The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a bakery, primarily selling bagels. Respondent bakes, packages, and sells bagels and other baked products wholesale and retail. In addition, it sells ready-to- eat food in individual portions for consumption on or off the premises, including eggs, bacon, sausage, salads, and soups. It also cuts, packages, and sells meats. Respondent also operates a delivery service and a catering business and is open to the public 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Respondent is regulated by the Department and is routinely inspected by the Department three times a year. Ronald Gagnon is employed by the Department's Bureau of Food and Meat Inspection as a sanitary and safety specialist. He performed a routine inspection of the Respondent's premises on May 26, 2006. Gretchen Rhodes is the sanitation and safety specialist who had been assigned to perform routine inspections of the Respondent, but she was behind schedule in her duties and was covering for her supervisor, Rodney Banks, who was on vacation. Gagnon agreed to perform the inspection of Respondent to assist Rhodes. He had never been on Respondent's premises to inspect it prior to the May 26, 2006, inspection, but he had inspected other bakeries before he inspected Respondent. Gagnon had been employed by the Department as a sanitation and safety specialist since August 2005. After he was hired, he received six months of on-the-job training accompanying other inspectors on inspections before performing an inspection by himself. He also received one week of training by the Department regarding the different statutes and rules relating to food safety. He also underwent standardization that included performing eight inspections of food establishments under the observation of a federal Food and Drug Administration inspector to ensure that he was performing inspections competently. Prior to inspecting Respondent, Gagnon had been performing inspections by himself for approximately five months. According to his estimate, he had performed approximately 300 inspections by then. Of those, only six to eight percent of the inspections he performed had been assigned a "poor" rating, which rating required a re-inspection. Upon entering Respondent's business at about 8:30 a.m., Gagnon told the cashier he was there to inspect the premises and then gave that information to Patricia Marshall, the employee who was in charge at the time. Marshall asked Gagnon to wait for an owner to arrive before he did his inspection, but he advised her that he could perform his inspection as long as there was someone in charge at the business. He invited her to accompany him, but she was busy and did not accompany him during his inspection of the back room and related areas. Shortly after Gagnon's arrival, Marshall telephoned Denise Jimenez, a manager and the wife of one of the owners, and advised her that an inspector was performing an inspection. Mrs. Jimenez did not arrive at the business until after Gagnon had completed his inspection and was preparing his written report. When Gagnon completed his inspection of the back room and related areas, he returned to inspect the retail area where Marshall was working. Although she was with him for some parts of the inspection, she was busy and did not observe him during all of his inspection of the retail area. They did have several conversations, however, regarding specific violations which he noticed. One of those conversations involved the temperature- recording device in the cooling case in the retail area. Gagnon noticed that the measuring device was in the coldest part of the case by the condenser coils; however, to properly measure the temperature of the food in the case, the device should be located in the warmest part of the cooler. Gagnon explained this problem to Marshall, and Marshall subsequently pulled out the wire of the device so that it was no longer working. Another conversation involved the soup that was in the ready-to-eat serving area. The soup was in a stainless steel container called a Bay Marie and had been lowered into a crock pot with a heating element. The container had approximately a quart of soup in it. When Gagnon measured the temperature of the soup, it was at 118 degrees Fahrenheit and not at 135 degrees, the temperature required to prevent the growth of harmful bacteria. At hearing, Gagnon testified that Marshall told him she was going to throw that soup away and make new soup for lunch. Marshall testified, however, that she had made the soup for lunch and it was not yet fully heated. The small amount of soup makes Gagnon's recollection more credible than Marshall's. At any rate, Gagnon told her to throw away the soup, and she did. Gagnon made handwritten notes to record his findings as he performed his inspection. He used the equipment he brought with him as he proceeded. He brought a thermal couple, a digital food thermometer with a probe that could be inserted into food to measure the internal temperature. He had an infrared thermometer to measure surface temperatures. He used these two devices to measure the temperature of food to determine whether it was hot enough or cold enough. If the infrared thermometer showed that the surface temperature was too low or too high, he used the probe thermometer to measure the internal temperature of the food. He also had a flashlight to look into dark areas and test strips to measure the concentration of sanitizer used to clean dishes and cooking utensils to determine whether it was too low or too high. He had alcohol swabs to cleanse the measuring device on the probe thermometer between uses on different foods. Lastly, he had his computer and printer to prepare his report and provide a copy to the business being inspected. After Gagnon concluded his inspection, he prepared a Food Safety Inspection Report while still on Respondent's premises. The numbers on the left margin of those documents represent different classifications of food safety violations. By virtue of his training, Gagnon was familiar with the different classifications and would press the number for the class of violations most closely resembling what he had observed. From the available options, he would then select the description most closely fitting what he observed. This description would be printed in lower case letters. Using bold print following that description, Gagnon wrote what he had actually observed. The computer was programmed to print an asterisk beside certain violations which had been determined by the Department to pose a more serious threat to food safety. These violations are referred to as "critical violations." Since Mrs. Jimenez arrived at the business after Gagnon finished his report, he went through his report with her verbally. She then accompanied him through the premises, starting in the back area. He pointed out to her each item which he had marked as a violation. She remained silent through most of his concerns, not offering any explanations that he might consider in finalizing his report, except for one. She explained to him that the mixer was black on the inside because the cook had been mixing pumpernickel dough which contains coloring that is black. When Gagnon and Mrs. Jimenez went into the retail area, a discussion and then argument ensued regarding the broken temperature-measuring device in the cooling case. Mrs. Jimenez insisted that Gagnon had ordered Marshall to move it, which broke the device; Gagnon denied ordering Marshall to do so. Mrs. Jimenez became quite angry and demanded that Gagnon pay to repair the cooler. She began demanding that Gagnon prove who he was, and he handed her a copy of his inspection report with his name on it and advised her that there was a telephone number for the Department on it if she wanted to call to complain. He then left the business and the confrontation. Gagnon's inspection report cited numerous violations ranging from minor to serious. Eleven of the violations were critical violations as follows: washed utensils were not properly washed; there was a live roach in the proofer box; single-serve gloves were being used more than once for tasks where glove changes were necessary; food employees were not regularly washing their hands; bacon and sausage were held at room temperature, and the soup was at 118 degrees; salads and deli meats were held at above the required temperature; eggs, ham, and cheeses in the walk-in cooler were above the required temperature; desserts were in a case with ice underneath and were, therefore, above the required temperature; eggs in the reach-in cooler and cheese in the cold case were above the required temperature; equipment was not maintaining required temperatures; and there were no dates marked on the ham. Due to the number of critical violations and the number of other violations, Gagnon gave Respondent a rating of "poor," which rating required a re-inspection two weeks later to ascertain if the violations had been corrected. Both Mr. and Mrs. Jimenez called the Department that same day complaining about Gagnon and demanding that the Department immediately send a different inspector to re-inspect the business. They were both advised that the business would be re-inspected in two weeks. Yet, Mr. Jimenez instructed his employees to change nothing so they could prove Gagnon was wrong when the next inspector came. In other words, Jimenez made the decision to not correct the violations noted in Gagnon's report. In the Food Safety Inspection Supplemental Report Gagnon completed after he had left the business, he memorialized that the key lime desserts, bacon, sausage, and soup were destroyed. As to other violations, such as eggs being held at too high a temperature, he released those products for sale after they were properly refrigerated. No competent evidence was offered as to any bias on the part of Gagnon against the business or its employees. The evidence is uncontroverted that he had finished his report before the confrontation over the wire in the cooler began. When he left the business to avoid continuing the confrontation, he left a copy of his report, and no changes are alleged to have been made to his report thereafter. Gretchen Rhodes performed the follow-up inspection on June 7, 2006. She was accompanied by her supervisor, Rodney Banks, due to the reported confrontation on May 26 between Gagnon and Respondent's employees. They observed some of the same violations found by Gagnon on May 26. There were four critical violations found: (1) a food employee in the in-store deli area failed to change single-use gloves and failed to wash his or her hands after the gloves were contaminated; (2) there was no health-risks advisory posted in the in-store deli part of the business although eggs were cooked to order there; (3) salads in the in-store deli cooler were at higher than the required temperature; and (4) heavy rodent droppings were seen in the service closet (utility room) near the ovens. As on May 26, there was no certified food manager present although there were four or more employees present. As on May 26, Rhodes observed furnishings and equipment that were dirty. As to the rodent droppings, John Jimenez, as Respondent's 50 percent owner and Respondent's representative at the final hearing, admitted that the business had a rodent problem and had had that problem since February 2006 when it was discovered. Although attempts had been made to eradicate the rodents, they were still present and the business was still cooking and serving food to the public. On June 7 there were maintenance and cleaning tools stored in the food processing area, including a generator and tires for motor vehicles, thereby creating an area of clutter in which rodents could hide. Rhodes assigned Respondent a rating of "poor" based upon the violations she found, particularly, the presence of rodents. She gave a copy of her Food Safety Inspection Report and of her Food Safety Inspection Supplemental Report to Mrs. Jimenez, who signed that she received them. Rodney Banks, a sanitation and safety supervisor since 1992, accompanied Rhodes on the June 7 inspection. He agreed with her observations and with the violations noted in her report and supplemental report which he reviewed at the conclusion of the inspection. In addition to supervising Gretchen Rhodes, he also supervises Ronald Gagnon and Cynthia Koza. In fact, he had hired Gagnon and has never received a complaint about Gagnon from any of the businesses Gagnon has inspected, except for Respondent's. Cynthia Koza, a sanitation and safety specialist, accompanied Rhodes when Rhodes returned to Respondent's premises on July 5, 2006, for a follow-up inspection. It was normal procedure to have two inspectors for the follow-up inspection if a food establishment had two "poor" ratings in a row. She agreed with Rhodes' observations during the inspection and with the contents of Rhodes' Food Safety Inspection Report and Food Safety Inspection Supplemental Report. The inspectors did not inspect the retail area of Respondent's premises on that date because there were a lot of customers in that area. They did, however, inspect the back area and once again found rodent droppings not only in the service closet but also behind a butcher block table top leaning against the wall by the walk-in cooler. They noticed that the back door of the business was standing open at the time of the inspection and was neither self-closing nor tight-fitting. This observation matched that of Gagnon on May 26 that the back door had gaps with huge openings, thereby allowing rodents and insects to enter the food processing area. The inspectors also noticed that there were chew holes in ceiling tiles near the electric conduit pipes, some ceiling tiles were missing, and there was a hole in the wall in the finishing room. Based upon Rhodes' training and experience, she recognized the chew holes as rodent chew marks. There were also black grease marks around the hole where a rodent's fur brushed against the wall as it squeezed through the hole. As on May 29 and June 7, there was no certified food manager on the premises on July 5 although there were eight employees present at the time. Rhodes again noted in her report the continued presence of clutter and the dirty equipment. Foods in the walk- in cooler still were not maintained at the required low temperature. Rhodes again gave the business a rating of "poor." She gave copies of her Food Safety Inspection Report and Food Safety Inspection Supplemental Report to Mrs. Jimenez. Dr. John Fruin is the Chief of the Bureau of Food and Meat Inspection, Division of Food Safety, of the Department. He reviewed the Food Safety Inspection Reports dated May 26, June 7, and July 5, 2006, and agreed that the proper rating for Respondent was "poor" for each of those reports based upon the number of violations, the number of critical violations, and the presence of rodents. He testified that the three "poor" ratings with repeat violations require that a fine be imposed upon Respondent for the violations observed during each inspection. On May 26 there were six critical violations but some of them were committed more than one time, meriting a fine of $1,375. On June 7 there were fewer critical and non-critical violations, meriting a fine of $950. On July 5 there were still fewer violations, meriting a fine of $300. The total fine recommended by Dr. Fruin, therefore, is $2,625.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and requiring Respondent to pay to the Department an administrative fine in the amount of $2,625 by a date certain. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 12th of January, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 David W. Young, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 John Jimenez TJ Baking, LLC 7562 West Commercial Boulevard Lauderhill, Florida 33319
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 19, 2007, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Demills Family Restaurant (hereinafter referred to as "Demills Family Restaurant" or "establishment"), a public food establishment, is licensed and regulated by the Division. The establishment's license number is 2200535. Demills Family Restaurant is located at 6501 Park Boulevard, Pinellas Park, Florida 33781. Larry Burke is employed by the Department as a senior sanitation and safety specialist. Upon being employed with the Department, Mr. Burke was trained in laws and rules for both food service and public lodging establishments. Mr. Burke is certified as a food manager and attends continuing education on a monthly basis. As part of his job responsibilities, Mr. Burke conducts approximately 1000 inspections a year, many of which include inspections of public food establishments. On April 26, 2007, Mr. Burke conducted a routine unannounced inspection of the Demills Family Restaurant. During the inspection, Mr. Burke observed several violations at the establishment which were critical violations that were required to be corrected within 24 hours. Mr. Burke set forth his findings in a Food Service Inspection Report on the day of the inspection and provided a copy of the report to Debra Nunez, one of the owners of the establishment. A violation of the Food Code or other applicable law or rule, which is more likely than other violations to contribute to food contamination, illness, or environmental health hazards, is considered a critical violation. In the April 26, 2007, Food Service Inspection Report, Mr. Burke specified that certain critical violations had to be corrected within 24 hours. However, there were other critical violations observed on April 26, 2007, for which the owners of the establishment were given a warning and an additional 30 days to correct the violations. On April 27, 2007, Mr. Burke conducted a call-back inspection at the Demills Family Restaurant to determine if the critical violations he had observed the previous day had been corrected. During the "call back" inspection, Mr. Burke observed that all the critical violations found during the April 26, 2007, which were required to be corrected within 24 hours, had been corrected within that time period. Also, some of the non-critical violations observed on April 26, 2007, had been corrected when the "call-back" inspection was conducted. (The violations cited in the April 26, 2007, routine inspection and that were corrected during the call-back inspection the following day are not at issue in this proceeding.) During the April 27, 2007, call-back inspection, Mr. Burke prepared a Callback Inspection Report on which he noted violations first observed during the routine inspection conducted on April 26, 2007, but which had not been corrected on April 27, 2007. In accordance with applicable guidelines, Mr. Burke issued a warning to the establishment's owners and gave them 30 days or until May 27, 2007, to correct the uncorrected violations observed on April 27, 2007. This warning appeared on the April 27, 2007, Callback Inspection Report which was given to Mrs. Nunez. On May 31, 2007, Mr. Burke performed a second call-back inspection at Demills Family Restaurant. During this call-back inspection, Mr. Burke observed and cited the violations previously cited on the April 27, 2007, Call-Back Inspection Report that had not been corrected. These violations are discussed below. Violation No. 02-13, one of the uncorrected violations, involved the establishment's failure to provide a consumer advisory on raw/undercooked meat. This violation was based on information provided by personnel in the kitchen that hamburgers in the establishment are "cooked to order." In light of this policy, there are some customers who will likely order hamburgers that are undercooked. In those instances, pathogens may not be eliminated from the meat. Thus, establishments, such as Respondent, are required to inform customers of the significantly increased risk of eating such meat. After the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection and prior to this proceeding, the owners of the establishment posted signs throughout the dining room area which warned customers about the risks of consuming raw or undercooked foods (i.e., meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish or eggs). Violation No. 02-13 is a critical violation, but not one that is required to be corrected within 24 hours. Rather, this was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation after it was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Violation No. 32-15-1, one of the uncorrected violations, involved Respondent's failure to have hand-wash signs at the sinks designated for use by employees. The display of hand-washing signs at these sinks is important because it reminds employees to wash their hands, which helps prevent the transmission of food-borne disease by employees. This was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation and one which was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Mr. Nunez does not dispute that at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, there were no hand-wash signs. However, since that time, he has placed signs that notify employees to wash their hands. These signs are placed at all hand-wash sinks used by employees, including the one in the cooks' kitchen and in the waitresses' station, and are clearly visible to the employees. The establishment also has hand-wash signs at all sinks in the establishment, including those used by customers. Violation No. 37-14-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on part of the ceiling in the establishment being in disrepair. Specifically, the section of the ceiling that was in disrepair was above a food storage area which contained "open food product." This offense is not classified as a critical violation under the Food and Drug Administration or under Florida law. Mr. Nunez does not dispute that part of the ceiling in the establishment was in disrepair at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection and the previous April 2007 inspections. Although Mr. Nunez was aware of the problem, he had to rely on the landlord of the building in which the establishment was located to repair the roof. The problems with the roof contributed to the ceiling being in disrepair. Finally, after about four years of asking the landlord to repair the roof, after the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, the landlord had the roof repaired. The roof repairs are still not complete. However, based on the roof repairs that were completed by early to mid September 2007, Mr. Nunez was able to repair the section of the ceiling at issue in this proceeding. These ceiling repairs were completed by or near the middle of September 2007. Violation No. 37-14-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on Mr. Burke observing that the establishment's exit sign in the dining room was not properly illuminated. The requirement for exit signs to be illuminated is a safety issue. This was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation and one that was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Mr. and Mrs. Nunez do not dispute that at the time of the call-back inspection of May 31, 2007, the exit sign was not illuminated. The problem was caused by a problem with a wire in the sign. The person who does electrical work in the establishment had been out-of-town for several weeks and was unavailable to repair the exit sign. However, about three days after the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, after the repair person returned, he repaired the exit sign; since then, it is properly illuminated. Violation No. 47-16-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on Mr. Burke observing an uncovered electrical box. The box needed to be covered to protect the breaker and to protect the employees and anyone else who had access to the box. This uncorrected violation was a critical violation at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection. Mrs. Nunez does not dispute that there was an electrical box that was uncovered on May 31, 2007. However, Mrs. Nunez testified that during the initial walk-through in April 2007, Mr. Burke showed her the uncovered electrical box that was located above the walk-in freezer. At that time, the cover was off the electrical box and the wires were exposed. Mrs. Nunez thought that the electrical box above the walk-in freezer was the only electrical box that was cited as a violation after the April 27, 2007, call-back inspection. Based on that understanding, that violation was corrected. However, during the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, Mr. Burke showed Mrs. Nunez another electrical box in the establishment that was in violation of applicable provisions. Until that time Mrs. Nunez had not been told, and was not aware, that the second electrical box constituted a violation. This mistake on her part was likely caused by the fact that the structure of the second electrical box was completely different from that of the electrical box over the walk-in freezer. The electrical box over the walk-in freezer had wires which were exposed when the box was not covered. On the other hand, the second electrical box resembles a fuse box and did not have any exposed wires. Violation No. 28-02-1 involved the reuse of single- service articles. This violation is based on Mr. Burke observing Respondent's employees reusing plastic food containers, such as the ones sour cream and cottage cheese are in when delivered to the establishment. Such plastic containers should not be used once the food is exhausted. The reason is that the plastic in such containers is not "food service grade for sanitation purposes." Violation No. 28-02-1 is a non- critical violation. The owners of the establishment do not contest Violation No. 28-02-1, related to the reuse of single-service articles. Mrs. Nunez testified that she purchased containers that could be reused and instructed appropriate staff to use those containers. After being given those instructions, the employees told Mrs. Nunez that they were no longer reusing containers for single-service articles although they were doing so. However, as a result of the violation cited during the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, Mrs. Nunez is committed to checking to ensure that employees are not reusing the plastic containers for single-service articles. Violation No. 61-13-1 is based on Mr. Burke observing that no Heimlich sign was posted in the establishment. The purpose of the Heimlich sign is to provide information in the event a customer in the restaurant is choking. This is a non- critical violation because it makes customers aware in the event of a choking situation. In July 2007, Mr. Nunez left his job as a project engineer to become involved in the day-to-day operations of the Demills Family Restaurant after he realized there were problems at the restaurant that required his attention. Among the issues Mr. Nunez had to initially deal with were the violations cited in the May 31, 2007, Call-Back Inspection Report. Throughout the initial inspection and the call-back inspections, the owners have cooperated with Mr. Burke and corrected most of the violations for which the establishment was cited. Mr. Burke has not conducted an inspection of the Demills Family Restaurant since the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection. However, since that time, all the violations which are the subject of this proceeding have been corrected.
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 that Respondent, Demills Family Restaurant, violated Food Code Rules 3-603.11, 4-502.13(a) and 6-301.14; Florida Administrative Code Rules 61C-1.004(2)(C), 61C-1.004(6) and 61C-1.004(10); and NFPA Rule 70.300.31. Imposing a total administrative fine of $2,800 for the foregoing violations. Requiring Respondent (through its employees and/or owners) to attend, at personal expense, an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 5th day of December, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether on April 19, 2010, and July 27, 2010, Respondent was in compliance with food safety requirements set forth in administrative rules of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Division), and if not, 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. Julianne Browning has been employed as a senior inspector with the Division for six or seven years. It is part of her responsibility to inspect food service establishments for safety and sanitation. She conducts approximately 850 inspections each year. Respondent is licensed as a public food establishment operating as The Green Mango at 7625 West Newberry Road, Gainesville Florida. On April 19, 2010, Ms. Browning conducted a food service inspection on Respondent. Ms. Browning prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth the violations that she observed during the inspection. During her April inspection, Ms. Browning observed an employee engage in food preparation, handle clean equipment or utensils, or touch unwrapped single service items, without washing hands. Ms. Browning identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015, the Food Service Inspection Report. The failure of a food service employee to wash their hands constitutes a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. Inspector Browning also observed in April potentially hazardous cold food held at temperatures greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. Specifically, she observed potatoes at 68 degrees, batter at 70 degrees, rice at 85 degrees, soup at 55 degrees, turnovers at 90 degrees, and butter at 90 degrees. Ms. Browning made notes of these observations in her report. She identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015, the Food Service Inspection Report. Potatoes, batter, rice, soup, and turnovers are potentially hazardous foods and Respondent failed to maintain them at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less. This failure constituted a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. On July 27, 2010, Ms. Browning conducted another food service inspection on Respondent. Again she prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth the violations that she observed during the inspection. During the July inspection, Ms. Browning again observed an employee engage in food preparation, handle clean equipment or utensils, or touch unwrapped single service items, without washing hands. She observed that an employee did not wash his hands before putting on gloves to prepare food. Ms. Browning identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022- 015, the Food Service Inspection Report. It is necessary for employees preparing food to wash their hands even if they are going to be wearing gloves because the gloves could have a tear, or a pin hole, or be otherwise compromised. The failure to wash hands constituted a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. During the July inspection, Ms. Browning observed what she described as clarified butter, which here will be referred to as ghee, on the counter with a temperature of 80 degrees. Inspector Browning also again observed potentially hazardous cold food held at temperatures greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. In this instance she observed cream at 47 degrees, tofu at 45 degrees, milk at 45 degrees, potatoes at 45 degrees, yoghurt at 45 degrees, and cooked vegetables at 55 degrees. Ms. Browning identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015, the Food Service Inspection Report. Cream, tofu, milk, potatoes, yoghurt, and cooked vegetables are potentially hazardous foods and Respondent failed to maintain them at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Potentially hazardous food must be kept at 41 degrees Fahrenheit or below because when the temperature rises above that temperature, bacteria begin to grow at a much faster rate. A person consuming the food can then contract a food-borne illness. The failure to maintain these temperatures constituted a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. Ms. Pandey, witness for Respondent, is an experienced cook. She worked for many years at a Hare Krishna Temple in Alachua County. She is knowledgeable in the preparation and use of ghee. Ms. Pandey testified that ghee is a form of clarified butter that has been used for a great many years in India, and is still used in significant amounts there, precisely because of the widespread lack of refrigeration. Ghee does not spoil as fast as butter or milk or yoghurt. Ms. Pandey testified that ghee is not perishable and that it is therefore not dangerous when at room temperature. She further testified that refrigeration in fact makes it very difficult to use ghee, because it becomes hard and loses its flavor. It was not clear from the evidence presented that ghee is a potentially hazardous food or that failure to keep it at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less constituted a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. The testimony and admitted reports of Inspector Browning as to the failure of Respondent's employee to wash his hands were clear and the reports were recorded at the time of the observation. Ms. Pandey offered no evidence to the contrary. Her unsworn assertion during argument that her husband was not preparing food, but only put on protective gloves because he was aware of the inspection and was scared was not credible, even if it had been offered as testimony. The testimony and admitted reports of Inspector Browning as to the temperature of the foods was clear and was recorded at the time of the observation. Ms. Pandey offered no evidence to the contrary. Her unsworn assertion during argument that the refrigerator holding the food was not being used in the restaurant but was only for storage of personal items was not credible, even if it had been offered as testimony. Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent for the above violations on August 2, 2010. Respondent has had two previous disciplinary Final Orders entered within 24 months of the Administrative Complaint issued in this case. In the first Stipulation and Consent Order, signed by Anuradha Pandey on January 10, 2010, and entered on January 15, 2010, Respondent agreed to pay a fine of $1550.00, but did not admit nor deny the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint, which would have constituted critical violations. In the second Stipulation and Consent Order, signed by Anuradha Pandey on June 2, 2010, and entered on June 10, 2010, Respondent agreed to pay a fine of $2,000.00, but again did not admit or deny the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint, which would have constituted critical violations. The June 10, 2010 Stipulation and Consent Order was in settlement of an administrative complaint issued on May 10, 2010, alleging violations of the Food Code revealed in an April 19, 2010 inspection, one of the same inspections for which evidence was submitted in this case.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a Final Order imposing a total fine of $1500.00 against The Green Mango for the two critical violations occurring on July 27, 2010, to be paid within 30 calendar days of the filing of the Final Order with the Agency Clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2012.
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 30530 South Dixie Highway, Homestead, Florida, and holding food service license number 2330285. On July 6, 2009, and November 3, 2009, Respondent was inspected by sanitation and safety specialists employed by the Division. During both visits, inspectors 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. Brown and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, the Division presented clear and convincing evidence that as of November 3, 2009, the following deficiencies subsisted at Respondent Galindo Cafe: (1) ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food was held for more than 24 hours with no date marking, in violation of Food Code Rule 3-501.17(B); (2) food was stored on the floor, raw food was stored over cooked food, and uncovered food was present in a holding unit, in violation of Food Code Rules 3- 305.11(A)(3), 3-302.11(A)(1)(b), and 3-302.11(A)(4), respectively2; (3) a cutting board that was grooved, pitted, and no longer cleanable was observed, in violation of Food Code Rule 4-501.12; (4) unclean, wet wiping clothes were observed, in violation of Food Code Rule 3-304.14(B)(2); (5) a buildup of soiled material on racks in the walk-in cooler was present, in violation of Food Code Rule 4-601.11(A); and (6) a wall soiled with accumulated grease was observed, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(6). The deficiencies relating to the improper storage of food, the build-up of soiled material, and the lack of proper food labeling are all considered critical violations by the Division. Critical food code violations are those that, if uncorrected, present an immediate threat to public safety. The three remaining deficiencies (a grooved and pitted cutting board, unclean wiping clothes, and the accumulation of grease on a wall), while not categorized as a critical violations, are serious nonetheless because they can lead to the contamination of food.
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 $1800, to be paid within 30 days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2011.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in an Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Petitioner), against Pita's Restaurant (Respondent) are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2010).1/ At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a restaurant operating at 8412 West Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33615, and holding food service license number 3912285. On October 28, 2009, Rich Decker (Mr. Decker), employed by the Petitioner as a sanitation & safety specialist, performed a routine inspection of the Respondent and observed conditions that violated certain provisions of the Food Code. Food Code violations are classified as "critical" or "non-critical." A critical violation of the Food Code is one that poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and is a risk factor for food-borne illness. A non- critical violation of the Food Code is one that does not meet the definition of a critical violation. At the conclusion of the October 28, 2009, inspection, Mr. Decker noted the observed violations in an inspection report. The owner of the Respondent signed the report and received a copy at the time of the inspection. Mr. Decker advised the owner that a follow-up "callback" inspection was scheduled to occur on December 28, 2009, and that the violations needed to be corrected by that date. The callback inspection did not occur on December 28, 2009. Mr. Decker performed the callback inspection on January 5, 2010, and observed some of the same Food Code violations noted on the October 28, 2009, inspection report. At the conclusion of the January 5, 2010, inspection, Mr. Decker again noted the observed violations in an inspection report. The manager of the Respondent signed the report and received a copy at the time of the inspection. The Petitioner subsequently filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed raw eggs being stored above prepared, ready-to-eat pita bread. This violation was deemed to be critical because raw food stored above ready-to-eat food can lead to bacterial contamination of the ready-to-eat food. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed unidentified medicine being stored in a refrigeration unit along with food supplies. This violation was deemed to be critical, because the medicine could have contaminated the food. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed prepared, ready-to-eat, and potentially-hazardous food being stored without having been date-marked to identify the last date upon which the food could be consumed. Prepared food has a limited shelf life during which it may be safely consumed. The failure to date-mark prepared food was a critical violation, because such failure may result in the consumption of unsafe food. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed that there was no consumer advisory warning related to consumption of raw or undercooked foods posted on the premises. The Food Code requires the posting of such a notice, and the failure to comply is deemed a critical violation, because consumption of certain raw or undercooked foods poses a health risk to some consumers. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed an employee engaged in food preparation without wearing a hair net. Although food can be contaminated by human hair, this violation was deemed to be non-critical, because no immediate threat to human health was presented by the violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order imposing a fine of $1,350 against the Respondent and requiring that the Respondent complete an appropriate educational program related to the violations identified herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Harrison’s is licensed by the Division as a permanent food service establishment. Harrison’s license number is 6213138. Laura Kennedy, a sanitation and safety inspector for the Division, conducted a routine inspection of Harrison’s on March 16, 2005. Based upon her inspection, Ms. Kennedy documented 28 areas in which Harrison’s was in violation of the statutes and rules governing restaurant operations. One of the violations, No. 35A-01, was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation of ten dead roaches in Harrison’s dry storage area. She required Harrison’s to correct that violation within 24 hours. Ms. Kennedy conducted a “call-back” inspection of Harrison’s on March 17, 2005, to determine whether the roaches had been cleaned up, which they had been. Ms. Kennedy gave Harrison’s 30 days to correct the remainder of the violations that she documented during her inspection on March 16, 2005. Ms. Kennedy conducted a “call-back” inspection of Harrison’s on April 19, 2005, to determine whether the other violations had been corrected. During the inspection, Ms. Kennedy noted that some of the violations had been corrected, but that others had not been corrected. Five of the uncorrected violations were “critical” violations because, according to Ms. Kennedy, they posed an immediate threat to the public health. Three of the uncorrected violations were “non-critical” because, according to Ms. Kennedy, they posed a risk to the public health but not an immediate threat. The critical violations that had not been corrected at the time of Ms. Kennedy’s “call-back” inspection on April 19, 2005, were Nos. 45-17, 45-10, 45-30, 46-11, and 8A-04. Violation No. 45-17 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation that the tag on the fire suppression system on the hood over the cooking area was out of date. The tag is supposed to be updated every six months, but the tag observed by Ms. Kennedy at Harrison’s was dated July 2003. Violation No. 45-10 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation that the portable fire extinguishers were out of date. Fire extinguisher tags are supposed to be updated every year, but the tags on the extinguishers at Harrison’s reflected that two of them had not been inspected since December 2002 and another had not been inspected since July 2003. Violation No. 45-30 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation that Harrison’s did not have the required inspection report for the fire suppression system for the hood over the cooking area. The purpose of requiring a current tag and inspection report on the hood fire suppression system and current tags on the portable fire extinguishers is to ensure that those devices are in good working order in the event of a fire. As a result, the out-of-date tags are considered to be critical violations. Violation No. 46-11 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation that the emergency exit signs over Harrison’s side doors and the back door were not illuminated. This is a critical violation because the purpose of the illuminated signs is to guide restaurant patrons to an exit in the event of an emergency. Violation No. 8A-04 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation of uncovered food in the walk-in cooler. This is a critical violation because uncovered food is subject to contamination. The non-critical violations that had not been corrected at the time of Ms. Kennedy’s “call-back” inspection on April 19, 2005, were Nos. 32-14, 22-02, and 23-01. Violation No. 32-14 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation that there was no hand-washing soap at a sink in the kitchen. The absence of soap did not pose an immediate threat to the public health, but it is required so that employees involved in the preparation of food can wash their hands for their own hygiene and for the protection of the restaurant’s patrons. Violation No. 22-02 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation of built-up of grease in the oven. Violation No. 23-01 was based on Ms. Kennedy's observation of built-up of grease on the sides of equipment in the cooking area. The built-up grease did not pose an immediate threat to the public safety, but cleanliness in the cooking area is important so as not to attract vermin and to prevent contamination of the food being cooked. Ms. Kennedy documented the violations described above on the Food Service Inspection Reports that she prepared at the time of her inspections. Copies of the reports were provided to Harrison’s at the end of each inspection, as reflected by the signature of Rafma Balla on each report. Mr. Balla is identified on the reports as Harrison’s manager/owner. The record does not reflect whether the violations described above have been corrected by Harrison’s since Ms. Kennedy’s last inspection on April 19, 2005. Harrison’s was provided due notice of the date, time, and location of the final hearing, but no appearance was made on its behalf at the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division issue a final order that: Imposes an administrative fine of $2,600 on Harrison’s for Violation Nos. 45-17, 45-10, 45-30, 46-11, 8A-04, and 32-14, payable on terms prescribed by the Division in the final order; and Requires Harrison’s to correct the critical violations related to the portable fire extinguishers, hood fire suppression system, and exit signs within 15 days of the date of the final order, and to provide proof thereof to the Division; and Requires Harrison's owner and/or manager to attend an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program within 60 days of the date of the final order, and to provide proof thereof to the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 2005.
The Issue Whether Chef Creole Seafood, Inc., d/b/a Chef Creole (Respondent), committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 5, 2014, and if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Chef Creole Seafood, Inc., d/b/a Chef Creole (Respondent), was a restaurant subject to the regulation of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Petitioner). Respondent’s license number is 2330245. Respondent is required to comply with all relevant provisions set forth in chapter 509, Florida Statutes; Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61C; and the Food Code. Respondent has multiple locations. Respondent’s address at issue in this proceeding is 200 Northwest 54th Street, Miami, Florida 33127 (the subject premises). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Wilkinson Sejour was Respondent’s owner and president. Sharon Bures is employed by Petitioner as a sanitation and safety specialist. Ms. Bures is properly trained to conduct inspections of food service facilities to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Ms. Bures performed approximately 720 inspections during the fiscal year that preceded the formal hearing. On April 21, 2014, beginning at 3:57 p.m., Ms. Bures performed a routine inspection of the subject premises. As part of the inspection, Ms. Bures prepared a Food Service Inspection Report (Petitioner’s Exhibit 2) setting forth her findings. Ms. Bures prepared this report utilizing an electronic device while at the subject premises. Ms. Bures reviewed her findings with Mr. Sejour, the person in charge of the subject premises, and discussed with Mr. Sejour the deficiencies identified on Petitioner’s Exhibit 2. Mr. Sejour signed Petitioner’s Exhibit 2. Petitioner’s Exhibit 2 reflects that the subject premises was required to correct the noted deficiencies, and advised that a callback inspection would be conducted on or after June 21, 2014. Petitioner’s Exhibit 2 identified each of the alleged violations at issue in this proceeding. Ms. Bures performed the callback inspection of the subject premises on June 23, 2014, beginning at approximately 2:55 p.m. Ms. Bures prepared a callback Report (Petitioner’s Exhibit 3) setting forth her findings. Ms. Bures reviewed her findings with Mr. Sejour and explained to him the reasons for the deficiencies identified by Petitioner’s Exhibit 3. Ms. Bures’ findings included deficiencies that had been noted in the inspection on April 21, 2014, but had not been corrected. The uncorrected deficiencies found during the callback inspection include the five alleged violations at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner has classified two of the alleged violations as “basic,” two as “intermediate,” and one as “high priority.” A “basic item” is, pursuant to rule 61C-1.001(5), an item defined in the Food Code as a “Core Item.” Rule 61C- 1.005(5)(c) defines a basic violation as follows: (c) “Basic violation” means a violation of a basic item, as defined in Rule 61C-1.001, F.A.C., or a violation of Chapter 509, F.S., or Chapter 61C, F.A.C., which relates to general sanitation, operational controls, standard operating procedures, facilities or structures, equipment design, or general maintenance and not meeting the definition of high priority violation or intermediate violation and is not otherwise identified in subsection (6) of this rule. An “intermediate item” is, pursuant to rule 61C- 1.001(19), an item defined in the Food Code as a “Priority Foundation Item.” Rule 61C-1.005(5)(b) defines an intermediate violation as follows: (b) “Intermediate violation” means a violation of an intermediate item, as defined in Rule 61C-1.001, F.A.C., or a violation of Chapter 509, F.S., or Chapter 61C, F.A.C., which relates to specific actions, equipment or procedures that contribute to the occurrence of a high priority violation, but does not meet the definition of high priority violation or basic violation and is not otherwise identified in subsection (6) of this rule. A “high priority item” is, pursuant to rule 61C- 1.001(17), an item defined in the Food Code as a “Priority Item.” Rule 61C-1.005(5)(a) defines a high priority violation as follows: (a) “High priority violation” means a violation of a high priority item, as defined in Rule 61C-1.001, F.A.C., or a violation of Chapter 509, F.S., or Chapter 61C, F.A.C., determined by the division to pose a direct or significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and is not otherwise identified in subsection (6) of this rule. On both inspection dates, Ms. Bures observed a large tub of seasoning, peppers and hot peppers stored on the kitchen floor. Except for circumstances not applicable to this proceeding, Food Code rule 3-305.11(A)(3) requires that food shall be protected from contamination by storing the food at least 15 cm (6 inches) above the floor. Petitioner proved by the requisite evidentiary standard that Respondent violated the cited rule.2/ The testimony of Ms. Bures established that this violation is properly classified as a basic violation. On both inspection dates, Ms. Bures observed water dripping onto buckets containing raw poultry in a walk-in cooler. Sheets of plastic were used as lids to cover the buckets. On both inspection dates, water was dripping on the plastic “lids.” Food Code rule 3-305.12(G) prohibits the storage of food under a leaking water line. Petitioner proved by the requisite evidentiary standard that Respondent violated the cited rule.3/ The testimony of Ms. Bures established that this violation is properly classified as a basic violation. On both inspection dates, Ms. Bures observed an employee handle peppers and onions after having handled raw poultry without changing gloves. Food Code rule 1-201.10 defines ready-to-eat food as food that is edible without additional preparation to achieve food safety. Peppers and onions are ready-to-eat food. Raw poultry is not ready-to-eat food. Food Code rule 3-304.15 prohibits the use of single-use gloves for the working with ready-to-eat food after having worked with raw poultry. Petitioner proved by the requisite evidentiary standard that Respondent violated Food Code rule 3-304.15. The testimony of Ms. Bures established that this violation is properly classified as a high priority violation due to the danger of contaminating ready-to-eat food.4/ On both inspection dates, Ms. Bures observed that Mr. Sejour’s food protection manager’s certificate had expired. Mr. Sejour’s certificate had been issued March 10, 2009, and was valid through March 10, 2014. On both inspection dates, there were six or more employees working at the subject premises. Petitioner proved that on both inspection dates, Respondent violated rule 61C- 4.023(1) by failing to have a duly-licensed food protection manager on duty while six or more employees were working. The testimony of Ms. Bures established that this violation is properly classified as an intermediate violation because of the need for a certified food protection manager with up-to-date knowledge of the rules and regulations dealing with food-borne illnesses and other risk factors to be present to prevent mistakes and to instruct employees as to proper food temperatures, proper hygiene, and methods of prevention of food- borne illnesses. By “Final Order on Waiver” entered by Petitioner on May 7, 2013, Petitioner disciplined Respondent for certain violations in an unrelated proceeding for having violated rule 61C-4.023(1) by failing to have a duly-certified food protection manager on duty while six or more employees were working. By “Final Order on Waiver” entered by Petitioner on April 30, 2014, Petitioner disciplined Respondent for certain violations in another unrelated proceeding for having violated rule 61C-4.023(1) by failing to have a duly-certified food protection manager on duty while six or more employees were working.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order find Chef Creole Seafood, Inc., d/b/a Chef Creole guilty of violating Food Code rule 3-305.11(A)(3) as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $400.00 for that basic violation. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent guilty of violating Food Code rule 3-305.12(G) as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $400.00 for that basic violation. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent guilty of violating Food Code rule 3-304.15(A) as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $800.00 for that high priority violation. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent guilty of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-4.023(1) as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 for that intermediate violation. The total of the recommended fines is $2,600.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 2nd day of February, 2015.
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.
