The Issue The issue in this case is whether on October 23, 2013, and May 6, 2014, 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 Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The 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. At all times material to this case, Respondent was licensed as a public food service establishment, operating a restaurant located at 1658 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, and holding license number 6020868. Ms. Tara Palmer has been employed by the Division for almost five years. She is presently a Senior Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Division. Prior to her employment with the Division she was employed in the food industry for approximately 20 years. She has had training in sanitation and inspection, standardized training regarding the Food Code, on- the-job training, and continual monthly education. She performs approximately 1000 inspections yearly. On October 23, 2013, Ms. Palmer conducted a food service inspection on Respondent. Ms. Palmer prepared a Food Service Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-015. The violations observed during the inspection were recorded on the report. Respondent's manager, or individual in charge, followed Ms. Palmer throughout the inspection, and signed the report to acknowledge receipt on behalf of Respondent. Through the testimony of Ms. Palmer and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, the Division established that, on October 23, 2013, Respondent's Roma and Alfredo sauces had been prepared the previous day, placed in tightly covered 22 quart gallon containers, and cooled overnight in a walk-in cooler. Due to this methodology, at the time of inspection, the sauces were 52°F. Respondent was cited with a deficiency for improper cooling methods, in violation of Food Code Rule 3-501.15. The improper cooling method deficiency was deemed a violation that required further review; however, same was not an immediate threat to the public. Respondent was notified that the observed violation must be corrected by December 24, 2013. On January 8, 2014, Ms. Palmer performed a "call-back" inspection. On that date, the improper cooling deficiency observed on October 23, 2014, had been corrected. On May 6, 2014, Ms. Palmer conducted a food service inspection of Respondent. Ms. Palmer prepared a Food Service Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-015. The violations observed during the inspection were recorded on the report. Respondent's manager, or individual in charge, followed Ms. Palmer throughout the inspection, and signed the report to acknowledge receipt on behalf of Respondent. Through the testimony of Ms. Palmer and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, the Division established that, on May 6, 2014, Respondent's spicy and Pomodoro sauces had been prepared the previous day, placed in a tightly covered 22-quart gallon container, and cooled overnight in a walk-in cooler. Due to this methodology, at the time of inspection, the spicy sauce was 48°F at the start of the inspection and 47.5°F at the end of the inspection. The Pomodoro sauce was found to be 48°F at the start of the inspection and 47.3°F at the end of inspection. Again, Respondent was cited with a deficiency for improper cooling methods, in violation of Food Code Rule 3- 501.15. No evidence was introduced to indicate that Respondent had any previous violations. No evidence was introduced to refute the above-noted deficiencies.
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 Italio East Boca, LLC, d/b/a Italio, in violation of two intermediate violations, and imposing a fine of $400, to be paid within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 30th day of October, 2014.
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 committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 25, 2008, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a public food service establishment in the State of Florida by the Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. Respondent's business address is "Szechuan Panda," 3830 Southwest 13th Street, Gainesville, Florida 32608. Critical violations are violations that, if not corrected, can have a direct impact on cross-contamination and food-borne illness. This, in turn, causes an immediate threat to public health. Non-critical violations are violations that, if not corrected, can have an impact on the creation of critical violations. On December 19, 2007, Inspector Daniel Fulton performed a Complaint Food Service Inspection at Szechuan Panda. During that inspection, Inspector Fulton prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth violations he encountered during the inspection. From the time it was prepared until the date of the hearing, the inspection report has not been altered. On December 19, 2007, Mr. Fulton observed live roaches in Szechuan Panda in both the food preparation and food service areas. Inspector Fulton cited this as a critical violation because live roaches carry many diseases. Those diseases can be spread when the roaches crawl over clean or unclean food preparation equipment in their search for food and accordingly contaminate food preparation surfaces. On December 19, 2007, food was being stored at Szechuan Panda directly on the floor. When the terminology "directly on the floor" is used, it includes any food that could be contaminated by ordinary mopping. That is, food stored in a container which is not impervious to water, such as a cardboard container, or a plastic container which does not have a top and the sides of which are so low that mopping might contaminate its contents. On December 19, 2007, improper utensils were being used to scoop out food from food containers. According to Mr. Fulton, this is a critical violation because without the usage of a proper utensil with a handle, cross-contamination can occur when the food product touches an employee’s hand. On December 19, 2007, the carbon dioxide/helium tanks in Szechuan Panda were not adequately secured. According to Mr. Fulton, this is a violation because if the tanks become unsecured all of the pressure inside can cause the tanks to shoot off uncontrollably in an elliptical or variable pattern so as to damage anyone or anything with which they come in contact. On December 19, 2007, grease was built-up on non-food contact surfaces. Mr. Fulton cited this as a violation because such debris is enticing for consumption by any present rodents and/or roaches. Rodents and roaches carry diseases that can lead to cross contamination. On March 5, 2008, Mr. Fulton prepared a Complaint Inspection Report at Szechuan Panda in which some of the previously noted violations had not been corrected. From the time it was prepared until the date of hearing the report was not altered. On March 5, 2008, Mr. Fulton again observed live roaches in Szechuan Panda, in both the food preparation and food service areas. He cited this as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 5, 2008, dead roaches were observed throughout the business. Mr. Fulton cited this as a critical violation because live roaches will eat the carcasses of dead roaches, causing further cross-contamination, and because the presence of dead roaches also shows a general lack of cleanliness and due care. On March 5, 2008, cold foods were held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. According to Mr. Fulton, this is a critical violation because bacteria grows quicker, the closer food is held to 98 degrees Fahrenheit. Also on March 5, 2008, hot foods were held at a temperature less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit. Mr. Fulton classified this as a critical violation because any bacteria present on the food will grow, once the temperature drops below 135 degrees Fahrenheit. On March 5, 2008, foods in both the dining area and food storage areas at Szechuan Panda were not properly covered. This was classified as a critical violation because cross- contamination can occur by way of any bacteria present being easily transferable to the exposed food. On March 5, 2008, food also was being stored directly on the floor as previously described. On March 5, 2008, improper utensils were again being used to scoop out food from food containers. Mr. Fulton considered this a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 5, 2008, food contact services were encrusted with grease, and soil deposits were present in food containers. Mr. Fulton listed this as a critical violation because an unidentified slime growing within a food container poses a health risk that can possibly cross-contaminate other foods. On March 5, 2008, in-use utensils for non-potentially hazardous foods were not being stored in a clean, protective place. Mr. Fulton considered this a violation because any harmful debris present on the unit being used for storage can become stuck on the utensil. On March 5, 2008, the carbon dioxide helium tanks still were not adequately secured. This was listed as a violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 5, 2008, grease was built up on non-food contact surfaces. This was listed as a violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 5, 2008, a black substance was present on the wall around the dish-washing area. This was listed as a violation because the substance observed appeared mold-like, thus showing a lack of cleanliness. On March 6, 2008, Inspector Fulton prepared a call- back inspection report at Szechuan Panda noting that some of the violations remained uncorrected. From the time it was prepared until the date of the hearing, the call-back report has not been altered. On March 6, 2008, cold foods were held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. This was noted as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 6, 2008, hot foods were held at a temperature less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit. This was noted as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 6, 2008, foods in both the dining area and food storage area of Szechuan Panda were not properly covered, and this was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 6, 2008, a black substance was present on the wall around the dish-washing area. This was listed as a violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, Mr. Fulton prepared a complaint inspection report at Szechuan Panda in which some of the violations still were not corrected. From the time it was prepared until the date of the hearing, the report has not been altered. On March 24, 2008, dead roaches were observed throughout the business. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. Although some dead roaches may be evidence of attempts to exterminate all of a roach infestation as testified-to by Respondent, the presence of dead roaches also shows a general lack of cleanliness and due care. On March 24, 2008, cold foods were held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, hot foods were held at a temperature less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, foods in both the dining area and food storage area of Szechuan Panda were not properly covered. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, food was still being stored directly on the floor. On March 24, 2008, improper utensils were being used to scoop out food from food containers, This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, food contact surfaces were encrusted with grease, and soil deposits were present in food containers. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, in-use utensils for non-potentially hazardous foods were not being stored in a clean, protective place. This was listed as a violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 30, 2008, Mr. Fulton prepared a call-back inspection report at Szechuan Panda in which some of the previous violations were not corrected. From the time it was prepared until the date of the hearing the call-back report has not been altered. On March 30, 2008, cold foods were held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 30, 2008, hot foods were held at a temperature less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 30, 2008, foods in both the dining area and food storage areas were not properly covered. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 30, 2008, food contact surfaces were encrusted with grease, and soil deposits were present in food containers. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. As to most violations described by Mr. Fulton, Respondent Kang only protested that Chinese cooking was not conducive to meeting the regulations. He also apparently was not present when each of the foregoing inspections was made, so his testimony as to why certain foods were above or below the permissible temperatures; were stored on the floor; or otherwise met standards is not persuasive. Mr. Kang's testimony with regard to his quest for reputable and effective exterminators and his contracts with successive exterminators is credible. The area being largely clear of roaches after he hired a new exterminator is also noted. However, even giving Respondent all due credit for correcting certain inspection violations by call-back or subsequent inspection dates, his testimony as a whole does not evoke confidence in the cleanliness of the licensed establishment. Particularly, Mr. Kang’s defenses that "live roaches came with purchased goods or were quickly killed" by the pest control company, and that dead roaches are swept out at the end of each day but there are more roaches when the restaurant opens the following morning, do not help his situation much. Most troubling is that Mr. Kang described a procedure whereby, although the restaurant is cleaned at the conclusion of each serving day, dead roaches are not swept out the following morning but are allowed to remain where they lie until the restaurant is cleaned entirely at the end of the second work day. Likewise, Mr. Kang's testimony also indicates his lack of understanding of the Department's requirements for maintaining "safe" food temperatures. Mr. Fulton explained that most buffets use time and temperature for public health control, but he further testified that, per the regulations he goes by, a restaurateur may keep foods "out of temperature" only up to four hours, and to legitimately do so, pursuant to the Food Code, the restaurateur must write a statement explaining the precautions he has taken, and further state therein that if his food “out of temperature” is not sold within a four-hour period, it will be discarded. Then, with the foregoing statement displayed, that restaurateur must maintain a record with his foregoing posted declaration, on which he keeps track of each time food is taken "off temperature," and each time food is put "on temperature." Respondent posts no such declaration or record. Mr. Kang’s assertion that some of his prior inspection troubles were caused by disgruntled former employees has been considered, as has been his living in another city far from the location of his restaurant, so as to care for his disabled wife. However, his wife’s acute care situation occurred four or five years ago and none of his employee problems seem to be current. In any case, none of these concerns excuse a licensee from meeting the applicable statutory and rule requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent’s Hotels and Restaurant license, effective the first Monday, after 30 days from the date the final order is filed with the Agency Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 19th day of November, 2008.
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 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 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 regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2006). At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a restaurant located at 7551 West Waters Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33615, holding Food Service license number 3903935. On July 11, 2006, Richard Decker, a senior inspector representing the Petitioner, performed a routine inspection of the Respondent that resulted in emergency closure of the restaurant due to a roach infestation problem. The inspection report stated that the deadline for correcting the roach problem was July 12, 2006, and the matter was apparently resolved in a timely manner. Mr. Decker found additional violations of applicable Food Code regulations on July 11, 2006, which were cited in a written Food Service Inspection Report, a copy of which was provided to restaurant owner Anthony Della Monica on the date of the inspection. Mr. Decker's inspection identified critical and non- critical violations. Critical Food Code violations pose serious public health risk due to potential transmission of food-borne illness. Critical life safety violations such as blocked exits increase the risk of public injury. Violations that do not pose a direct and imminent public health risk are identified as non- critical. Other than as set forth herein, the violations cited during the July inspections were to have been corrected by the time of Mr. Decker's August 15, 2006, re-inspection. Many of the previously cited violations had not been corrected at that time. The August 15, 2006, re-inspection report was received by Mr. Della Monica on the date of the inspection. Mr. Decker again re-inspected the restaurant on October 20, 2006. Several violations previously cited in July remained uncorrected at that time. The October 20, 2006, re- inspection report was received by Head Chef Kurt Clasen on the date of the inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for failing to have a certified food manager on the premises and for lacking of proof that employees had received food safety training. Such training was intended to reduce the potential for transmission of food-borne illness. These violations were deemed critical. Although Mr. Decker established an extended deadline of October 11, 2006, to correct the certified food manager and employee training violations, they remained uncorrected by the October 20, 2006, re-inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for lacking a hand sink in the dishwashing area and noted that a hand sink at the rear of the kitchen was being used for food preparation. The requirements related to hand sinks were intended to reduce the potential for transmission of food- borne illness. The violations of the requirements were deemed critical. The Respondent still lacked a hand sink in the dishwashing area at the time of both re-inspections. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for using extension cords on a non-temporary basis to power equipment in the kitchen. The Respondent's improper electrical cord use was a fire hazard and was deemed a critical violation. By law, extension cords can only be used on a temporary basis. The cited extension cords remained in use by the Respondent at the time of both re-inspections. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for removing food products from original packaging and storing them in unlabeled containers, a critical violation that increased the risk of confusing food products with non- edible products such as cleaning chemicals. The violation remained uncorrected at the time of both re-inspections. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for lacking a chemical testing kit used to ascertain that the dishwasher sanitization function was operating properly. Lack of proper sanitation increased the potential for transmission of food-borne illness. The violation, deemed critical, was not corrected by the time of either re-inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for failing to have a visible thermometer in a pizza- holding unit. The inability to monitor food-holding temperatures increased the potential for transmission of food- borne illness and was a critical violation. The violation was uncorrected at the time of the August re-inspection as it should have been, but it had been remedied by the October re- inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for the lack of light bulb shields in a food service area, which increased the risk that food could be contaminated by glass in the event of light bulb breakage. This was deemed a non-critical violation and remained uncorrected at the time of either re-inspection.
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 $3,800 against the Respondent and requiring the Respondent to complete an appropriate educational program related to the violations identified herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2007, 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 11th day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Della Monica Mama D's Pasta & Grille 1819 Audubon Street Clearwater, Florida 33764 Jessica Leigh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 William Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent violated food safety standards established by section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and the implementing rules as charged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate sanctions.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Dominos Pizza was owned and operated by Narverud Restaurant Systems, Inc., as a licensed permanent public food service establishment located at 13081 Spring Hill Drive, Spring Hill, Florida. Elizabeth Narverud is its vice president. Narverud Restaurant Systems, Inc., holds License No. 3700896.2/ The Division is responsible for monitoring and inspecting licensed food service establishments to ensure that they comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules, and the Food Code. On March 26, 2013, Nick Roff, Sanitation and Safety Specialist for the Division, conducted a food service inspection of Dominos Pizza. On the date of the inspection, Mr. Roff had been employed by the Division for approximately three months and was still under probation. Mr. Roff had no experience in the food service industry prior to his employment with the Division. Mr. Roff received training from the Division in the laws relating to food service, and has become certified as a food manager. The Division additionally provides monthly in-house training which Mr. Roff has attended. During his probationary period, Mr. Roff accompanied his senior inspector on food service establishment inspections, observing how the inspector conducted inspections, identified violations, and provided corrective actions. As part of his training, Mr. Roff was also “shadowed” by his senior inspector as Mr. Roff conducted inspections. On the date of the final hearing, Mr. Roff had conducted approximately 600 restaurant inspections. Cited Violations On March 26, 2013, Mr. Roff prepared an Inspection Report noting a total of 13 alleged violations of the standards set forth in applicable statutes, administrative rules, and the Food Code. Among the violations Mr. Roff noted was the absence of a backflow preventer on the mop sink faucet. Mr. Roff observed that the mop sink faucet was threaded but no backflow preventer was installed. Food Code Rule 5-203.14 provides as follows: A PLUMBING SYSTEM shall be installed to preclude backflow of a solid, liquid, or gas contaminant into the water supply system at each point of use at the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, including on a hose bibb if a hose is attached or on a hose bibb if a hose is not attached and backflow prevention is required by LAW, by: (A) Providing an air gap as specified under § 5-202.13; or (B) Installing an approved backflow prevention device as specified under § 5-202.14. Food Code Rule 5-202.13, entitled “Backflow Prevention, Air Gap,” provides as follows: An air gap between the water supply inlet and the flood level rim of the PLUMBING FIXTURE, EQUIPMENT, or nonFOOD EQUIPMENT shall be at least twice the diameter of the water supply inlet and may not be less than 25 mm (1 inch). A vacuum breaker or other backflow preventer prohibits backflow of water from the mop bucket, when being filled in the mop sink (or by hose attached to the mop sink faucet), into the water supply system in the event of a loss of water pressure, which creates a siphoning action. The Food Code provides an exception when the distance between the end of the faucet and the top of the rim of the sink is twice the diameter of the faucet but not less than one inch. Violation of rule 5-203.14 is designated by the Division as a high priority violation. Among other violations, Mr. Roff noted on the Inspection Report that the reach-in cooler gasket was torn or in disrepair. Mr. Roff did not testify specifically whether the gasket was torn, or otherwise in disrepair. He testified that he typically reaches in and spreads the gasket apart to inspect for tears. Food Code Rule 4-501.11(B) provides, “Equipment components such as doors, seals, hinges, fasteners, and kick plates shall be kept intact, tight, and adjusted in accordance with manufacturer?s specifications.” A torn or otherwise damaged cooler gasket can cause cross-contamination and prevent the storage of foods at the required temperature. Mr. Roff did measure the temperature of the food in the reach-in cooler, but did not testify with certainty whether the temperature met the standard of 41 degrees or less. Mr. Roff did not note temperature of food stored in the reach-in cooler as a violation. Given the totality of the evidence, the undersigned finds that the food stored in the reach-in cooler met the temperature standard. Violation of rule 4-501.11(B) is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Among the other violations observed by Mr. Roff was that the utensil used to scoop corn meal from its bulk container was resting flat on top of the corn meal, where the handle came into contact with the corn meal. Food Code Rule 3-304.12 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: During pauses in food preparation or dispensing, food preparation and dispensing utensils shall be stored: * * * (B) in food that is not potentially hazardous (time/temperature control for safety food) with their handles above the top of the food within containers or equipment that can be closed, such as bins of sugar, flour, or cinnamon. At Dominos Pizza, corn meal is used in stretching the pizza dough. The corn meal is scooped from a bulk container onto the food preparation surface and spread by hand on the surface before stretching the dough. Violation of rule 3-304.12 is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Mr. Roff met with Ms. Narverud during the inspection on March 26, 2013, walked through each of the alleged violations with her, and gave her a copy of the Inspection Report, which she signed. The Inspection Report notes a callback inspection date of May 27, 2013. On May 30, 2013, Mr. Roff performed a callback inspection at Respondent?s food service establishment. Ms. Narverud was not present. Mr. Roff observed that eight of the violations noted in the March 26, 2013, Inspection Report had been corrected. However, the three violations detailed above –- no backflow preventer at the mop sink, gasket on reach-in cooler torn or in disrepair, and corn meal scoop not stored with handle above food –- were not corrected. Mr. Roff prepared a Callback Inspection Report, which was signed by Julio Diaz as Manager. The Callback Inspection Report recommended filing an Administrative Complaint. Petitioner introduced no evidence of prior violations by Respondent of the applicable statutes, administrative rules, or the Food Code. Owner?s Response Ms. Narverud has worked as a food service manager for 25 years, has a food manager certification from the Division, and is a certified trainer for Dominos where she trains employees in sanitation requirements. Ms. Narverud is an advocate for food safety and training in order to protect the Dominos brand and reputation. Ms. Narverud testified that the gasket on the reach-in cooler was replaced approximately one year prior to the inspection. Ms. Narverud testified credibly that a gasket generally lasts three to five years. Ms. Narverud admitted that the gasket was stained with tomato sauce, but maintained it was not torn, soiled, or mildewed. Respondent introduced a photograph of the gasket in question, which appeared to be in good repair. However, the picture was taken two weeks before the hearing, so it is not accepted as evidence of the condition of the gasket at the time of inspection. Ms. Narverud contacted her plumber following the March inspection to request that a backflow preventer be installed at the mop sink faucet. The plumber informed her there was no backflow preventer device which would fit that particular faucet.3/ Further, Ms. Narverud maintained that the particular mop sink is exempt from the backflow preventer requirement because the air gap between the end of the faucet and the top of the mop sink was two inches or more, and no hose was attached to the faucet. Mr. Roff could not recall whether a hose was located within the vicinity of the sink during either the initial or callback inspection. There was no evidence of the distance between the end of the faucet and the flood level rim of the mop sink, other than Respondent?s testimony. Ms. Narverud planned to discuss the issue of the mop sink with Mr. Roff when he returned for the callback inspection. However, Mr. Roff returned on May 30, rather than May 27, the date noted in the March Inspection Report. Ms. Narverud was not present when the callback inspection was conducted. Having been cited in the Administrative Complaint for the lack of a backflow preventer, despite her plumber?s advice and her belief that no backflow preventer was required for the type of faucet installed, Ms. Narverud has subsequently had the entire faucet replaced and a backflow preventer installed. As to the issue of the scoop handle in the corn meal bin, Ms. Narverud disagrees that a violation occurred. Because the corn meal is spread by hand onto the food preparation surface after scooping, Ms. Narverud argues that it should be irrelevant whether the scoop handle touches the corn meal in the bin. Mr. Narverud?s argument, while understandable, is not compelling. But for the handle, employees might as well be scooping the corn meal directly from the bin with their hands. The handle is the carrier by which corn meal in the bin may become contaminated by any number of germs and viruses present on employees? hands. The citation may be picky, but it is nevertheless a violation.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent, Dominos Pizza, violated section 509.032(2)(d), and Food Code Rules 5-203.14. and 3- 304.12, adopted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C- 1.001(13), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; Finding that Respondent, Dominos Pizza, did not violate section 509.032(2)(d), and Food Code Rule 4-501.11(B), as alleged in Administrative Complaint; Applying a mitigating factor based on the 12-year length of time that Respondent has been in operation without incident, her good-faith belief that a backflow preventer was not required for the mop sink, and her extraordinary efforts in correcting the violations; and Imposing an administrative penalty against Respondent, Dominos Pizza, in the amount of $200, payable to the Division within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 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
