The Issue The issues in DOAH Case No. 10-1704 are whether Respondent, Stacked Subs (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated November 5, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. Similarly, the issues in DOAH Case No. 10-2445 are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 24, 2009, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating hotels and restaurants within the State of Florida regarding health and safety codes. See § 509.032, Fla. Stat. (2009). At all times material to the allegations of these cases, Respondent operated as a public food service establishment subject to Petitioner’s jurisdiction. In his capacity as an inspector for Petitioner, Alfonso Rullan visited Respondent’s place of business (2054 State Road 436, Winter Park, Florida) on December 19, 2007. During the inspection, Mr. Rullan noted several food service violations that he memorialized in an inspection report provided to, and signed by, Mr. Nevarez. The violations, more fully described in Petitioner's Exhibit 2, required correction. It was contemplated that Respondent would correct the violations of the Food Code such that on second inspection the violations would no longer be found. Since the inspection revealed “critical” violations, it was incumbent on Respondent to timely correct the violations noted in the inspection report. “Critical” violations are violations that, if left uncorrected, can contribute to food contamination, food-borne illness, or adversely affect public health. Thus, “critical violations” must be timely corrected, as they are a present concern. Violations that could lead to critical violations are denoted as “non-critical.” These “non- critical” violations must also be corrected, but they do not constitute a present threat to the public On March 12, 2008, Inspector Will Goris returned to Respondent’s place of business and completed a second inspection report, denoting critical violations uncorrected from the prior inspection and itemizing the concerns that required correction. Mr. Nevarez signed the report. This report, Petitioner’s Exhibit 3, chronicled ten violations of the Food Code. Subsequently, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint (DOAH Case No. 10-1704), outlining the uncorrected and critical violations Respondent had failed to timely address. Respondent timely contested the complaint and sought an administrative hearing in connection with the allegations. Between December 2007 and March 12, 2008, Respondent failed to correct the following violations: Cheese in the reach-in cooler at the front counter was 51 degrees; Employees reported to work and handled food without first washing hands; The prep table was adjacent to the fryers and under the hood was encrusted and greasy; and Single service cups were stored on the floor by the register. Of the foregoing violations, the failure of employees to wash their hands prior to handling food was the most critical violation. This violation was noted by both inspectors. On January 26, 2009, Inspector Goris conducted a routine inspection of Respondent’s premises. On this date, minor violations of the Food Code were again noted, but Mr. Nevarez was given a “met inspection standards” review for this visit. Nevertheless, Petitioner expected Respondent to correct the non-critical violations in a timely manner. On June 17, 2009, when Inspector Goris presented at the restaurant, violations were discovered that led to the second Administrative Complaint, DOAH Case No. 10-2445. Two of the violations were deemed repeat violations, and two were critical violations directly related to public safety; to wit: the soda disperser had slime on it, and proof of employee food- handler training was not available. Respondent timely challenged the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 10-2445. As to all alleged violations, Respondent was provided adequate notice of the allegations and was provided sufficient time to correct deficiencies. Respondent maintains that inspectors should be trained in abuse of power as their inspections can be discretionary and arbitrary. For example, Respondent claimed that the sleeve of cups on the floor by the cash register had merely fallen there when the inspector cited the violation. Respondent’s claim of abuse of power was unsupported by factual evidence. Moreover, the inspections performed by both inspectors documented objective criteria unrelated to opinion or subjective review. For example, dirty, greasy, or encrusted food surfaces were documented. The failure of employees to wash their hands was documented. The inadequate or incorrect temperature of containers of food was documented. These are not subjective items, but were disclosed to Respondent during and at the time of inspection. It is determined that the inspectors’ testimony was credible and persuasive as to the violations cited. The "Food Code," as it is used in this record, refers to paragraph 1-201.10(B), Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 of the Food Code, 2001 Recommendations of the United States Public Health Service/Food and Drug Administration including Annex 3: Public Health Reasons/Administrative Guidelines; Annex 5: HACCP Guidelines of the Food Code; the 2001 Food Code Errata Sheet (August 23, 2002); and Supplement to the 2001 FDA Food Code (August 29, 2003). The Food Code has been adopted by the Department by rule. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.001. The Food Code is also available through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Internet website.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,750.00 for the violations listed in DOAH Case No. 10-1704 and $1,000.00 for the violations identified in DOAH Case No. 10-2445. The Respondent should also be required to attend training for a better understanding of the requirements of the Food Code to assure that proper guidelines are adopted and implemented at the restaurant. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 5th day of October, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida Carlos Nevarez Stacked Subs 32399 2054 State Road 436 Winter Park, Florida 32792 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
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Thriftway of Indiantown, is a retail food store located at 15488 Southwest Warfield Boulevard, Indiantown, Florida. It has a mailing address of Post Office Box 188, Indiantown, Florida 34956. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is charged with the administration and enforcement of Chapter 500, Florida Statutes, along with rules promulgated thereunder relating to food safety and the selling of food to the consuming public. Department food safety inspectors conducted food safety inspections at Thriftway of Indiantown's place of business on the following dates during 1995: April 4 and 19, May 4 and 18, and June 1 and 15. On each of the five inspections from April 4 through June 1, the Thriftway of Indiantown received an overall rating of "poor." These ratings resulted from the fact that on each of these five occasions the inspector observed unsanitary conditions that constituted violations of applicable statutory and rule provisions. On each of the five inspections from April 4 through June 1, most of the violations were not critical violations. Only two critical violations were noted during the subject five inspections. One critical violation was the presence of rodent droppings. The other critical violation was the presence of live roaches. Rodent droppings were observed on all five of the subject inspections. Live roaches were observed on four of the five subject inspections. The last inspection of the Thriftway of Indiantown was on June 15, 1995. On that date there were no rodent droppings, no roaches, and no other critical violations. On June 15, 1995, there were only two minor problems, which were promptly corrected, and the store received an overall rating of "fair." During the period from the "poor" rating on April 4, 1995, until the "fair" rating on June 15, 1995, the manager and owners of Thriftway of Indiantown made diligent and industrious efforts to correct all of the violations noted on all of the inspection reports from April 4, 1995, through June 15, 1995. They made continuous progress towards correcting all of the non- critical violations, but in spite of their best efforts over several weeks they were unable to resolve the rodent and roach problems until early June. During April and May of 1995 the manager and owners of Thriftway of Indiantown did everything they could think of to resolve the rodent and roach problem. They called their pest control service and had extra pest control treatments applied. They searched in vain for rodent nests. They moved stock and cleaned everywhere they thought there might be rodents. They set out mouse traps and glue strips. When the existing pest control service appeared to be unable to solve the rodent and roach problems, the manager and owners of Thriftway of Indiantown began looking for another pest control service. After contacting and negotiating with several pest control companies, on May 31, 1995, the owners of Thriftway of Indiantown signed a contract with a new pest control company. The new pest control company was apparently successful, because when the store was inspected on June 15, 1995, the inspector did not see any rodent droppings or any roaches. On the dates of the five inspections from April 4, 1995, through June 1, 1995, Thriftway of Indiantown held food items in an unsanitary environment and offered such food for sale to the consuming public.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00). DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April 1996.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated June 27, 2011, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Restaurant was licensed as a public food service establishment in the State of Florida by the Department, having been issued license type 2010 and license number 1620035. At all times material hereto, the Restaurant was located at 1145 South Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316. A critical violation in food service is considered to be a violation of the Food Code that, if not corrected, will most likely cause and is directly related to food-borne illness, food contamination, or environmental hazards. A non-critical violation in food service is considered to be a violation that is less likely to cause and will not directly contribute to food-borne illness or food contamination. On October 27, 2010, Lynden Lewis, an inspector with the Department, conducted a routine inspection of the Restaurant. During the inspection, Inspector Lewis found violations, which were considered to be critical and non- critical violations. Further, during the inspection, Inspector Lewis prepared a food inspection report, setting forth the alleged violations and that the violations were required to be corrected by the next unannounced inspection. The inspection report was signed by Inspector Lewis and a representative of the Restaurant. Inspector Lewis made the representative aware of the alleged violations and that the violations were required to be corrected by the next unannounced inspection, and he provided the representative with a copy of the inspection report. On June 16, 2011, Inspector Lewis and Begum Khatoon, an inspector with the Department, conducted an unannounced routine inspection of the Restaurant. Among other things, three critical violations were not corrected from the routine inspection of October 27, 2010. During the unannounced inspection, Inspector Khatoon prepared a food inspection report, setting forth, among other things, the alleged critical violations. The unannounced inspection report was signed by Inspector Khatoon and a representative of the Restaurant, and Inspector Khatoon provided the representative with a copy of the inspection report. Inspector Khatoon made the representative aware of the alleged violations and that an administrative complaint would be recommended. The most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on October 27, 2010, and was not corrected by June 16, 2011, was raw animal food was stored over ready-to-eat food--raw eggs were being stored over yogurt--in the reach-in cooler. This violation is critical because the ready-to-eat food (yogurt) has already been cooked and gone through the process of pathogenic destruction and will not go through that process again; whereas, the raw animal food (eggs) has not been cooked and not gone through the process of pathogenic destruction. Cross-contamination could occur from the raw animal food by dripping onto or touching of the ready-to-eat food, and any pathogens present on the ready-to-eat food, as a result of the cross-contamination, would pass-on to consumers when the ready-to-eat food is served. Mr. Rocchio's testimony that eggs are stored on the bottom of the refrigerator (reach-in cooler) is found to be credible; however, most importantly, the evidence fails to show that, on the day of the inspection, eggs were stored on the bottom of the refrigerator. The next most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on October 27, 2010, and was not corrected by June 16, 2011, was the hand wash sink in the kitchen was not accessible for employee use at all times. A garbage can was placed in front of the hand wash sink in the kitchen, making the sink inaccessible to employees at all times to wash their hands. Even though Mr. Rochhio testified, and his testimony is found to be credible, that the garbage can was "not a large garbage can," the evidence fails to show, most importantly, that the garbage can did not cause the hand wash sink to be inaccessible to the employees at all times. This violation is a critical violation because the hands of employees become contaminated as employees work and, if the handwash sink is not accessible, the employees will be discouraged from washing their hands. The next most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on October 27, 2010, and was not corrected by June 16, 2011, was handwashing cleanser was lacking at the hand washing lavatory in the kitchen. This violation is a critical violation because hands are a vehicle of contamination, and the use of soap by employees, when washing their hands, removes bacteria and viruses that can contaminate the employees' hands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Valentinos Cucina Italiana violated section 509, Florida Statutes, through a violation of Food Code Rules 3-302.11(A)(1), 5-205.11(A), and 6-301.11; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $750.00 against Valentinos Cucina Italiana. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 2012.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated October 2, 2012, and, if so, what penalty is warranted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a restaurant located at 12326 University Mall Court, Tampa, Florida, 33612, holding Permanent Food Service license no. NOS3915662. On September 25, 2012, Douglas Peterson, an experienced sanitation and safety specialist with the Division, performed a routine inspection of Respondent. Mr. Peterson has been employed by the Division for six years and has conducted approximately 1,000 inspections per year. He inspected Subway in the early afternoon, accompanied by one of Respondent's employees, not identified, but described as a young man who was working the counter. Mr. Peterson utilized a personal data assistant to record his findings in an inspection report that he prepared while conducting the inspection. During the inspection, Mr. Peterson observed a number of live roaches in three different areas and recorded his observations in the inspection report. Mr. Peterson counted ten live roaches under the three-compartment sink between the wall and the sink; there were three live roaches in an old reach-in cooler next to the walk-in cooler; and there were four more live roaches under and behind the ice machine. In addition, Mr. Peterson observed dead roaches by the old reach-in cooler next to the walk-in cooler. Mr. Peterson pulled out the reach-in cooler and found more dead roaches in the compressor compartment. Mr. Peterson's testimony regarding the roach activity he observed was credible and unrebutted. A critical violation of the Food Code is a violation that is likely to contribute to food contamination, illness, and other environmental health hazards. The observed presence of 17 live roaches at multiple locations in Respondent's establishment was a "critical violation" of the Food Code, because roaches are capable of transmitting disease to humans by contaminating food and cross-contaminating food contact surfaces. Respondent pointed out that none of the live roaches were observed directly on food contact surfaces. However, the fact that the live roaches were found in dark areas of refuge (in, under, or behind equipment and sinks) in mid-afternoon, while the restaurant was open, does not mean the danger of contamination can be minimized. To the contrary, the presence of a large number of live roaches in multiple areas--including areas near where food is stored and prepared and where dishes are washed--is a significant contamination threat. Due to the large number of live roaches observed in multiple locations, Mr. Peterson determined that the critical violation was significant enough that it required immediate attention, and his inspection report recommended that restaurant operations stop temporarily until the roach infestation was alleviated. Based on Mr. Peterson's report, the Division entered an emergency order of suspension, and Subway was temporarily closed to correct the violation, with a follow-up inspection the next morning. Julian Paz, the store manager, was not present during the inspection, but he arrived after Mr. Peterson had sent his inspection report to the Division for a determination regarding whether an emergency suspension order would be issued. Mr. Peterson discussed the inspection report's findings with Mr. Paz, and Mr. Paz signed the inspection report on behalf of Respondent. At hearing, Mr. Paz described the steps taken by Subway in an attempt to control the presence of roaches. He testified that someone from Orkin comes the first Thursday of every month to perform a routine inspection and pest control service. The mall in which Subway is located also has monthly pest control service. In addition, the Subway restaurant undergoes a Subway corporate inspection at a random time every month. Mr. Paz also described the steps taken by Subway employees, including cleaning the store three or four times a day, sweeping and mopping, and cleaning the surfaces. When there are deliveries, either he or his assistant inspects the boxes for signs of rodent or pest activity. Mr. Paz testified that he thought that both Orkin and the Subway corporate inspector had conducted inspections as recently as the day before Mr. Peterson's inspection. The Division presented no evidence of prior disciplinary action against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order determining that Respondent violated rule 6-501.111 of the Food Code and imposing a fine of $500.00, payable under terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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, 2013.
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.
