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 The issue in this case is whether on January 26, August 27, and August 28, 2012, Respondent was in compliance with the food safety requirements of section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and implementing administrative rules of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and if not, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division) is responsible for monitoring all licensed food service establishments in the state to ensure that they comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. St. Johns Seafood and Oyster Bar, Inc., (St. Johns) is a licensed permanent public food service establishment operating at 7546 Beach Boulevard in Jacksonville, Florida. Its license must be renewed annually. Ms. Iliana Espinosa-Beckert has been employed by the Division for about five and a half years. She is a sanitation and safety specialist with the Division. She has had training, including formal initial training, on-the-job training, and monthly in-house training, in sanitation and inspection. She is a certified food manager. On January 26, 2012, Inspector Espinosa-Beckert conducted a food service inspection of St. Johns. Inspector Espinosa-Beckert prepared a Food Service Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-015, using her personal data assistant (PDA) to record the violations that she observed during the inspection. The manager of the restaurant, Mr. Robert Rukab, acknowledged receipt of the report on behalf of St. Johns. During the January inspection, Ms. Espinosa-Beckert observed that St. Johns had potentially hazardous cold food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. She noted that shrimp, fish, scallops, oysters, and clams had a temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit at the seafood reach-in cooler (seafood cooler), and recorded this on her report. The Division has determined that failure to maintain cold food at proper temperatures poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare because of the potential for growth of harmful bacteria, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. Ms. Espinosa-Beckert also observed during the January inspection that the seafood cooler was incapable of maintaining potentially hazardous food at proper temperatures. She noted on her report that there was no thermometer installed inside the seafood cooler, but that her measurements indicated that all of the seafood was at a temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit. On August 27, 2012, Ms. Espinosa-Beckert conducted another inspection of St. Johns. She again prepared an inspection report on DBPR Form HR 5022-015 using her PDA to record the violations that she observed. Ms. Espinosa-Beckert made Mr. Rukab aware of the violations she found, but Mr. Rukab was upset and refused to acknowledge receipt of the report on behalf of St. Johns. During the August 27, 2012, inspection, Ms. Espinosa- Beckert observed that St. Johns had potentially hazardous cold food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. She noted that cheese, chicken, and pasta were at 49 degrees Fahrenheit in a reach-in cooler in a food preparation area near the cook line (prep-line cooler), and recorded this on her report, along with a notation that it was a repeat violation. Inspector Espinosa-Beckert testified that this was a true “cold-holding” violation. She stated that her measurements of the temperature of the food were taken after the food had gone through the cooling period that is allowed for food to reach the proper temperature. Ms. Espinosa-Beckert noted in her report that the prep-line cooler was incapable of maintaining potentially hazardous food at proper temperatures. She recorded that the ambient temperature in the prep-line cooler was 46 degrees Fahrenheit and that foods were at a temperature of 49 degrees Fahrenheit, noting that this was a repeat violation. During the August 27, 2012, inspection, Ms. Espinosa- Beckert also observed that St. Johns was operating without a current license, because its license had expired on June 1, 2012. She noted this in her report. Ms. Espinosa-Beckert also observed both live and dead roaches on the premises.1/ She scheduled a call-back inspection for the following day, August 28, 2012. Inspector Espinosa-Beckert prepared a Call Back Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-005, as well as DBPR Form HR 5022-015 on August 28, 2012, using her PDA to record the violations that she observed. Mr. Rukab apologized for his refusal to sign the previous day, and acknowledged receipt of the report on behalf of St. Johns. On August 28, 2012, Ms. Espinosa-Beckert observed that the prep-line cooler thermometer now read 35 degrees and that cheese was 39 degrees Fahrenheit and pasta was at 40 degrees, within approved temperature limits. She noted this on the first page of her report. The license had not been renewed since the previous day. The Division served an Administrative Complaint against St. Johns for the above violations on or about September 6, 2012. On both January 26 and August 27, 2012, St. Johns had potentially hazardous food that was not being maintained at or below a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit. While evidence was presented that on different dates two individual coolers were incapable of maintaining potentially hazardous food at proper temperatures, there was also evidence that on these occasions there was additional adequately cooled space available which could have been utilized to meet the demands of St. Johns’ operations. At hearing, Ms. Espinosa- Beckert testified as follows: Q: Did he have any other cooler available where he could have moved the food? A: He had the –- yes, he did. He has the other, which is the seafood cooler, which I don’t think they put anything ready- to-eat in that one. But he has a two-door upright cooler also on the opposite side of this one I made a violation, and that was OK also. So he could have moved the food. The evidence did not show that on either January 26, 2012, or August 27, 2012, the cooling equipment available at St. Johns was insufficient in number or capacity to maintain all food at required temperatures. On August 27 and 28, 2012, St. Johns was operating without a license, as its old license had been expired for more than 60 days. Additional evidence introduced at hearing and considered solely for purposes of penalty calculation showed that St. Johns had two previous disciplinary Final Orders entered within 24 months of the Administrative Complaint issued in this case. The first of these was a Stipulation and Consent Order signed by Mr. Rukab on behalf of St. Johns on March 9, 2011, and filed on March 24, 2011, in Case No. 2011-02147. The Order was in settlement of an Administrative Complaint issued on February 23, 2011. That Administrative Complaint alleged violations of the Food Code based upon inspections conducted on April 27, 2010, November 23, 2010, November 24, 2010, and February 8, 2011. Some of the allegations would have constituted critical violations. The second of the previous disciplinary orders was a Final Order on Waiver filed on August 10, 2011. Respondent had been served an Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights on June 1, 2011, but had failed to respond by June 22, 2011. That Administrative Complaint alleged violations of the Food Code based upon inspections conducted on April 26, 2011, and May 3, 2011. The Final Order on Waiver imposed a fine of $4,400 for several violations, some of which were critical violations.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order finding St. Johns Seafood and Oyster Bar, Inc., has committed a critical violation and was operating with a license expired for more than 60 days, and imposing a fine of $1,500, to be paid within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 2013.
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 The issue in this case is whether on April 5 and October 18, 2011, and on February 28, 2012, Respondent was in compliance with the food safety requirements of section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and implementing administrative rules of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and if not, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division) is responsible for monitoring all licensed food-service establishments in the state to ensure that they comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Mr. Douglas Peterson has been employed as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Division for five and one-half years. He previously worked in the restaurant industry for over 21 years, including eight years as a kitchen manager and five years as a restaurant assistant manager. He has had training, including monthly in-house training and field training, in food inspection. On average, he conducts about five safety and sanitation inspections of food-service establishments per day, and about 1000 inspections per year. China King is a licensed permanent public food-service establishment operating at 4941 East Busch Boulevard, Suite 120, in Tampa, Florida. The owner of China King, Mr. Chi Kin Chan, speaks very little English. Representing the restaurant was Mr. Chan’s daughter, Ms. Man Chan, who assists her father with the restaurant. Under all of the circumstances, including the facts that Ms. Chan helps operate the restaurant, demonstrated basic knowledge of applicable statutes and rules, and demonstrated her ability to capably and responsibly represent Respondent, Ms. Chan was accepted as a Qualified Representative. China King was inspected by Mr. Peterson on August 25, 2010, and October 26, 2010. The Administrative Complaint alleged violations based upon these inspections, and testimony and exhibits as to these violations were offered at hearing. However, an earlier Administrative Complaint relating to these inspections has already been settled, as discussed below. The Stipulation and Consent Order in the earlier case settled any violations based upon these inspections, and no purpose is served by delineating the details of those inspections here. On April 5, 2011, Inspector Peterson conducted another food service inspection on China King. Inspector Peterson prepared a Food Service Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022- 015, using his Personal Data Assistant (PDA) to record the violations that he observed during the inspection. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the report on behalf of China King. During the April inspection, Mr. Peterson observed that China King had ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on-site and held more than 24 hours that had not been properly date-marked in the walk-in cooler, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that lack of proper date marking poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. Mr. Peterson also observed during the April inspection that China King was storing food on the floor in the cooks’ line and in the preparation area, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that storing food on the floor poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. During the April inspection, Mr. Peterson observed the improper use of a plastic food container or other container with no handle being used to scoop or dispense food that was not ready-to-eat, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that using containers without handles to scoop or dispense food fails to minimize food contact with bare hands, and poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Division has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. On October 18, 2011, Mr. Peterson conducted another inspection of China King. Inspector Peterson again prepared an inspection report on DBPR Form HR 5022-015 using his PDA to record the violations that he observed. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the report on behalf of China King. During the October inspection, Mr. Peterson again observed ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on- site and held more than 24 hours that had not been properly date-marked in the walk-in cooler, including egg rolls, cooked chicken, pork, and shrimp. He recorded this information in his report, along with a notation that it was a repeat violation. Mr. Peterson also observed food stored on the floor in the walk-in during his October inspection. He recorded this, noting that it was a repeat violation. During the October inspection, Mr. Peterson observed the improper use of a bowl or plastic food container without a handle as a scoop to dispense non ready-to-eat foods such as flour and starch, as well as ready-to-eat foods such as salt and sugar. He noted this in his report, along with a notation that this was corrected on-site. Mr. Peterson also observed an employee with no hair restraint during the October inspection. He noted this in his report along with the fact that it was corrected while he was on-site. On February 28, 2012, Mr. Peterson conducted a stipulation call-back inspection, as well as a full inspection of the China King. A stipulation call-back inspection is an inspection that is required as part of a stipulation which is conducted for the limited purpose of determining whether specific violations noted earlier have been corrected. Inspector Peterson prepared a Call Back Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-005, as well as DBPR Form HR 5022-015 on February 28, 2012, using his PDA to record the violations that he observed. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the reports on behalf of China King. On February 28, 2012, Mr. Peterson again observed that ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food that had been prepared on-site and held more than 24 hours had not been date-marked. He noted this in his reports. Mr. Peterson again observed food stored on the floor in the walk-in and cooks’ line during his February inspection and made note of this in his reports. Mr. Peterson again observed a can without a handle being used to scoop rice on February, 28, 2012, as was noted in his reports. Mr. Peterson also observed an employee without a hair restraint during his February inspection, noting this in his reports. In response to questioning from Respondent at hearing, Inspector Peterson stated that he was familiar with the description of the inspection process set out on the Division of Hotels and Restaurants’ website. Inspector Peterson was aware that these procedures state that an inspector will invite the manager to accompany him on the inspection walk-through, and that the inspector will go over each item on the inspection report. Mr. Peterson testified that at each inspection he advised persons at the restaurant of the violations and the need to correct them. Mr. Chi Kin Chan, owner of China King, testified that Mr. Peterson did show his badge when he conducted the inspection on February 28, 2012, although he did not announce who he was. Mr. Chan testified that Mr. Peterson just went through the restaurant on his own and did not invite Mr. Chan or anyone else from the restaurant to accompany him on his inspection. Mr. Chan testified that Mr. Peterson then just went to the front of the restaurant and prepared his report without discussing any of the alleged violations with Mr. Chan or operators of the restaurant. Mr. Taoso Tevega is engaged to be married to Ms. Man Chan, and so is the prospective son-in-law of Mr. Chan. Mr. Tevega occasionally assists the Chan family with the restaurant, but does not receive any paycheck from China King. He works in the receiving department of Advance Auto Parts. Mr. Tevega was present at China King during the February 28, 2012, inspection. Mr. Tevega testified that on February 28, 2012, Inspector Peterson just showed up in the back of China King without identifying himself and that he did not ask anyone to accompany him as he went about the restaurant conducting his inspection. Mr. Tevega testified that Mr. Peterson did not discuss or explain the violations to anyone, but just had Ms. Chan sign the report. Mr. Peterson testified that he was in business casual attire, with his employee identification tag secured from a lanyard worn around his neck, and that he presented identification before beginning each inspection. Mr. Peterson identified himself by displaying his badge before and during the February 28, 2012, inspection, as testified to by Mr. Chan and Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson did not invite anyone to accompany him as he conducted the inspection on February 28, 2012, as Mr. Chan and Mr. Tevega testified. Mr. Peterson advised operators at the restaurant of the violations and the need to correct them, as he testified. The Division issued an Administrative Complaint against China King for the above violations on or about March 7, 2012. Additional evidence introduced at hearing showed that China King had a previous disciplinary Final Order entered within 24 months of the Administrative Complaint issued in this case. That Stipulation and Consent Order was signed by China King Manager Ko Chan on January 13, 2012, and was filed on January 24, 2012. In the Order, China King agreed to pay a fine of $900.00, but neither admitted nor denied the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint. Some of those allegations would have constituted critical violations. The January 24, 2012, Stipulation and Consent Order was in settlement of an Administrative Complaint issued on November 8, 2010. That Administrative Complaint alleged violations of the Food Code based upon inspections conducted on August 25, 2010, and October 26, 2010, two of the inspections for which testimony and documentary evidence was submitted in this case, but which are discussed here only for penalty purposes.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a Final Order finding China King in violation of three critical violations and one non-critical violation and imposing a fine of $2,625, to be paid within 30 calendar days of the filing of the Final Order with the Agency Clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 2012.
The Issue The issue 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 Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating and inspecting restaurants. Respondent is licensed and regulated by Petitioner. Respondent’s permanent food service license number is 6902905. Respondent’s license address is 3785 Orlando Drive, Sanford, Florida 32773-5686. Petitioner's inspector inspected Respondent on July 8, 2002. Several deficiencies were noted by the inspector. Among the deficiencies were the following: (1) violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-4.023(4)(a), “there was no proof of employee training available for employees employed for sixty days or more"; (2) violation of Section 3-304.14(B)(2), 1999 Food Code, Recommendations of the United States Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration (incorporated into Florida Law by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61C), “there were wiping cloths on the food prep counters that were not stored in sanitizer"; (3) violation of Section 4-601.11(A), 1999 Food Code, Recommendations of the United States Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, “the reach-in freezer by the grill had old food debris built-up on the inside"; and violation of Section 6-501.111, 1999 Food Code, Recommendations of the United States Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, “observed flies in the kitchen area.” One deficiency of critical concern was that Respondent's employees had failed to complete their food service training. The Food Service Inspection Report of the July 8, 2002, inspection advised Respondent: WARNING: Violations in the operation of your establishment must be corrected by July 22, 2002 at 8:00 AM. On July 25, 2002, Petitioner's inspector returned for a re-inspection of the deficiencies noted during the July 8, 2002, inspection. The four deficiencies mentioned in paragraph 3, supra, had not been corrected. During the re-inspection, the following observations were made: "53B No proof of employee certification available for employees employed 60 days or more"; "21 Wiping cloths for food prep counters - no sanitizer"; "22 Mini freezer @ grill w/ old food debris built up on inside of reach in"; and "35 Flies in kitchen areas." Respondent did not appear at the final hearing and, therefore, did not present any mitigating circumstances.
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 Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Imposing an administrative fine of $2,500.00 payable within 45 days of the filing of the final order. Requiring Respondent’s manager(s) to attend a Hospitality Education Program class within 60 days of the filing of the final order and to provide proof of such attendance to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 23rd day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly A. Fields McDonalds Post Office Box 941869 Maitland, Florida 32751 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Geoff luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Respondent violated food safety standards established by section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and the implementing rules as charged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Parties At all times material hereto, Richie Cheesesteak was owned and operated by Richard Fascenda, as a licensed permanent public food-service establishment located at 6191 Deltona Boulevard, Spring Hill, Florida. Mr. Fascenda holds License No. 3700896 to operate Richie Cheesesteak.1/ Mr. Fascenda is the owner/operator of Richie Cheesesteak, as well as the only cook. The Division is responsible for monitoring and inspecting licensed food-service establishments to ensure that they comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules, and the Food Code. Initial Inspection On April 16, 2013, Nick Roff, Sanitation and Safety Specialist for the Division, conducted a food-service inspection of Richie Cheesesteak. On the date of the inspection, Mr. Roff had been employed by the Division for approximately three months and was still under probation. Mr. Roff had no experience in the food- service industry prior to his employment with the Division. Mr. Roff received training from the Division in the laws relating to food service, and has become certified as a food manager. The Division additionally provides monthly in-house training which Mr. Roff has attended. During his probationary period, Mr. Roff accompanied his senior inspector on food-service establishment inspections, observing how the inspector conducted inspections, identified violations, and provided corrective actions. As part of his training, Mr. Roff was also “shadowed” by his senior inspector as Mr. Roff conducted inspections. On the date of the final hearing, Mr. Roff had conducted approximately 600 restaurant inspections. Cited Violations License and Certification On April 16, 2013, Mr. Roff prepared an Inspection Report noting a total of 13 alleged violations of the standards set forth in applicable statutes, administrative rules, and the Food Code. Respondent was cited for an expired license, a high priority violation which was remedied on-site during the inspection. Among the other violations Mr. Roff noted in his Inspection Report was Respondent?s failure to produce proof of a food manager certificate. Section 509.039 provides for a Food Manager Certification Program to ensure all managers of food-service establishments have a demonstrated knowledge of basic food protection practices. The statute further requires that “[a]ll public food-service establishments must provide the division with proof of food-service manager certification upon request, including, but not limited to, at the time of any division inspection of the establishment.” Id. In 2008, Respondent was an assistant manager for Boyz- N-Burgers, operated by McClain Sonic?s, and was certified as a food manager at that time. On the date of inspection, Respondent could not produce a copy of his certificate and explained that the certificate would be on file with his former corporate employer. A food manager certificate expires five years after certification. A violation of section 509.039 is designated by the Division as an intermediate priority violation. Reach-in Cooler Gasket Among the violations Mr. Roff noted was that the gasket on the reach-in cooler was both torn and soiled. Food Code Rule 4-501.11(B) provides, “Equipment components such as doors, seals, hinges, fasteners, and kick plates shall be kept intact, tight, and adjusted in accordance with manufacturer?s specifications.” A torn or otherwise damaged cooler gasket can cause cross-contamination of food and prevent the storage of foods at the required temperature. Respondent?s reach-in cooler is at least 30 years old. Respondent did not testify that the gasket had ever been replaced, although he did state that it has been “siliconed over” on several occasions. Respondent admitted at final hearing that the reach-in cooler gasket was torn in one place. Respondent denied that the gasket was soiled, explaining that there might have been some food spilled on it during lunch and the inspection was conducted right after lunch. Respondent insisted that he wipes down the gasket every day. Violation of rule 4-501.11(B) is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Storage of Utensils Among the other violations observed by Mr. Roff was a knife stored between two pieces of kitchen equipment. Food Code Rule 3-304.12 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: During pauses in FOOD preparation or dispensing, FOOD preparation and dispensing UTENSILS shall be stored: * * * (C) On a clean portion of the FOOD preparation table or cooking EQUIPMENT only if the in-use UTENSIL and the FOOD-CONTACT surface of the FOOD preparation table or cooking EQUIPMENT are cleaned and SANITIZED at a frequency specified under subsections 4-602.11 and 4-702.11. * * * (F) In a container of water if the water is maintained at a temperature of at least 57 degrees Celsius (135 degrees Fahrenheit) and the container is cleaned at a frequency specified under subparagraph 4-602.11(D)(7). Respondent admitted that a knife was stored in the crack between two pieces of kitchen equipment when Mr. Roff made his initial inspection. Violation of rule 3-304.12 is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Improperly Marked Containers Mr. Roff also observed “cookline bottles” stored in squeeze bottles which were not labeled as to their contents. Food Code Rule 3-302.12 reads as follows: Except for containers holding FOOD that can be readily and unmistakably recognized such as dry pasta, working containers holding FOOD or FOOD ingredients that are removed from their original packages for use in the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, such as cooking oils, flour, herbs, potato flakes, salt, spices, and sugar shall be identified with the common name of the FOOD. Respondent keeps two bottles on the cookline, one for oil and one for vinegar. Respondent is the only cook. Respondent testified that he has the bottles marked “oil” and “vinegar” with black marker. He introduced a photograph of the bottles marked as such, but the photograph was taken subsequent to the callback inspection and is not accepted as evidence of the condition of the bottles on the day in question. Mr. Fascenda testified that during the inspection, he showed the bottles to Mr. Roff and pointed out the hand-labeling, but admitted that Mr. Roff could not see the wording because it rubs off easily. Mr. Roff testified he did not recall seeing any labeling on the bottles. Violation of rule 3-302.12 is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Mr. Roff walked through the violations with Respondent, who signed the Inspection Report on April 16, 2013. The Inspection Report noted that a follow-up inspection was required and that the violations must be corrected by June 16, 2013. Callback Inspection On June 17, 2013, Mr. Roff performed a callback inspection at Richie Cheesesteak. Mr. Roff observed that seven of the violations noted in the April 16, 2013, Inspection Report had been corrected. However, the violations detailed above –- gasket on reach-in cooler torn and soiled; knife stored between kitchen equipment; cookline bottles unlabeled; and no proof of food manager training –- were not corrected. Mr. Roff prepared a Callback Inspection Report, which was signed by Respondent. The Callback Inspection Report recommended filing an Administrative Complaint. Petitioner introduced no evidence of prior violations by Respondent of the applicable statutes, administrative rules, or the Food Code. Owner?s Response Certification Respondent maintained it would be impossible to produce his food manager certificate because it was retained by his employer in 2008. Respondent was clearly frustrated with Mr. Roff?s unwillingness to accept the explanation given at the first inspection and was indignant at being fined for lack of food manager certification following the callback inspection. Respondent?s explanation that he was previously certified but that the certificate was retained by his former employer is not a defense. The statute clearly requires production of the food manager certificate when the Division inspects the manager?s food-service establishment. Following the callback inspection, Respondent obtained a Food Manager Certificate, which was introduced at final hearing. Reach-in Cooler Gasket Respondent argued that if the gasket was not functioning, the reach-in cooler would not be maintaining the appropriate temperature, which it was when tested upon inspection. Respondent?s argument is not a defense. Keeping food at the proper temperature is only one of the aims of the rule. The other is to prevent cross-contamination of food in the cooler with substances on the gasket, whether they are foods spilled thereon or bacteria growing in a torn gasket. Respondent further argues that cross-contamination is not an issue since he is the sole operator and cook. Cross- contamination of foods in the reach-in cooler is not a function of how many different employees use the cooler, but rather the condition in which it is kept. Respondent testified that, since the callback inspection, he “siliconed over” the gasket to seal it and improve its appearance. He produced before and after photographs of the gasket at final hearing. Neither picture is evidence of the condition of the gasket upon inspection,since they were taken approximately two weeks before the hearing. If anything, the “before” picture tends to support the Division?s case that the gasket was torn and soiled upon inspection. Storage of Utensils Respondent admitted that a knife was stored between two pieces of kitchen equipment on the date of the first inspection. But, he maintained that was an accident and he does not regularly store knives that way. Improperly Marked Containers Respondent first argued that his oil and vinegar bottles were labeled, although in marker, and he should not be held in violation. The evidence shows that the labels were unrecognizable when the inspections occurred. Respondent next argued that the following facts should be taken into consideration when determining whether he violated the rule. First, there are only two bottles –- oil and vinegar. Accidental mixing of their contents would not create a health hazard or threat. Second, Respondent is the only cook, so mixing the contents is unlikely. Third, the cookline is separated from the cleaning area. Thus the likelihood of mixing the contents of the cookline bottles with bleach or another cleaning product is minimal. While Respondent?s arguments are no defense, they may be considered mitigating factors.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent Richie Cheesesteak violated section 509.039 and Food Code Rules 3-302.12, 3-304.12, 4- 501.11, and 4-601.11, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing an administrative penalty against Respondent Richie Cheesesteak in the amount of $800, payable to the Division within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2013.
