When Ms. Beekman-Dean returned around lunchtime to reinspect the premises on September 9, 1991, Respondent said he was busy preparing food, refused her access to the restaurant, and invited her to return later in the day. She declined and warned him that she would have to report this. He acknowledged her warning and said that she would have to do what duty required. Some follow-up activities took place, first in connection with an informal conference and later in connection with prehearing preparation in connection with the above-styled cases. The material allegations end as of September 9, when Respondent refused Ms. Beekman-Dean to conduct the reinspection as previously scheduled. It is sufficient to note that, based on inspections that Respondent permitted on October 2, 1991, and March 6, 1992, he had not repaired the screen door by the September 9 reinspection date and a number of the minor deficiencies remained uncorrected as of that time as well.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating the above-cited statutory and regulatory provisions, imposing an administrative fine of $1000, and requiring Respondent to attend a Hospitality Education Program, at his expense, within six months of the date of the final order. ENTERED this 18th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1992.
