The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are stated in the counts set forth in the Administrative Complaint for each case: Whether Falcon Catering Service No. 7 (hereinafter "Falcon 7") and Falcon Catering Service No. 8 (hereinafter "Falcon 8") failed to maintain the proper protection and temperature requirements for food sold from their mobile site in violation of the federal Food and Drug Administration Food Code ("Food Code"). In the Prehearing Stipulation filed in this matter, each Respondent generally admitted to the violations in the Administrative Complaints, but suggested that mitigating factors should absolve them of the charges or greatly reduce any administrative fine imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is responsible for monitoring all licensed food establishments in the state. It is the Division's duty to ensure that all such establishments comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Respondents Falcon 7 and Falcon 8 are licensed mobile food dispensing vehicles. Falcon 7 has license No. MFD5852560, which was initially issued on April 23, 2005; Falcon 8 has license No. MFD5852642, which was issued on October 19, 2005. Each of the Respondents serves meals and snacks to, inter alia, laborers at construction sites. On or about March 13, 2009, the Division conducted a food service inspection on Falcon 7. At that time, the food truck was located at 4880 Distribution Court, Orlando, Florida. One of the Food Code violations found by the inspector was Item 53b. That citation meant there was no validation of employee training on the truck. A follow-up inspection was deemed to be required. On April 10, 2009, a follow-up inspection was conducted by the Division. At that time, Item 53b was cited as a repeat offense. Also, Item 8a was cited. Item 8a refers to protection of food from contaminants and keeping food at an acceptable temperature. Notes by the inspector indicate that a further violation of Item 8a occurred because customers were allowed to serve themselves directly from food containers, and there was no fan in operation during the serving of food. On May 28, 2009, another inspection of Falcon 7 was conducted. At that time, the food truck was located at 12720 South Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando, Florida. Item 8a was again cited as a deficiency. The inspector's notes indicate that food was not properly protected from contamination and that customers were being served "buffet style" from the back of the truck. The inspector noted that this was a repeat violation. A follow-up or "call-back" inspection was conducted on December 3, 2009, at which time the temperature in Orlando was unusually cold. The food truck was at the same address on Orange Blossom Trail as noted in the prior inspection. Falcon 7 was again found to have been serving food buffet style from the back of the food truck. An Item 8a violation was again noted by the inspector. Another inspection of Falcon 7 was conducted on January 19, 2010, another very cold day in Orlando. At that time, the food truck was located at the same site as the last two inspections. The inspector cited the food truck for an Item 8a violation again, stating that the food was not being protected from contaminants. Dust was flying up on the back of the truck to exposed food items. An inspection of Falcon 8 was conducted on August 25, 2009, while the truck was located at 4880 Distribution Court, Orlando, Florida. An Item 8a violation was noted by the inspector, who found that displayed food was not properly protected from contaminants. The food truck was located under an Interstate 4 overpass and was open to flying debris. The inspector noted that customers were being served buffet style and that there was no protection of food from contamination by the customers. A follow-up inspection for Falcon 8 was conducted on August 27, 2009, at 9:12 a.m., while the food truck was located at the same site. Another Item 8a violation was cited at that time. The violation notes indicate essentially the same situation that had been cited in the initial inspection two days earlier. Less than one hour after the follow-up inspection, another inspection was conducted on Falcon 8 at the same location as the prior two inspections. There were no Item 8a citations issued during this inspection, but the food truck was found to have no water available for hand washing. The food truck employee was using a hand sanitizer to clean her hands. Respondents do not dispute the facts set forth above. However, Respondents provided mitigating facts for consideration in the assessment of any penalty that might be imposed. Those mitigating factors are as follows: The food trucks were serving an inordinately large number of workers during the dates of the inspections. The City of Orlando was constructing its new basketball arena, and there were numerous laborers involved in the project. In order to serve the workers, it was necessary for the food trucks to put their food out on tables, rather than ladle the food directly from the food warmers in the food truck. In fact, the shelves in the food trucks are so narrow that dipping food out of the warmers would be impossible. Due to the cold weather in Orlando during this time, it was impossible to keep the food at acceptable temperature levels for very long. The large number of workers washing their hands at the food trucks caused the trucks to run out of water much more quickly than normal. When the water ran out, the employees took care to sanitize their hands as well as possible. Ms. Falcon testified that the inspector's testimony concerning use of tables to serve food was erroneous. However, Sabrina Falcon was not present during the inspections, and her contradictory testimony is not reliable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, imposing a fine of $500.00 against Falcon Catering Service, No. 7, in DOAH Case No. 10-10925; and a fine of $750.00 against Falcon Catering Service, No. 8, in DOAH Case No. 10-10930. All fines should be paid within 30 days of the entry of the Final Order by the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 10th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Sabrina Falcon Falcon Catering Service 642 Mendoza Drive Orlando, Florida 32825 Megan Demartini, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of the violation described in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of restaurants pursuant to chapter 509. By rule, it has incorporated by reference the regulations in the federal Food Code. These regulations apply to all public food service establishments. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.001(14). Respondent operates a public restaurant (using its corporate name) located at 12318 University Mall Court, Tampa, Florida, and is subject to Petitioner's regulatory jurisdiction. It holds license number NOS3917320 (Permanent Food Service). Rule 61C-1.005(5)(a)-(c) classifies violations of the Food Code as either "high priority," "intermediate," or "basic," essentially reflecting the level of threat to public health posed by the deficiency. A high priority violation is one that poses a direct or significant threat to public health. Id. This type of violation is at issue in this case. Around 12:24 p.m. on June 11, 2014, Ashley Herrmann, a trained and experienced sanitation and safety specialist employed by Petitioner, performed a routine inspection of Respondent's restaurant, during which Ms. Herrmann observed various violations of the Food Code, including a "high priority" violation. According to the Food Code, except during preparation, cooking, or cooling, potentially hazardous food must be maintained at a temperature of 41° Fahrenheit or less.2 See rule 3-501.16(A)(2)(a), Food Code. A violation of this regulation is classified a high priority violation because food maintained above that temperature is a major contributor to foodborne illnesses. Ms. Herrmann observed several potentially hazardous food items in the walk-in cooler, including (a) raw meat/ poultry, (b) cooked fruits/vegetables, and (c) cheese/milk/ creamer/other dairy products, that were maintained at a temperature greater than 41° Fahrenheit. See Ex. 2. At the conclusion of her inspection, Ms. Herrmann prepared a written report documenting the Food Code violations observed by her. A copy of the inspection report was given to Javari Moore, an employee who was present at that time, and the violations were explained to him. Also, he was told that the violations must be corrected by 10:30 a.m. the following day, June 12, 2014, and that a call-back inspection would be performed at that time to verify that the violations had been corrected. Around 10:30 a.m. on June 12, 2014, Ms. Herrmann performed a call-back inspection of Respondent's premises. While some violations had been corrected, she observed that the high priority Food Code violations observed during the routine inspection on June 11, 2014, had not been corrected. See Ex. 3. Before leaving, Ms. Herrmann provided a copy of the inspection report to Mr. Moore and discussed the violations with him. The findings contained in the inspection reports were used in the preparation of an Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent. Other than stating that no food had been taken out of the walk-in cooler that morning, Mr. Moore gave no further explanation for the high priority violation.3 There is no evidence that Respondent has been found guilty of a prior offense of this nature.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order finding that Respondent is guilty of one high priority violation, and imposing a fine of $250.00. Such fine shall be due and payable to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 calendar days of the date the final order is filed with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 21st day of October, 2014.
The Issue Whether the allegations set forth as count one in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Petitioner), against Bistro on Park Avenue (Respondent) are correct, and if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2013).1/ At all times material to this case, the Respondent was operating as a public restaurant located at 348 North Park Avenue, Suite 5, Winter Park, Florida 32789. On December 14, 2012, Dennis Watson, a trained and experienced sanitation and safety specialist employed by the Petitioner, performed a routine inspection of the Respondent, during which Mr. Watson observed various violations of the Food Code. At the conclusion of the routine inspection, Mr. Watson prepared a written report documenting the Food Code violations that he had observed. Before leaving the premises, Mr. Watson discussed his observations with Mr. Boesch and provided him with a copy of the inspection report. According to the inspection report, the violations were to have been corrected by 8:00 a.m., on February 15, 2013, at which time a "callback" inspection was scheduled to occur. The purpose of the callback inspection was to determine whether the Food Code violations identified during the routine inspection had been resolved. The callback inspection occurred on February 19, 2013. Some of the Food Code violations observed during the routine inspection were again observed during the callback inspection. Between the routine inspection and the callback inspection, the Petitioner amended its rules and began to apply an updated version of the Food Code. In relevant part, both versions of the Food Code identify proper food storage temperatures applicable to potentially hazardous food products. The storage of such products at improper temperatures can result in bacterial or pathogenic contamination of the product and can cause serious illness in humans who consume the contaminated products. Both versions of the Food Code require that certain cold food products be stored at temperatures of 41°F or less. At the time of the routine inspection, the applicable Food Code identified violations of the referenced food temperature standard as "critical" violations. By the time of the callback inspection, the updated Food Code being utilized by the Petitioner identified violations of the food temperature standard as "high priority" violations. According to the report of the routine inspection, Mr. Watson observed that both crème brulee and tiramisu were being held at 44 degrees. According to the report of the callback inspection, Mr. Watson observed that crème brulee was being held at 46 degrees and that butter was being held at 47 degrees. At the time of both inspections, the cited items were stored in a glass door cooler. At the hearing, Mr. Boesch asserted that the temperatures measured by Mr. Watson were not accurate. Mr. Boesch produced the thermometer he used at his restaurant and argued that the thickness of the cited food products was insufficient to permit an accurate determination of their temperatures with his thermometer. Mr. Watson testified that the construction of the thermometer used to measure food temperatures during inspections was superior to that of the thermometer being used by Mr. Boesch. Mr. Watson testified that his thermometer was capable of accurately determining the temperature of food products during the inspection and that he routinely calibrated the thermometer to make certain that it was performing properly. Mr. Watson's testimony and the measurements obtained through his thermometer have been accepted and are credited.
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 $250 against the Respondent, and requiring that the Respondent complete an appropriate educational program related to the violation identified herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 2013.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the alleged violations set forth in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint occurred, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and witness testimony presented and the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Petitioner is a state agency charged with the regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2004). The Respondent, Amici's Pizza, is a restaurant located at 1718 North Goldenrod Road in Orlando, Florida. The records of the Division indicate that the restaurant is also known as Amici's Italian Kitchen and Pizzeria. The Respondent holds License No. NOS5808584. James Thomason is a Senior Sanitary and Safety Specialist employed by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. His duties include inspecting food service establishments and lodging facilities for compliance with applicable law. He conducts approximately 4000 inspections per year for the Division. On August 27, 2004, Mr. Thomason conducted a routine inspection of Amici's Pizza and issued an inspection report. In his report, Mr. Thomason noted several violations, among which are the two violations that are charged in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint: cheese and sausage in the preparation area were above the maximum allowable temperature, and the pizza cooler was not maintaining food at sufficiently low temperatures. The August 27, 2004, inspection report indicated that the two violations were "critical violations," meaning they posed an immediate threat to the public. The public threat associated with food not being kept at a low temperature is the possible consumption of bacteria-contaminated food. Because Mr. Thomason found what he believed to be critical violations at Amici's Pizza, he indicated in his inspection report that the violations had to be corrected by August 30, 2004. A copy of the inspection report was given to the owner of Amici's Pizza, Dion Nunez, on August 27, 2004, at the conclusion of the inspection. Mr. Thomason discussed the violations that he had noted in the report with Mr. Nunez, and Mr. Nunez signed the report. Mr. Thomason conducted a "call back" inspection of Amici's Pizza on August 30, 2004, and noted in his inspection report for that date that the two critical violations identified above had not been corrected. The non-critical violations had been corrected. Mr. Thomason determined on his August 27, 2004, inspection that the temperature of cheese and sausage on the "make line" was 51 degrees Fahrenheit ("F") and 58 degrees F, respectively. As set forth more fully, below, the maximum temperature allowed for these foods was 41 degrees F. Mr. Nunez did not dispute Mr. Thomason's determination on August 27, 2004, that the temperature of the cheese and sausage on the make line exceeded allowable temperatures. In fact, Mr. Nunez responded by immediately disposing of the cheese and sausage. When Mr. Thomason made his call back inspection of Amici's Pizza on August 30, 2004, he found the temperature of the cheese and sausage on the make line was 50 degrees F and 62 degrees F, respectively. Mr. Nunez did not dispute Mr. Thomason's August 30, 2004, findings regarding food temperature. Mr. Nunez did not dispute Mr. Thomason's findings on August 27 and August 30, 2004, that the cooler at Amici's Pizza was not keeping the foods in the cooler at or below 41 degrees F. Mr. Nunez' stated that he tried to get an electrician to fix his cooler before the August 30, 2004, call back inspection, but was unable to get an electrician who could respond that soon. Mr. Nunez attributed this problem to the fact that August 27, 2004, was a Friday, giving him only the weekend to find an electrician, and also to the recent passage of a hurricane through the area. Amici's Pizza continued to serve customers during the time that the cooler remained un-repaired, but Mr. Nunez used ice in an attempt to lower the temperature.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order that finds the Respondent violated Food Code Rules 3-501.16(A)(2) and 4-302.11, and imposes an administrative fine of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 22nd day of September, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Dion Nunez Amici's Pizza 525 South Ronald Reagan Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32750 Dion Nunez 1718 North Goldenrod Road Orlando, Florida 32818 Tonya S. Chavis, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2005). The Respondent is a restaurant located at 2311 West Hillsborough Avenue, in Tampa, Florida, holding Permanent Food Service license number 3910762. Jesus Gonzalez is identified on the license as the owner of the Respondent. On October 4, 2005, Catherine Lombard, employed by the Petitioner as a safety and sanitation specialist, performed a routine inspection of the Respondent and found violations of applicable Food Code regulations. The violations were noted in a written report. Ms. Lombard provided a copy of the report identifying the violations to the person in charge of the restaurant on the date of the inspection, and scheduled a re-inspection for November 4, 2005. On November 7, 2005, Ms. Lombard re-inspected the Respondent and determined that some of the violations identified during the inspection on October 4, 2005, remained uncorrected. The violations were noted in a written report, a copy of which was provided to the person in charge of the restaurant on the date of the re-inspection. On November 29, 2005, the Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, alleging various continuing and uncorrected violations identified during the inspections. Violations that pose an immediate threat to public health and safety are identified as critical. Violations that do not pose an immediate threat are identified as non-critical. During the inspections on October 4, 2005, and on November 7, 2005, the ventilation hood's fire suppression system tag had expired according to the date on the tag, and there was no current hood system report. These violations were identified as critical because failure of the fire suppression system located above the cooking equipment could result in an uncontrolled fire with loss of life and property. During the inspections on October 4, 2005, and on November 7, 2005, Ms. Lombard observed uncooked food being thawed in a bucket of standing water at room temperature. On October 4, 2005, the food in the water was fish. On November 7, 2005, the food in the water was sausage. This violation was identified as critical because thawing food in room-temperature standing water can permit growth of food-borne bacteria and result in severe illness for persons consuming improperly thawed food. During the inspections on October 4, 2005, and on November 7, 2005, Ms. Lombard observed that food refrigeration units lacked conspicuously located thermometers. This violation was identified as critical because the lack of conspicuously located thermometers makes it more likely that an inadequately operating refrigeration unit will go unnoticed, thereby increasing the risk of food-borne illness related to improper food storage. During the inspections on October 4, 2005, and on November 7, 2005, Ms. Lombard observed an uncovered electrical panel box located in the kitchen. This violation was identified as critical because of the obvious risk to kitchen workers presented by "live" electrical wiring located in proximity to wet kitchen floors. During the inspections on October 4, 2005, and on November 7, 2005, Ms. Lombard observed that a vacuum breaker was missing at a hose bib. This violation was identified as critical because, absent a properly installed vacuum break device, contaminated water in a hose may enter into the potable water supply and be consumed by the public potentially resulting in illness. During the inspections on October 4, 2005, and on November 7, 2005, Ms. Lombard identified several non-critical violations, including the failure to place wet table wiping cloths into a sanitizing solution; a lack of hand-drying provisions in the restroom; damage to the wall behind the food preparation line, which made adequate cleaning of the wall difficult; failure to store utensils in a clean and protected location; and failure to hang a wet mop so as to permit the mop to dry.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order imposing a fine of $3,600 against the Respondent and requiring the Respondent to attend an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Jesus Gonzalez Tainos Cafe 2311 West Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603 George Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2009). At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a restaurant operating at 1311 Sligh Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32806, and holding food service license number 5811824. On June 12, 2009, Andrea Piel, a trained sanitation safety specialist employed by the Petitioner, performed a routine inspection of the Respondent. During the June 12, 2009, inspection, Ms. Piel observed two general types of food code violations that she deemed to be "critical": a failure to maintain proper food temperatures; and a failure to identify the dates upon which certain prepared or processed food products were presented for sale. Critical food code violations are those that, if uncorrected, present an immediate threat to public safety. During the June 12, 2009, inspection, Ms. Piel observed that a "maketable" reach-in cooler was unable to maintain proper temperature and that potentially hazardous cold foods were being held in the cooler at temperatures greater than 41 degrees. The failure to maintain proper food temperatures can result in rapid bacterial contamination sufficient to cause serious illness in persons consuming improperly stored food. During the June 12, 2009, inspection, Ms. Piel notified Debbie Arent of the problem with the cooler, and Ms. Arent transferred the food product held from the malfunctioning cooler to one that was maintaining proper temperature. During the same inspection, Ms. Piel observed that food products being offered for sale lacked date markings important to determining the shelf life of the products. Prepared and packaged foods have a shelf life of seven days when maintained at proper temperatures. Such foods must be date-marked to permit determination of the shelf life of the product. The failure to identify the date upon which packaged or prepared food products are made available for sale can result in food being offered for sale beyond proper shelf life. Consumption of food beyond the shelf life, even if stored at proper temperatures, can increase the risk of food-borne illness in persons consuming the food. During the June 12, 2009, inspection, Ms. Piel observed potentially hazardous ready-to-eat food products (specifically, potatoes) that had been prepared on site and that were not properly date-marked. Ms. Piel also observed packaged processed foods including cheese, deli meats, and hot dogs, opened and presented for sale, that were not properly date-marked. Ms. Piel performed a callback inspection on June 16, 2009, at which time she determined that the critical deficiencies observed on June 12, 2009, had been cured or that additional time was required for correction. At the time of the callback inspection, no food was present in the malfunctioning cooler, and Ms. Arent had scheduled a service call to address the problem. On October 6, 2009, Ms. Piel performed a routine inspection, at which time she observed several critical food code violations that were the same as those cited in the June 12, 2009, inspection report. During the October 6, 2009, inspection, Ms. Piel observed that once again, the "maketable" reach-in cooler was not maintaining proper temperature and that potentially hazardous cold foods were being held in the cooler at temperatures greater than 41 degrees. At the hearing, Ms. Arent testified that the reason the foods held in the cooler were not at proper temperature on October 6, 2009, was because Ms. Piel opened the cooler doors and left them opened for upwards of ten minutes, which, Ms. Arent suggested, allowed the food in the cooler to warm. Ms. Arent's testimony was not credible on this point and has been rejected. Ms. Arent offered no rationale as to why Ms. Piel would want to raise the food temperature readings for the food products stored in the cooler. During the October 6, 2009, inspection, Ms. Piel observed cheeses and prepared cheese sauce, sausage, beans, deli meats, hot dogs, and potatoes that were available for sale and not properly date marked. Ms. Arent testified that no prepared or packaged foods were generally retained for sale after the date upon which the products were prepared or opened. Ms. Arent indicated that packaged processed foods were opened in quantities that would be sold on the date in question and that foods that remained from catering work were generally not offered for sale to customers of the restaurant. Ms. Arent asserted that it would be "ridiculous" to label the packages with the open date. Ms. Arent testified at the hearing that "99 percent" of prepared foods observed by Ms. Piel were made on the morning of the inspection. The apparent assertion that essentially no food is carried from one day to the next lacked credibility, given the types of processed foods (cheeses, deli meats, hot dogs) that were not date-marked. Ms. Arent was present in the establishment during the inspections referenced herein. At the time of each inspection, Ms. Piel produced a written report of her findings and provided a copy of the report to Ms. Arent.
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 against the Jazzy Dog Cafe and requiring that Debbie Arent complete an appropriate educational program related to the violations identified herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Debbie Arent Jazzy Dog Cafe 1311 Sligh Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32806 Vanya Y. Atanasova Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether on March 23, 2012, July 31, 2012, and October 10, 2012, Respondent was out of 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, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, 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. LOLAQ is a limited liability company (LLC) which was licensed to operate a permanent public food service establishment in the State of Florida at all times relevant to this proceeding. It does business as Maggie Qi at 28 West Bayshore Drive on St. George Island, Florida. Mr. James Kourkoulis, sole owner and managing member of LOLAQ, operates the restaurant. Mr. Paul Smith has been employed by the Division for about five years. He is a sanitation and safety specialist with the Division. Prior to his employment with the Division he was employed in the restaurant industry for approximately 30 years. He has had training in sanitation and inspection, including formal initial training, on-the-job training, and monthly in- house training. He is also a certified food manager. He performs between 600 and 1000 inspections each year. On March 23, 2012, Mr. Smith conducted a food service inspection on Maggie Qi. Mr. Smith 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. Ms. Kathyrn McPherson signed the report to acknowledge receipt on behalf of Maggie Qi. When Mr. Smith completed the report, he printed a copy for the restaurant and discussed each violation with Ms. McPherson. He advised Ms. McPherson that all violations needed to be corrected by the next unannounced inspection. During the March inspection, Mr. Smith observed that Maggie Qi had potentially hazardous cold food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. He noted that beef had a temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit in the large cooling unit on the cooks’ line, and recorded this on his 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. During the March inspection, Mr. Smith also observed a buildup of slime in the interior of the ice machine, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that failure to keep food contact surfaces of equipment and utensils clean 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. Smith also made note in his March report that there was no conspicuously located thermometer in the large cooling unit on the cooks’ line. At hearing he explained that there was a thermometer in the unit, but that it was in a difficult place to access in the back of one of the drawers, and so was not properly located. The Division has determined that failure to have thermometers conspicuously placed poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare because of the relationship between temperature and bacteria growth, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022- 015. On July 31, 2012, Mr. Smith conducted another routine inspection of Maggie Qi. Mr. Smith again prepared an inspection report on DBPR Form HR 5022-015, using his PDA to record the violations that he observed. During the July inspection, Mr. Smith observed that Maggie Qi again had potentially hazardous cold food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. He noted that shrimp, beef, and fish had a temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit in the large cooling unit on the cooks’ line. Mr. Smith noted that there was gumbo, a ready–to-eat food, which had been prepared for more than 24 hours and was improperly date-marked. The Division has determined that failure to properly label and date-mark potentially hazardous food prepared on-site and held more than 24 hours 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. Mr. Smith also observed that the thermometer in the large cooling unit on the cooks’ line was still located in the back of the drawer and had not been placed in a conspicuous location since the March inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Smith also noted that the large cooling unit at the cooks’ line was incapable of maintaining potentially hazardous food at prescribed temperatures. All of the food, including beef, shrimp, and fish, was at a temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit. At hearing, Mr. Smith testified that he touched the compressor and found it too hot to keep his hand on it, which, in his experience, indicated that the unit was not working properly. The Division has determined that failure to have adequate facilities to maintain 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. As Mr. Smith noted, Maggie Qi had another walk-in cooler which would have had enough room to hold the food, but it was not near to the cooks’ line. He testified that attempting to use the walk-in cooler in lieu of the malfunctioning unit would have been “extremely inconvenient” and “next to impossible.” This testimony was unrefuted. With the large cooling unit not working properly, Maggie Qi lacked adequate cold-holding capacity at the cooks’ line, and did not have cooling equipment sufficient in number or capacity to meet the cooling demands of its operations. Mr. Smith noted that the buildup of slime in the interior of the ice machine was still there. He further noted that the interior of the oyster reach-in cooler was soiled with an accumulation of food residue, and that there was encrusted material on the can opener. Finally, Mr. Smith observed that a hose bibb located on the wall near the sink (not the sink faucet) was missing a vacuum breaker. He testified that a hose was connected to the hose bibb, and that water from this connection was used to spray down the floor. Mr. Kourkoulis stated at hearing that the vacuum breaker had been removed and was sitting on the sink in the immediate vicinity of the hose bibb. He did not know who took it off. The Division has determined that a plumbing system not designed to prevent backflow of solid, liquid, or gas contaminants into the water supply system 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. Smith recorded all of these violations in his July inspection report. His report advised Maggie Qi of a call back date of October 1, 2012. Mr. Kourkoulis signed this report to acknowledge receipt on behalf of the restaurant. On October 10, 2012, Mr. Smith returned to perform a call back inspection of Maggie Qi. He prepared a Call Back Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-005, using his PDA to record the violations that he observed. The name Tanya Shiver appears on this October report acknowledging receipt on behalf of Maggie Qi. During the October inspection, Mr. Smith observed that the vacuum breaker was still missing from the hose bibb; the buildup of slime in the interior of the ice machine and the encrusted material on the can opener were still there; the interior of the oyster reach-in cooler was still soiled with an accumulation of food residue; the large cooling unit at the cook line still did not have its thermometer conspicuously placed and was still not maintaining proper temperatures for potentially hazardous food; shrimp, fish, and beef were again at a temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit; and gumbo that had been prepared more than 24 hours was again without proper date marking. These violations were recorded on the report. Mr. Smith is a trained professional and his testimony is credited. He testified that on the morning of each inspection he checked the accuracy of his thermometer in ice water, as he had been trained, and that his thermometer was accurate. Reports prepared at the time of the inspections corroborate Mr. Smith’s testimony as to all charged violations. The Division served an Administrative Complaint against Maggie Qi for the above violations on or about October 28, 2012. On March 23, 2012, July 31, 2012, and October 10, 2012, Maggie Qi had potentially hazardous food that was not being maintained at or below a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit. On July 31, 2012, and October 10, 2012, Maggie Qi had refrigerated gumbo, a ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food, which had been prepared and held for more than 24 hours and was not marked to indicate the date by which it needed to be consumed, sold, or discarded. On March 23, 2012, July 31, 2012, and October 10, 2012, the large cooling unit at the cooks’ line in Maggie Qi did not have its thermometer permanently affixed in a location that would allow easy viewing of its temperature display. On July 31, 2012, and October 10, 2012, the equipment for cooling food at Maggie Qi was not sufficient in number or capacity to maintain all food at proper temperatures. On March 23, 2012, July 31, 2012, and October 10, 2012, equipment food-contact surfaces and utensils at Maggie Qi were not clean to sight and touch. On all three dates there was a buildup of slime on the interior of the ice machine. On July 31, 2012, and October 10, 2012, the interior of the oyster reach-in cooler had an accumulation of food residue and there was crusted material on the can opener. On July 31, 2012, and October 10, 2012, Maggie Qi’s plumbing system had not been installed to preclude backflow of contaminants into the water supply system from a hose bibb near the sink. The hose bibb had a hose attached, but did not have a vacuum breaker. No evidence was introduced to indicate that Respondent had any previous 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 LOLAQ, LLC, doing business as Maggie Qi, in violation of six critical violations, and imposing a fine of $2,250, to be paid within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 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 6th day of May, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2003). The Respondent is a restaurant located at 7924 Ulmerton Road in Largo, Florida, holding Permanent Food Service License No. 6213580. Fadil Rexhepi owns and operates the restaurant. On April 25, 2003, an employee representing the Petitioner performed a routine inspection of the Respondent and found violations of applicable Food Code regulations. The violations were noted in a written report. The inspector provided a copy of the report identifying the violations to the person in charge of the restaurant on the date of the inspection, and scheduled a re-inspection for May 30, 2003. On May 30, 2003, the Petitioner’s employee re-inspected the Respondent and determined that some of the violations remained uncorrected. The violations were noted in a written report, a copy of which was provided to the person in charge of the restaurant on the date of the re-inspection. The owner of the restaurant was not present during either inspection. On August 28, 2003, the Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, alleging various continuing and uncorrected violations identified during the inspections. During the inspections on April 25, 2003, and May 30, 2003, food stored in reach-in units was not being maintained at an appropriate temperature of 41 degrees or below. The required storage temperature is intended to prevent development of toxic microorganisms that can result in food safety issues for persons consuming improperly stored food. On April 25, 2003, the inspector found that the temperature of meats, fish, poultry, meatloaf, and milk stored in the units ranged from 46 to 49 degrees. On May 30, 2003, the inspector found that the food temperatures in the same units ranged from 43 to 56 degrees. During the inspections on April 25, 2003, and May 30, 2003, two refrigeration units were not maintaining a proper temperature of 41 degrees or below. During the inspections on April 25, 2003, and May 30, 2003, the inspector noted that the thermal glass in a reach-in unit door was broken. The broken thermal glass results in inability to maintain proper temperatures. During the inspections on April 25, 2003, and May 30, 2003, the Respondent was unable to provide, at the request of the Petitioner's inspector, documentation that employees had completed food safety training. The purpose of food safety training is to permit employees to perform their duties in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Food Code. The Food Code regulation violations identified herein pose a direct threat to public safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order imposing a fine of $2,000 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. McCalister, Qualified Representative Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Fadil Rexhepi 7924 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 33771 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issues in this disciplinary proceeding arise from Petitioner's allegation that Respondent, a licensed restaurant, violated several rules and a statutory provision governing food service establishments. If Petitioner proves one or more of the alleged violations, then it will be necessary to consider whether penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the State agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a restaurant operating at 4743 North Ocean Drive, Sea Ranch Lakes, Florida, and holding food service license number 1621866. On June 18, 2012, and August 20, 2012, Respondent was inspected by Jens Rammelmeier, a senior sanitation and safety specialist employed by the Division. During both visits, Mr. Rammelmeier noticed multiple items that were not in compliance with the laws which govern the facilities and operations of licensed restaurants. Through the testimony of Mr. Rammelmeier and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, the Division presented clear and convincing evidence that, as of August 20, 2012, the following deficiencies subsisted at Respondent Carina's Stone Fired Pizza-Gelato: (1) ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food was held for more than 24 hours with no date marking, in violation of Food Code Rule 3-501.17(B); (2) an employee made bare-hand contact with ready-to-eat foods without a written alternative operating procedure in effect, contrary to Food Code Rule 3-301.11(B); (3) a food handler came into contact with soiled equipment and thereafter engaged in food preparation without washing his hands, in violation of Food Code Rule 2-301.14; (4) an employee engaged in food preparation without wearing a hair restraint, contrary to Food Code Rule 2- 402.11; (5) an accumulation of dead roaches was observed under several kitchen counters and a dishwasher, in violation of Food Code Rule 6-501.112; and (6) no proof of required employee training, contrary to section 509.049. Each of the foregoing deficiencies, with the exception of the violation relating to the hair restraint, is considered a critical violation by the Division. Critical food code violations are those that, if uncorrected, present an immediate threat to public safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order: (a) finding Respondent guilty in accordance with the foregoing Recommended Order; and (b) ordering Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $1100, to be paid within 30 days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 2013.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in an Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Petitioner), against Pita's Restaurant (Respondent) are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2010).1/ At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a restaurant operating at 8412 West Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33615, and holding food service license number 3912285. On October 28, 2009, Rich Decker (Mr. Decker), employed by the Petitioner as a sanitation & safety specialist, performed a routine inspection of the Respondent and observed conditions that violated certain provisions of the Food Code. Food Code violations are classified as "critical" or "non-critical." A critical violation of the Food Code is one that poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and is a risk factor for food-borne illness. A non- critical violation of the Food Code is one that does not meet the definition of a critical violation. At the conclusion of the October 28, 2009, inspection, Mr. Decker noted the observed violations in an inspection report. The owner of the Respondent signed the report and received a copy at the time of the inspection. Mr. Decker advised the owner that a follow-up "callback" inspection was scheduled to occur on December 28, 2009, and that the violations needed to be corrected by that date. The callback inspection did not occur on December 28, 2009. Mr. Decker performed the callback inspection on January 5, 2010, and observed some of the same Food Code violations noted on the October 28, 2009, inspection report. At the conclusion of the January 5, 2010, inspection, Mr. Decker again noted the observed violations in an inspection report. The manager of the Respondent signed the report and received a copy at the time of the inspection. The Petitioner subsequently filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed raw eggs being stored above prepared, ready-to-eat pita bread. This violation was deemed to be critical because raw food stored above ready-to-eat food can lead to bacterial contamination of the ready-to-eat food. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed unidentified medicine being stored in a refrigeration unit along with food supplies. This violation was deemed to be critical, because the medicine could have contaminated the food. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed prepared, ready-to-eat, and potentially-hazardous food being stored without having been date-marked to identify the last date upon which the food could be consumed. Prepared food has a limited shelf life during which it may be safely consumed. The failure to date-mark prepared food was a critical violation, because such failure may result in the consumption of unsafe food. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed that there was no consumer advisory warning related to consumption of raw or undercooked foods posted on the premises. The Food Code requires the posting of such a notice, and the failure to comply is deemed a critical violation, because consumption of certain raw or undercooked foods poses a health risk to some consumers. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed an employee engaged in food preparation without wearing a hair net. Although food can be contaminated by human hair, this violation was deemed to be non-critical, because no immediate threat to human health was presented by the violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order imposing a fine of $1,350 against the Respondent and requiring that the Respondent complete an appropriate educational program related to the violations identified herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2011.
