The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated provisions of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes,1 and/or rules promulgated thereto. If violations did occur, then the ancillary issue is whether a penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Restaurant is a licensed eating establishment located in Bonita Springs, Florida. The franchised facility is owned by Raymond Foster and his wife, Cathy Foster. Both owners spend approximately 12 hours per day at the Restaurant. Petitioner is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, inspecting restaurants to ensure safe operation and cleanliness for public health. On January 29, 2007, the Division conducted a routine inspection of the Restaurant. The inspection was conducted by Randall Hughes, a sanitation and safety specialist, who had worked for the Division for approximately nine months at that time.3 Prior to working for the Division, Hughes had worked for Winn-Dixie as a store manager. Prior to the date of the inspection, Hughes had received one week of training from the Division on food laws and rules, one week of training on lodging laws and rules, plus two weeks of special fire training laws and rules. He also takes 20 hours of continuing education courses annually. On March 2, 2007, Hughes conducted a follow-up or call- back inspection of the Restaurant. At that time, he identified several repeat deficiencies, including four that he thought would warrant issuance of an administrative complaint. The follow-up inspection report was received and signed by Cathy Foster. There were four problem areas identified by Hughes as "critical" violations during the follow-up inspection. Critical violations are those deemed by the Division to be an imminent threat to the public. The four problem areas were: Violation No. 45-36-1: The hood suppression type fire extinguisher system, used to extinguish fires in the cooking area, had an inspection tag that was out of date. Violation No. 32-16-1: Lack of hand drying provisions at one sink in the Restaurant. Violation No. 09-01-1: Improper use of plastic bowl with no handle to dispense ready to eat food from reach-in cooler. Violation No. 22-22-1: Build-up of slime in interior of ice machine. A discussion of each of the four alleged violations now follows. The hood suppression type fire extinguisher had an inspection tag dated May 2006. There was no testimony as to whether that was the date of the prior inspection of the extinguisher system or if that was the date the extinguisher was to be re-inspected. It appears the last inspection (in May 2006) was performed by Cintas, a private company under contract with the State. However, Hughes testified that the extinguisher was out of date because it is supposed to be inspected every six months, and, as of January 29, 2007, and March 2, 2007, it had not been re-inspected. Foster testified that the extinguisher was inspected on September 13, 2007 (i.e., the day before the final hearing in this matter), by the Bonita Springs Fire Department. The extinguisher passed inspection and now has a current inspection tag. The Fire Department showed up to inspect the extinguisher unannounced on that day. It is unclear from the testimony whether someone other than the Fire Department was supposed to examine the extinguisher. There was no showing that the Restaurant failed to obtain an inspection of the extinguisher, only that the inspection occurred later than required. The sink area in question under Violation No. 32-16-1 is not located in a food-handling area. Rather, it is a sink used by wait staff and is located outside the kitchen. Foster's testimony that paper towels are available for hand-drying at that sink is credible. He explained that partial rolls of paper towels taken from tables in the restaurant were taken to the sink in question for use by staff. No showing was made that hand-drying provisions were lacking. Foster admits that a plastic bowl without a handle is used to dispense food. The food being dispensed is bleu cheese crumbles for salads. The bowl, while it has no handle, is used by wait staff who are wearing plastic gloves. At no time would the wait staff come into direct contact with the food. The Division's concern about possible contamination is not warranted. Hughes identified a build-up of "slime" in the interior of an ice machine. He did not specify whether the substance was organic or chemical. Foster refuted the finding by explaining the absence of any substance on the ice machine other than a stain caused by an improper seal. Efforts to remove the stain, using a number of different cleansers, have proven fruitless. The stain does not in any fashion contaminate the ice in the machine. None of the other putative violations mentioned in the inspection reports were addressed at final hearing and are therefore irrelevant to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, imposing a fine of $500 against the license of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2007, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Jack Draft House's public food establishment license should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Jack Draft House, was a licensed public food service establishment, license No. 74-046709-R, located at 2400 North Volusia Avenue, Orange City, Florida 32763. Vicky Mayle was at all material times employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist. On April 10, 2000, Inspector Mayle performed a routine inspection of Respondent's food service establishment and found violations of food service rules and the rules of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, all of which she marked on her food service inspection report of April 10, 2000. On April 20, 2000, Inspector Mayle performed a Call- Back/Re-Inspection on Jack Draft House and found that Respondent was still in non-compliance for three of the critical violations enumerated on the food service inspection report of April 10, 2000. On April 24, 2000, Inspector Mayle performed a second Call-Back/Re-Inspection of Jack Draft House and observed that Respondent was still in non-compliance for the three critical violations enumerated on the food service inspection report of April 10, 2000. On April 24, 2000, during the second Call-Back/Re- Inspection, Inspector Mayle observed that the spacer was still missing in the 12-circuit electrical breaker box. Black tape covered the opening for the missing spacer. Further, on April 24, 2000, the parts had not been ordered to repair the electrical breaker box. The empty spacer in the public food service establishment is a critical violation because it would endanger the safety of an employee because if he or she should inadvertently stick a finger into the empty spacer he or she could be electrocuted. The black tape is not a sufficient remedy for the empty spacer located in the electrical breaker box. On April 24, 2000, during the second Call-Back/Re- Inspection, Inspector Mayle observed that there was still no hot running water at a temperature of 110°F, in the women's restroom, used by the employees. The lack of hot water, at the temperature of 110°F in the women's restroom, which is used by employees is a critical violation in that it endangers the health of the employees and patrons of the public food service establishment. At the hearing Respondent testified. Prior to the inspection, the cleaning people had used up the hot water at approximately 4:30 a.m. to clean the bar. The water was turned off to install the ice maker later in the morning. The hot water heater may not have had ample time to replenish the water supply and re-heat the water to 110°F. Even if the electric water was not turned off to install the ice maker, the water may not have been replenished in the hot water heater. This being true, the hot water heater may not have had ample time to replenish the water supply and re-heat the water to 110°F by 9:00 a.m. However, by the time the facility would have had customers the temperature would have recovered. On April 24, 2000, during the second Call-Back/Re- Inspection, Inspector Mayle observed that a brown household extension cord was still being used for the freezer and other appliances in the bar. This is a critical violation in that the use of the extension cords in a public food service establishment endangers the health and safety of employees and patrons of the establishment.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner enter its final order finding Respondent violated the provisions of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and its rules, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and fining the Respondent $1,000 for electrical safety violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 7th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy J. Trzeciecka, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Sidney J. Simmons, Owner Lisa G. Martin, Manager Jack Draft House 2400 North Volusia Avenue Orange City, Florida 32763 Susan R. McKinley, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
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 The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated December 2, 2009, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Restaurant was licensed as a public food service establishment in the State of Florida by the Department, having been issued license type 2010 and license number 2323257. At all times material hereto, the Restaurant was located at 762 Northwest 183rd Street, Miami Gardens, Florida 33169. A critical violation in food service is considered to be a violation that, if not corrected, is directly related to food-borne illness, food contamination, or health risk. A non-critical violation in food service is considered to be a violation that, if not corrected, can become a critical violation. On August 14, 2009, Daniel Unold, an inspector with the Department, conducted a routine inspection of the Restaurant. During the inspection, Inspector Unold found violations, which were considered to be critical and non- critical violations. Further, during the inspection, Inspector Unold prepared a food inspection report, setting forth the alleged violations and the date for the callback inspection, which was October 14, 2009. The inspection report was signed by Inspector Unold and a representative of the Restaurant. Inspector Unold made the representative aware of the alleged violations and that the violations had to be corrected by the callback date of October 14, 2009, and he provided the representative with a copy of the inspection report. On October 19, 2009, Inspector Unold performed the callback inspection. Among other things, four critical violations were not corrected from the routine inspection of August 14, 2009. During the callback inspection, Inspector Unold prepared a food callback inspection report, setting forth, among other things, the alleged critical violations. The callback inspection report was signed by Inspector Unold and a representative of the Restaurant. Inspector Unold made the representative aware of the alleged violations. The most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on August 14, 2009, and was not corrected by October 19, 2009, was no certified food manager for the Restaurant. This violation is critical because it is necessary for the person operating a food service establishment to be knowledgeable regarding food contamination, hygiene, cloth contamination, and food-related diseases. That person is a certified food manager, and the certification process requires class training and a test. The next most serious alleged critical violation not corrected by October 19, 2009, was no proof of required employee training. This violation is a critical violation because it is necessary for every food service employee to have basic knowledge regarding hand washing and food contamination. The next most serious alleged critical violation not corrected by October 19, 2009, was the hand wash sink lacking the proper hand drying provisions. This violation is a critical violation because hand drying is an important part of the hand washing procedure, and, if not performed correctly, it is as if hand washing had not occurred at all. The next most serious alleged critical violation not corrected by October 19, 2009, was the Restaurant operating without a current Hotel and Restaurant license. The new owner of the Restaurant, Elise Benabe, had not completed a change of ownership application. This violation is a critical violation because the State of Florida requires all public food service establishments to be licensed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Five Star Haitian Restaurant violated Florida Administrative Code 61C-4.023(1), Section 509.049, Florida Statutes (2009), Food Code Rule 6-301.12, and Section 509.241(2), Florida Statutes (2009); and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,875.00 against Five Star Haitian Restaurant. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Louise Wilhite-St Laurent, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Elise Benabe Five Star Haitian Restaurant 762 Northwest 183rd Street Miami Gardens, Florida 33169 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Louise Wilhite-St Laurent Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-220
The Issue Whether Respondent has committed the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with the licensing and regulation of public food service establishments, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a restaurant holding food service license number 2608949, in the name of TGF Pizza of Jacksonville, Inc., d/b/a as Vito's Pizza and Italian Restaurant. Respondent's address of record is 3825 Baymeadows Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32217-4364. Bonnie Bradshaw is employed by the Department as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist. In that capacity, she conducts inspections of food service and lodging establishments for compliance with Chapter 509, Florida Statutes; the Food Code; the National Fire Protection Association Code; and the relevant Florida Administrative Code Rules. Ms. Bradshaw is a certified food manager and a certified special fire safety inspector. Critical violations are violations of the relevant rules and statutes that are more likely to contribute to a food-borne illness, an environmental hazard, or to food contamination. Non-critical violations are those violations that are less likely to contribute to a food-borne illness, an environmental hazard, or to food contamination. On January 25, 2007, Ms. Bradshaw inspected the premises of Vito's Pizza and Italian Restaurant. During the inspection, Ms. Bradshaw prepared a Food Service Inspection Report setting for the findings from her inspection. The Food Service Inspection Report was provided to and signed for by Maria Teresi, who was listed as the manager for the restaurant. During the January 25, 2007, inspection, there were four or more employees engaged in food preparation without a certified food manager being present. Food managers ensure that proper hand-washing techniques are used, proper food temperatures are met and that employees are healthy. Failure to have a food service manager present when four or more employees are engaged in food preparation is considered a critical violation. No consumer advisory for raw and undercooked products was displayed at the establishment at the time of the January 24, 2007, inspection. Failure to post such an advisory is also considered a critical violation because of the need to advise consumers that eating raw or undercooked products could increase their risk of food-borne illness. Ms. Bradshaw also observed an unused and unprotected opening in the panel box, and the exit signs were not properly illuminated. Both are considered critical violations. The panel box opening presents a fire or shock hazard, and the failure to have the exit sign illuminated impairs the ability of consumers to exit in the case of an emergency. In addition, an electrical outlet in the electric closet was missing a cover plate. This is also considered a critical violation because of the fire or shock hazard presented. The Food Service Inspection Report issued January 25, 2007, stated that violations in the operation of the establishment must be corrected by May 25, 2007. On May 30, 2007, Ms. Bradshaw returned to Respondent's establishment for a re-inspection. At that time, she noted that none of the critical violations previously noted had been corrected. No certified food service manager was on the premises although four or more employees were engaging in food preparation; exit signs were not properly illuminated; no consumer advisory on undercooked or raw animal products was posted; the unused opening in the panel box was unprotected and the electrical outlet in the electric closet still was missing a cover plate. Ms. Bradshaw prepared a Call Back Inspection Report as a result of her inspection on May 30, 2007. The inspection report was provided to and signed by Marie Teresi as manager.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered that finds that Respondent in violation of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00, and requiring Respondent to attend an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 28th day of November, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Jessica Leigh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Crailio Teresi TGF Pizza of Jax, Inc. Vito's Pizza & Italian Restaurant 3825 Baymeadows Road Jacksonville, Florida 32217 William Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
