The Issue The issues in this disciplinary proceeding arise from Petitioner's allegation that Respondent, a licensed restaurant, violated several rules and a statutory provision governing food service establishments. If Petitioner proves one or more of the alleged violations, then it will be necessary to consider whether penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the State agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a restaurant operating at 3100 Northwest 17th Avenue, Miami, Florida, and holding food service license number 2328990. On May 19, 2010, and July 23, 2010, Respondent was inspected by Reginald Garcia, a sanitation and safety specialist employed by the Division. During both visits, Mr. Garcia noticed multiple items that were not in compliance with the laws which govern the facilities and operations of licensed restaurants. Through the testimony of Mr. Garcia and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, the Division presented clear and convincing evidence that as of July 23, 2010, the following deficiencies subsisted at Respondent Alma Caribe Café Restaurant: (1) potentially hazardous food held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit, contrary to Food Code Rule 3-501.16(A); (2) potentially hazardous food not cooled from 135 to 41 degrees Fahrenheit within six hours, in violation of Food Code Rule 3-501.14(A); (3) holding equipment incapable of maintaining potentially hazardous food at proper temperatures, in violation of Food Code Rule 4-301.11; (4) raw food stored over cooked food, contrary to Food Code Rule 3- 302.11(A)(1); and (5) no proof of required employee training, in violation of section 509.049, Florida Statutes. Each of the foregoing deficiencies is considered a critical violation by the Division. Critical food code violations are those that, if uncorrected, present an immediate threat to public safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order: (a) finding Respondent guilty in accordance with the foregoing Recommended Order; and (b) ordering Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $1250, to be paid within 30 days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penaity should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the operation of hotel and restaurant establishments pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2003). 2. Respondent is an eating establishment located in Jacksonville, Florida. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent held license number 2610901-R issued by the Division. 3. John Phelan is a sanitation and safety specialist employed by the Division. Mr. Phelan has a bachelor's degree in criminology. He has been employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation for 14 years. He also has received training in laws and rules regarding public food service and lodging, as well as fire safety and hazard training. 4. On September 25, 2003, Mr. Phelan conducted an inspection of Respondent's premises and issued an inspection report while on the premises. Shana Phillips, the store manager, signed for the inspection report. 5. During the September 25, 2003, inspection, Mr. Phelan observed several violations and issued a warning that the violations must be corrected by October 25, 2003. 6. Mr. Phelan conducted a call-back inspection on November 6, 2003, during which he observed that several of the violations noted on September 25, 2003, had not been corrected. 7. One violation that Mr. Phelan found that had not been corrected is that there were four employees on duty, and none of those four had a food manager certification in their possession. This is a critical violation because a food manager must be on the premises with that number of employees on duty. 8. At the time of the first inspection, Mr. Phelan observed that the fire extinguisher had been discharged. During the call-back inspection, he could not locate any ABC fire extinguisher on the premises. This is a critical violation because not having a fire extinguisher on the premises is a fire safety hazard. The food establishment is required to have a fire extinguisher on the premises. 9. During the original inspection, Mr. Phelan also observed an open space at the bottom of the rear door. This was listed as a violation, because it is a vermin control issue. There is a danger of "[r]oaches, mice, rats--something might crawl in and contaminate the food." This violation had not been corrected at the time of the call-back inspection. 10. Mr. Phelan observed that the tops of the ice machine and convection oven were greasy and dusty. This had not been corrected at the time of the call-back inspection. This is a violation because grease buildup can attract vermin. 11. Mr. Phelan observed a crusty white buildup on the interior of the ice machine. This had not been corrected at the time of the call-back inspection. He listed this as a violation because something could break off from the crusty white substance and fall into the ice, thereby risking contamination. 12. Mr. Phelan observed the lid to the bulk sugar container to be broken. This had not been corrected at the time of the call-back inspection. This is a violation because the lid can fall into the bulk container and contaminate the food. 13. Mr. Phelan observed a scoop handle used for dispensing in the bulk sugar container. He observed this during both inspections. This is hazardous because it allows for possible contamination from bare hand contact with the food. 14. Mr. Siplin offered mitigating circumstances regarding some of the deficiencies noted by Mr. Phelan. 15. Regarding the allegation that no food service manager had a certification, Mr. Phelan asserts that Shana Phillips is certified, but had gone to the bank to make a deposit at the time of the inspection. Ms. Phillips had her certification in her wallet. While Mr. Siplin asserts that the certifications are now hanging on the restaurant wall to avoid this happening again, the employee's card was not available at the time of the inspection as required. 16. Regarding the allegation that the oven had a grease buildup, Mr. Siplin asserted that biscuits are baked in the ovens all day and that some buildup could be expected from day to day. Mr. Siplin disagreed that the amount of grease buildup was such that it constituted a violation, asserted that any buildup was simply a result of everyday use, and that the restaurant is cleaned nightly. However, Mr. Phelan insisted that the amount of grease was more than just one day's accumulation, that there was a buildup of grease. Mr. Phelan's testimony in this regard is more persuasive. 17. Mr. Siplin explained that the existence of any white buildup on the interior of the ice machine would be as a result of lime in the water. His assertion in this regard is accepted as credible. 18. Regarding the cracked lid on the sugar container, Mr. Siplin acknowledged that the lid was cracked, but that there was a replacement on order at the time of the second inspection. Mr. Siplin orders replacements for broken equipment. from an authorized supplier, and he was waiting for the replacement at that time. His assertion in this regard is accepted as credible. 19. Regarding the allegation that there was no fire extinguisher, Mr. Siplin asserted that there was another ABC fire extinguisher on the premises. He acknowledged that the fire extinguisher in the back of the restaurant had been discharged, but there was another one in the front of the restaurant. His assertion in this regard is accepted as credible. 20. Regarding the allegation that a scoop was in the bulk sugar, Mr. Siplin's explanation related to the ice bin, rather than the sugar bin.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 For Respondent: Lewis Siplin, pro se Lewis Siplin Enterprises 1617 Rowe Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32208
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter a final order which confirms the violations found, dismisses the violations not found, imposes an administrative penalty in the amount of $1,000, and requires Respondent to attend a Hospitality Education Program. 13 DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 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 issues in this matter are whether Respondent was out of compliance with the food safety requirements of chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2016),1/ and the implementing administrative rules of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants; and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for regulating the operation of public food service establishments in Florida pursuant to chapter 509. Respondent is a licensed public food service establishment in Florida and holds License No. 3915849. Respondent operates a restaurant under the name of Los Gorditos No. 2 located at 6110 Causeway Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Respondent is a family-owned and operated business. The restaurant opened in November 2014. As a licensed public food service establishment, Respondent is subject to the Division's regulatory jurisdiction. Respondent must comply with the requirements of chapter 509 and its implementing rules. Respondent is subject to inspection by the Division. Ashley Herrmann (“Inspector Herrmann”) is employed by the Division as a Sanitation Safety Specialist. Inspector Herrmann has worked for the Division for approximately two and a half years as an inspector. Upon gaining employment in the Division, Inspector Herrmann was standardized on the federal Food Code and trained on the laws and rules pertaining to public food service establishments and public lodging establishments. She is also a certified food manager and receives continuing education training on a monthly basis. Inspector Herrmann performs approximately 1,000 inspections each year. On November 5, 2015, Inspector Herrmann performed a routine, unannounced food service inspection on Respondent’s restaurant. During the inspection, Inspector Herrmann prepared a Food Service Inspection Report. In her report, Inspector Herrmann recorded her observations of potential violations. Inspector Herrmann noted approximately 39 conditions for which Respondent had failed to comply with applicable rules or statutes. Jaharia Perez signed the Food Service Inspection Report acknowledging receipt on Respondent’s behalf. Inspector Herrmann informed Respondent that it needed to correct the violations by November 12, 2015. On November 13, 2015, Inspector Herrmann performed a callback inspection on Respondent to follow up on her initial inspection. During this inspection, Inspector Herrmann prepared a Callback Report. Inspector Herrmann found that Respondent had corrected 14 of the violations she identified during her November 5, 2015, inspection. However, Respondent had not addressed the 25 other violations. Inspector Herrmann informed Respondent that the remaining violations needed to be fixed by December 5, 2015. Mariella Mendoza signed the Callback Report acknowledging receipt on behalf of Respondent. On December 8, 2015, Inspector Herrmann performed a second callback inspection on Respondent to follow up on the November 13, 2015, inspection. During this inspection, Inspector Herrmann prepared a second Callback Report. She noted that Respondent had corrected five more violations recorded in her November 5, 2015, and November 13, 2015, inspections. However, 20 violations still existed. Inspector Herrmann informed Respondent that the remaining violations needed to be fixed by January 5, 2016. Jaharia Perez signed the Callback Report acknowledging receipt on Respondent’s behalf. On January 5, 2016, Inspector Herrmann performed a third callback inspection on Respondent. During this inspection, Inspector Herrmann prepared a third Callback Report. On this report, Inspector Herrmann noted that Respondent had fixed at least one more violation identified during her November 5, 2015, November 13, 2015, and December 8, 2015, inspections. However, a number of violations remained uncorrected. Based on Inspector Hermann’s January 5, 2016, Callback Report, the Division cited Respondent with thirteen violations. These violations included: First Violation: Inspector Hermann observed a cutting board with cut marks which made the cutting board no longer cleanable in violation of rule 4-501.12, Food Code (2009).3/ Cutting boards that have cut marks collect food debris which enables bacteria to accumulate leading to food borne illness. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a “core item.” The Division designated violations of core items as “basic violations.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). Respondent, at the final hearing, expressed that it has obtained a new cutting board. Second Violation: Inspector Herrmann observed non-food grade containers being used for food storage in violation of rule 4-101.11, Food Code. Non-food grade containers can contain chemicals that can leak into food products. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a priority item.4/ The Division has designated violations of priority items as “high priority violations.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(a). Respondent claimed that it ordered and now uses approved food grade containers. Third Violation: Inspector Herrmann observed a build-up of dust, food debris, and grease on hood filters in violation of rule 4- 601.11(C), Food Code. Debris can potentially fall from hood filters or shelving into food items or accumulate on non-food contact surfaces and transfer to clean containers placing the public’s health at risk. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a “core item.” The Division has designated violations of core items as “basic violations.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). Respondent explained that in December 2015, it hired a custodial company to clean grease, debris, and soil in its facility every three months. Fourth Violation: Inspector Herrmann observed that Respondent seated more patrons than its septic system permit authorized in violation of rule 5-403.11, Food Code. Respondent’s establishment was approved for 19 seats, but Inspector Herrmann observed the establishment operating with approximately 48 seats on November 5, 2015, November 13, 2015, and December 8, 2015. On January 5, 2016, Respondent operated with approximately 25 seats. Serving more patrons than the septic system can accommodate can result in a failed septic system that can create a sanitary nuisance. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a priority item. The Division has designated violations of priority items as “high priority violations. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(a). Respondent testified that, following the January inspection, it has reduced its seating to approximately 20 seats. Respondent has also initiated a plan to connect to the city water and sewer. This arrangement will allow the restaurant to expand its seating without violating its septic system capacity. Respondent hopes to connect to city water by Christmas 2016. Fifth Violation: a. Inspector Herrmann observed the presence of standing water around the floor drain, which was draining slowly near the cook line and fryers, in violation of rule 5-205.15, Food Code. Standing water in floor drains can potentially back up into the establishment and create a sanitary nuisance or potentially attract vermin. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a “core item.” The Division has designated violations of core items as “basic violations.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). Sixth Violation: Inspector Herrmann observed an outside dumpster sitting directly on the ground without a barrier or non-absorbent surface between the dumpster and the ground in violation of rule 5- 501.11, Food Code. Dumpsters without proper pads allow food waste and chemicals to leak into the ground and attract vermin. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a “core item.” The Division has designated violations of core items as “basic violations.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). Respondent explained that it is working with Hillsborough County to redesign the area where the dumpster is located to include a concrete space for the dumpster that complies with regulations. The permits have not yet been approved, but Respondent is working towards them. Seventh Violation: Inspector Hermann observed several broken wall tiles under the three compartment sink and damaged cove molding on the front cook line in violation of rule 6-501.11, Food Code. Damage to wall or cove molding can lead to the accumulation of food debris and the growth of bacteria, putting the public’s health at risk. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a “core item.” The Division has designated violations of core items as “basic violations.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). Respondent asserted that it repaired all the wall tiles in December 2015. Eighth Violation: Inspector Herrmann observed soil on Respondent’s floor near or along the baseboards in violation of rule 6-501.12(A), Food Code. Bacteria and dirt on the floor can come into contact with food contact surfaces placing the public’s health at risk. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a “core item.” The Division has designated violations of core items as “basic violations.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). Similar to its reaction to the Fourth Violation, Respondent hired a custodial company to clean grease, debris, and soil in its facility every three months. Ninth Violation: a. Inspector Hermann observed that lights above a food preparation table were missing a proper light shield or cover in violation of rule 6-202.11, Food Code. Light covers and shields protect food items and preparation surfaces from shattered glass. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a “core item.” The Division designates violations of core items as “basic violations.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). Tenth Violation: Inspector Herrmann observed carbon dioxide/helium tanks that were not adequately secured in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(7)(a). Unsecured tanks might topple over and, if breached, can become a missile-like object and a danger to the public’s safety. The Division designated this violation as a “basic violation.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). Respondent explained that the tanks are owned by the owner of the building where the restaurant is located and were present when Respondent opened its business. Further, Respondent understands that the tanks are empty. Therefore, the tanks do not pose a danger if the top valve gets knocked off. Eleventh Violation: Inspector Herrmann observed that Respondent had recently constructed a bar inside the restaurant. Respondent did not submit a plan for the bar to the Division for approval in violation of rule 61C-1.002(5)(c)1. Inspector Herrmann contacted the Division’s Plan Review Office and confirmed that Respondent had not submitted a properly prepared facility plan and specification for review. The Division must approve remodeled or newly constructed public food service establishments to ensure compliance with sanitation and safety requirements. The Division designated this violation as an “intermediate violation.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(b). Respondent explained that it requested and received approval from the Hillsborough County Fire Department to construct the bar. However, Respondent was not aware that it also needed to submit a plan review to the Division. Consequently, it did not seek approval from the Division. Twelfth Violation: Inspector Herrmann observed Respondent operating with four or more employees engaging in food preparation and/or handling without a certified food protection manager on duty in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-4.023(1). At least one certified food protection manager must be present at all times when four or more employees are engaged in the storage, preparation, or serving of food to ensure the establishment is operating with acceptable sanitary practices. The Division designated this violation an “intermediate violation.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(b). Respondent expressed that it always operates under the supervision of certified food protection managers and believes that a food manager was present during the times of the inspections. Respondent offered that the inspections were accomplished in a short timespan (20 minutes). This short time period, combined with the fact that Spanish is the primary language of many of Respondent’s employees, may have led to a misunderstanding over whether a certified food manager was present during the inspections. At the final hearing, Respondent testified and produced evidence that Respondent currently employs approximately nine certified food managers. Respondent further represented that the two individuals who signed the inspection reports on Respondent’s behalf were also certified food protection managers. Thirteenth Violation: a. Respondent failed to provide Inspector Herrmann with proof of its employees' required state-approved employee training upon request in violation of section 509.049(5). Employees of public food service establishments are required to have basic food safety training which imparts knowledge of basic food handling skills. Lack of this knowledge can result in a breakdown of the food handling process, possibly leading to food borne illness or unsanitary conditions. The Division designated this violation as an “intermediate violation.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(b). Respondent has one prior disciplinary Final Order filed with the Agency Clerk for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation within the 24 months preceding the administrative complaint in this matter. The Final Order in Case No. 2015-014633 was filed on October 6, 2015. Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the final hearing, the Division demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent was out of compliance with applicable food safety requirements of the Food Code, Florida Statutes, and the implementing administrative rules of the Division. The Division established that on or about November 5, 2015, November 13, 2015, December 8, 2015, and January 5, 2016, Respondent committed the following violations listed above: the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, eleventh, and thirteenth violations. The Division did not establish, by clear and convincing evidence, the tenth and twelfth violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing 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 Respondent, Benitel Eddie Joel Perez, d/b/a Los Gorditos No. 2, in violation of chapter 509 and its implementing rules. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent should pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $3,500 for the violations identified above, due and payable to the Division within thirty (30) calendar days of the date the final order is filed with the Agency Clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 29th day of June, 2016.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of certain violations of the Food Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material here, Respondent was licensed and regulated by Petitioner. Respondent operated under License No. 20-00805-R, in a leased facility in Green Coves Springs, Florida. On December 26, 2003, Daniel Fulton, Petitioner's Senior Sanitation and Safety Specialist, performed a routine inspection of Respondent's premises. During the inspection, Mr. Fulton prepared a Food Service Inspection Report (FSIR) setting forth his findings. Mr. Fulton gave Respondent's manager a copy of the report and explained each finding as a citation/violation. On January 27, 2004, Mr. Fulton re-inspected Respondent's premises. During the re-inspection, Mr. Fulton prepared a Callback Inspection Report, setting forth his findings. Based on his observations, Mr. Fulton listed citations on the Callback Inspection Report that had not been corrected after the December 2003 inspection. According to the Callback Inspection Report, the gas equipment in Respondent's pit area still did not have a fire suppression system over it. Typically, this would constitute a critical violation. However, during the hearing, Respondent provided evidence that the Clay County Fire Inspector considered the current configuration of the hood exhaust system to be acceptable to the Clay County Department of Public Safety. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order indicates that it has withdrawn the allegation that Respondent violated the National Fire Protection Act of 1996. On January 27, 2004, Mr. Fulton observed that an outside cooker was not properly enclosed, creating a critical violation. The walls that enclosed Respondent's cooker were not at least four feet high. The area was not properly screened between the existing walls and the roof. In fact, the roof did not cover part of the area where the cooker was located. On January 27, 2004, Mr. Fulton observed that a faucet or hose bib did not have a back-flow prevention device. The lack of a back-flow prevention device created a critical violation. On January 27, 2004, Mr. Fulton observed that there was a black substance on the interior of an ice machine's lid. The December 2003 FSIR did not list this citation as a critical concern that must be corrected immediately. However, Mr. Fulton provided persuasive testimony that ice is consumable and that any foreign black substance in the interior of an ice machine constituted a critical violation. During the December 2003 inspection, Mr. Fulton cited Respondent for not having adequate sneeze protection over the soup pot on the buffet bar. Simply placing a lid on the crock pot was not sufficient to provide that protection when customers removed the lid. After the December 2003 inspection, Respondent decided to adjust the height of the crock pot to provide more sneeze protection. In making the adjustments, Respondent was careful not to let the soup become inaccessible for children and disabled customers in wheelchairs. On January 27, 2004, Mr. Fulton observed that the crock pot containing soup at the buffet bar continued to have inadequate sneeze protection for a person of average height, approximately five feet and six inches. The sneeze protection over the crock pot was not properly adjusted until Mr. Fulton conducted a third inspection in October 2004. The lack of adequate sneeze protection did not constitute a critical violation. On January 27, 2004, Mr. Fulton observed that the inside light of a reach-in cooler was not operational. Respondent ordered the replacement light after the December 2003 inspection, but had not received it at the time of the callback inspection in January 2004. This was not a critical violation. Respondent was aware of all of the above-referenced violations after the December 2003 inspection. Respondent had not corrected them at the time of the January 2004 inspection. In June 2004, Elizabeth Tillman, one of Respondent's owners took over Respondent's day-to-day management. By the time that Mr. Fulton inspected the premises in October 2004, all violations had been corrected except for violations that required building construction by a new owner of the leased premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order requiring Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 20005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 9th day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Grant Gibson, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Elizabeth and Ronald Tillman 505 North Orange Avenue Green Cove Springs, Florida 32043 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Hotel and Restaurants 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Flamers, committed the violation alleged and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The 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. (2007). At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent operated as a public food service establishment subject to the Petitioner’s jurisdiction (see Petitioner’s Exhibit A). In his capacity as a sanitation and safety specialist for the Petitioner, Mr. Morales visited the Respondent’s place of business located at 801 North Congress Avenue, Boynton Beach, Florida, on two occasions. Mr. Morales has extensive training and education in food service related matters and has performed numerous inspections for the Petitioner. He is familiar with all relevant food service law and rules pertaining to the inspection of licensed food service establishments. First, on May 11, 2007, Mr. Morales visited the Respondent’s place of business and noted several Food Service Inspection violations. These violations were documented (Petitioner’s Exhibit B) and a copy of the inspection report was provided to Mr. Yo. Mr. Yo owns the restuarant and was present during this first inspection. The violation pertinent to this case is more fully described below (see "callback" inspection results). At the time of the first inspection, Mr. Morales warned that a “call back” inspection would be performed and issued the Respondent with a warning regarding the violations noted on the inspection form. The “call back” inspection was provided to afford the Respondent with time to correct the deficiencies noted in the first inspection and to assure that the deficiencies were timely corrected. On June 14, 2007, Mr. Morales returned to the Respondent’s place of business to perform the “call back” inspection. The “call back” inspection report (Petitioner’s Exhibit C) noted two violations had not been corrected. Only one of these violations remains at issue. Specifically, Mr. Morales found that the food containers that stored food overnight were not clearly marked and dated. This is not an approved method of storing food. Mr. Yo was not present during this "call back" inspection. Michael Evancich was present during the "call back." Mr. Evanich identified himself to Mr. Morales as the Respondent's "manager." Mr. Evancich signed the Food Service Inspection Report that detailed the violation. Mr. Morales noted that potentially hazardous food was prepared and held in containers for more than 24 hours without being clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the food would be consumed, sold, or discarded. See Food Code Rule 3-501.17(A). Food containers with hot dogs, chicken breasts, and burgers were not dated and were stored overnight inside a cooler. According to Mr. Morales this is a critical violation. Undated and out-dated food can grow bacteria leading to a potential health hazard. The purpose of the labeling assures that potentially hazardous products are not sold to the public or consumed. Although he was not present during the "call back" inspection, Mr. Yo maintained that the Respondent has a policy to assure that food products are marked and stored in an approved manner.
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 in the amount of $500.00. S DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: William Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restuarants 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 Jessica Leigh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Richard Yo 6205 Floridian Circle Lake Worth, Florida 33463
