The Issue Whether Respondent violated food safety standards established by section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and the implementing rules as charged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Parties At all times material hereto, Richie Cheesesteak was owned and operated by Richard Fascenda, as a licensed permanent public food-service establishment located at 6191 Deltona Boulevard, Spring Hill, Florida. Mr. Fascenda holds License No. 3700896 to operate Richie Cheesesteak.1/ Mr. Fascenda is the owner/operator of Richie Cheesesteak, as well as the only cook. The Division is responsible for monitoring and inspecting licensed food-service establishments to ensure that they comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules, and the Food Code. Initial Inspection On April 16, 2013, Nick Roff, Sanitation and Safety Specialist for the Division, conducted a food-service inspection of Richie Cheesesteak. On the date of the inspection, Mr. Roff had been employed by the Division for approximately three months and was still under probation. Mr. Roff had no experience in the food- service industry prior to his employment with the Division. Mr. Roff received training from the Division in the laws relating to food service, and has become certified as a food manager. The Division additionally provides monthly in-house training which Mr. Roff has attended. During his probationary period, Mr. Roff accompanied his senior inspector on food-service establishment inspections, observing how the inspector conducted inspections, identified violations, and provided corrective actions. As part of his training, Mr. Roff was also “shadowed” by his senior inspector as Mr. Roff conducted inspections. On the date of the final hearing, Mr. Roff had conducted approximately 600 restaurant inspections. Cited Violations License and Certification On April 16, 2013, Mr. Roff prepared an Inspection Report noting a total of 13 alleged violations of the standards set forth in applicable statutes, administrative rules, and the Food Code. Respondent was cited for an expired license, a high priority violation which was remedied on-site during the inspection. Among the other violations Mr. Roff noted in his Inspection Report was Respondent?s failure to produce proof of a food manager certificate. Section 509.039 provides for a Food Manager Certification Program to ensure all managers of food-service establishments have a demonstrated knowledge of basic food protection practices. The statute further requires that “[a]ll public food-service establishments must provide the division with proof of food-service manager certification upon request, including, but not limited to, at the time of any division inspection of the establishment.” Id. In 2008, Respondent was an assistant manager for Boyz- N-Burgers, operated by McClain Sonic?s, and was certified as a food manager at that time. On the date of inspection, Respondent could not produce a copy of his certificate and explained that the certificate would be on file with his former corporate employer. A food manager certificate expires five years after certification. A violation of section 509.039 is designated by the Division as an intermediate priority violation. Reach-in Cooler Gasket Among the violations Mr. Roff noted was that the gasket on the reach-in cooler was both torn and soiled. Food Code Rule 4-501.11(B) provides, “Equipment components such as doors, seals, hinges, fasteners, and kick plates shall be kept intact, tight, and adjusted in accordance with manufacturer?s specifications.” A torn or otherwise damaged cooler gasket can cause cross-contamination of food and prevent the storage of foods at the required temperature. Respondent?s reach-in cooler is at least 30 years old. Respondent did not testify that the gasket had ever been replaced, although he did state that it has been “siliconed over” on several occasions. Respondent admitted at final hearing that the reach-in cooler gasket was torn in one place. Respondent denied that the gasket was soiled, explaining that there might have been some food spilled on it during lunch and the inspection was conducted right after lunch. Respondent insisted that he wipes down the gasket every day. Violation of rule 4-501.11(B) is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Storage of Utensils Among the other violations observed by Mr. Roff was a knife stored between two pieces of kitchen equipment. Food Code Rule 3-304.12 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: During pauses in FOOD preparation or dispensing, FOOD preparation and dispensing UTENSILS shall be stored: * * * (C) On a clean portion of the FOOD preparation table or cooking EQUIPMENT only if the in-use UTENSIL and the FOOD-CONTACT surface of the FOOD preparation table or cooking EQUIPMENT are cleaned and SANITIZED at a frequency specified under subsections 4-602.11 and 4-702.11. * * * (F) In a container of water if the water is maintained at a temperature of at least 57 degrees Celsius (135 degrees Fahrenheit) and the container is cleaned at a frequency specified under subparagraph 4-602.11(D)(7). Respondent admitted that a knife was stored in the crack between two pieces of kitchen equipment when Mr. Roff made his initial inspection. Violation of rule 3-304.12 is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Improperly Marked Containers Mr. Roff also observed “cookline bottles” stored in squeeze bottles which were not labeled as to their contents. Food Code Rule 3-302.12 reads as follows: Except for containers holding FOOD that can be readily and unmistakably recognized such as dry pasta, working containers holding FOOD or FOOD ingredients that are removed from their original packages for use in the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, such as cooking oils, flour, herbs, potato flakes, salt, spices, and sugar shall be identified with the common name of the FOOD. Respondent keeps two bottles on the cookline, one for oil and one for vinegar. Respondent is the only cook. Respondent testified that he has the bottles marked “oil” and “vinegar” with black marker. He introduced a photograph of the bottles marked as such, but the photograph was taken subsequent to the callback inspection and is not accepted as evidence of the condition of the bottles on the day in question. Mr. Fascenda testified that during the inspection, he showed the bottles to Mr. Roff and pointed out the hand-labeling, but admitted that Mr. Roff could not see the wording because it rubs off easily. Mr. Roff testified he did not recall seeing any labeling on the bottles. Violation of rule 3-302.12 is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Mr. Roff walked through the violations with Respondent, who signed the Inspection Report on April 16, 2013. The Inspection Report noted that a follow-up inspection was required and that the violations must be corrected by June 16, 2013. Callback Inspection On June 17, 2013, Mr. Roff performed a callback inspection at Richie Cheesesteak. Mr. Roff observed that seven of the violations noted in the April 16, 2013, Inspection Report had been corrected. However, the violations detailed above –- gasket on reach-in cooler torn and soiled; knife stored between kitchen equipment; cookline bottles unlabeled; and no proof of food manager training –- were not corrected. Mr. Roff prepared a Callback Inspection Report, which was signed by Respondent. The Callback Inspection Report recommended filing an Administrative Complaint. Petitioner introduced no evidence of prior violations by Respondent of the applicable statutes, administrative rules, or the Food Code. Owner?s Response Certification Respondent maintained it would be impossible to produce his food manager certificate because it was retained by his employer in 2008. Respondent was clearly frustrated with Mr. Roff?s unwillingness to accept the explanation given at the first inspection and was indignant at being fined for lack of food manager certification following the callback inspection. Respondent?s explanation that he was previously certified but that the certificate was retained by his former employer is not a defense. The statute clearly requires production of the food manager certificate when the Division inspects the manager?s food-service establishment. Following the callback inspection, Respondent obtained a Food Manager Certificate, which was introduced at final hearing. Reach-in Cooler Gasket Respondent argued that if the gasket was not functioning, the reach-in cooler would not be maintaining the appropriate temperature, which it was when tested upon inspection. Respondent?s argument is not a defense. Keeping food at the proper temperature is only one of the aims of the rule. The other is to prevent cross-contamination of food in the cooler with substances on the gasket, whether they are foods spilled thereon or bacteria growing in a torn gasket. Respondent further argues that cross-contamination is not an issue since he is the sole operator and cook. Cross- contamination of foods in the reach-in cooler is not a function of how many different employees use the cooler, but rather the condition in which it is kept. Respondent testified that, since the callback inspection, he “siliconed over” the gasket to seal it and improve its appearance. He produced before and after photographs of the gasket at final hearing. Neither picture is evidence of the condition of the gasket upon inspection,since they were taken approximately two weeks before the hearing. If anything, the “before” picture tends to support the Division?s case that the gasket was torn and soiled upon inspection. Storage of Utensils Respondent admitted that a knife was stored between two pieces of kitchen equipment on the date of the first inspection. But, he maintained that was an accident and he does not regularly store knives that way. Improperly Marked Containers Respondent first argued that his oil and vinegar bottles were labeled, although in marker, and he should not be held in violation. The evidence shows that the labels were unrecognizable when the inspections occurred. Respondent next argued that the following facts should be taken into consideration when determining whether he violated the rule. First, there are only two bottles –- oil and vinegar. Accidental mixing of their contents would not create a health hazard or threat. Second, Respondent is the only cook, so mixing the contents is unlikely. Third, the cookline is separated from the cleaning area. Thus the likelihood of mixing the contents of the cookline bottles with bleach or another cleaning product is minimal. While Respondent?s arguments are no defense, they may be considered mitigating factors.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent Richie Cheesesteak violated section 509.039 and Food Code Rules 3-302.12, 3-304.12, 4- 501.11, and 4-601.11, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing an administrative penalty against Respondent Richie Cheesesteak in the amount of $800, payable to the Division within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2013.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 31, 2012, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a restaurant, El Ceviche Del Rey, located at 9947 Southwest 142 Avenue, Miami, Florida 33186, holding food service license number 2324027. Critical violations are those violations that are more likely to result in food-borne illness if not corrected. Non- critical violations are those violations that, if not corrected, are less likely to contribute to food-borne illness. Gladys Diaz ("Inspector Diaz") is employed by the Department as a Sanitation Safety Specialist. Inspector Diaz has worked for the Department for approximately one and one-half years. Prior to working for the Department, Inspector Diaz managed a McDonalds franchise for 18 years. Upon gaining employment with the Department, Inspector Diaz received training in laws and rules pertaining to the public food service and public lodging establishments. She is a Certified Food Manager and continues to receive monthly training in the area of food management. On August 29, 2012, Inspector Diaz performed a routine food service inspection at El Ceviche Del Rey. During the inspection, Inspector Diaz observed El Ceviche Del Rey opened for business but operating with no running water. Inspector Diaz prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth the violation she encountered during her inspection. Inspector Diaz prepared the inspection report on- site at El Ceviche Del Rey. The inspection report was signed by Inspector Diaz and a representative of the El Ceviche Del Rey. Inspector Diaz specifically noted the violation as being out of compliance and stated, "At the time of the inspection, there was no water at establishment." The Division determined that operating a food service establishment without water was a critical violation because an establishment cannot clean utensils and employees cannot wash their hands without water. Unclean utensils and dirty hands can lead to contamination of food. The Division closed the restaurant with an Emergency Order of suspension of license for the critical violation. On or about August 31, 2012, the Division issued an Administrative Complaint against El Ceviche Del Rey for operating a food service establishment with no water at the establishment in violation of Food Code Rule 5-103.12. Respondent challenged the Administrative Complaint and requested a hearing. No dispute exists that the request for hearing was timely filed. Additional evidence introduced at hearing showed that El Ceviche Del Rey received previous discipline by Final Order in case 2011-040929, entered on December 7, 2011.
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 El Ceviche Del Rey violated section 509, Florida Statutes, through a violation of Food Code Rule 5- 103.12; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00 against El Ceviche Del Rey, due and payable to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this Order is filed with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 42 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Alberto Villalobos El Ceviche Del Rey 9947 Southwest 142nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33186 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are stated in the counts set forth in the Administrative Complaint for each case: Whether Falcon Catering Service No. 7 (hereinafter "Falcon 7") and Falcon Catering Service No. 8 (hereinafter "Falcon 8") failed to maintain the proper protection and temperature requirements for food sold from their mobile site in violation of the federal Food and Drug Administration Food Code ("Food Code"). In the Prehearing Stipulation filed in this matter, each Respondent generally admitted to the violations in the Administrative Complaints, but suggested that mitigating factors should absolve them of the charges or greatly reduce any administrative fine imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is responsible for monitoring all licensed food establishments in the state. It is the Division's duty to ensure that all such establishments comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Respondents Falcon 7 and Falcon 8 are licensed mobile food dispensing vehicles. Falcon 7 has license No. MFD5852560, which was initially issued on April 23, 2005; Falcon 8 has license No. MFD5852642, which was issued on October 19, 2005. Each of the Respondents serves meals and snacks to, inter alia, laborers at construction sites. On or about March 13, 2009, the Division conducted a food service inspection on Falcon 7. At that time, the food truck was located at 4880 Distribution Court, Orlando, Florida. One of the Food Code violations found by the inspector was Item 53b. That citation meant there was no validation of employee training on the truck. A follow-up inspection was deemed to be required. On April 10, 2009, a follow-up inspection was conducted by the Division. At that time, Item 53b was cited as a repeat offense. Also, Item 8a was cited. Item 8a refers to protection of food from contaminants and keeping food at an acceptable temperature. Notes by the inspector indicate that a further violation of Item 8a occurred because customers were allowed to serve themselves directly from food containers, and there was no fan in operation during the serving of food. On May 28, 2009, another inspection of Falcon 7 was conducted. At that time, the food truck was located at 12720 South Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando, Florida. Item 8a was again cited as a deficiency. The inspector's notes indicate that food was not properly protected from contamination and that customers were being served "buffet style" from the back of the truck. The inspector noted that this was a repeat violation. A follow-up or "call-back" inspection was conducted on December 3, 2009, at which time the temperature in Orlando was unusually cold. The food truck was at the same address on Orange Blossom Trail as noted in the prior inspection. Falcon 7 was again found to have been serving food buffet style from the back of the food truck. An Item 8a violation was again noted by the inspector. Another inspection of Falcon 7 was conducted on January 19, 2010, another very cold day in Orlando. At that time, the food truck was located at the same site as the last two inspections. The inspector cited the food truck for an Item 8a violation again, stating that the food was not being protected from contaminants. Dust was flying up on the back of the truck to exposed food items. An inspection of Falcon 8 was conducted on August 25, 2009, while the truck was located at 4880 Distribution Court, Orlando, Florida. An Item 8a violation was noted by the inspector, who found that displayed food was not properly protected from contaminants. The food truck was located under an Interstate 4 overpass and was open to flying debris. The inspector noted that customers were being served buffet style and that there was no protection of food from contamination by the customers. A follow-up inspection for Falcon 8 was conducted on August 27, 2009, at 9:12 a.m., while the food truck was located at the same site. Another Item 8a violation was cited at that time. The violation notes indicate essentially the same situation that had been cited in the initial inspection two days earlier. Less than one hour after the follow-up inspection, another inspection was conducted on Falcon 8 at the same location as the prior two inspections. There were no Item 8a citations issued during this inspection, but the food truck was found to have no water available for hand washing. The food truck employee was using a hand sanitizer to clean her hands. Respondents do not dispute the facts set forth above. However, Respondents provided mitigating facts for consideration in the assessment of any penalty that might be imposed. Those mitigating factors are as follows: The food trucks were serving an inordinately large number of workers during the dates of the inspections. The City of Orlando was constructing its new basketball arena, and there were numerous laborers involved in the project. In order to serve the workers, it was necessary for the food trucks to put their food out on tables, rather than ladle the food directly from the food warmers in the food truck. In fact, the shelves in the food trucks are so narrow that dipping food out of the warmers would be impossible. Due to the cold weather in Orlando during this time, it was impossible to keep the food at acceptable temperature levels for very long. The large number of workers washing their hands at the food trucks caused the trucks to run out of water much more quickly than normal. When the water ran out, the employees took care to sanitize their hands as well as possible. Ms. Falcon testified that the inspector's testimony concerning use of tables to serve food was erroneous. However, Sabrina Falcon was not present during the inspections, and her contradictory testimony is not reliable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, imposing a fine of $500.00 against Falcon Catering Service, No. 7, in DOAH Case No. 10-10925; and a fine of $750.00 against Falcon Catering Service, No. 8, in DOAH Case No. 10-10930. All fines should be paid within 30 days of the entry of the Final Order by the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Sabrina Falcon Falcon Catering Service 642 Mendoza Drive Orlando, Florida 32825 Megan Demartini, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was licensed and regulated by Petitioner, having been issued license number 1620257. Respondent’s license authorizes Respondent to operate a public food service establishment known as Golden Corral at 9045 Pines Boulevard, Pembroke Pines, Florida (the specified location). At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was operating a public food establishment at the specified location.2 At all times material hereto, Walter Denis was an experienced and appropriately trained investigator employed by Petitioner as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist. Mr. Denis’ job responsibilities included the inspection of public food service establishments for compliance with pertinent rules and statutes. Following the receipt of a complaint from a customer, Mr. Denis inspected the subject location on June 22, 2005. Prior to the inspection on June 22, 2005, the subject location had been cited by Petitioner for failure to comply with hand-washing procedures set forth in Section 2-301.14 of the Food Code. A violation of applicable rules by a public food service establishment is either a critical or non-critical violation. A critical violation is one that poses a significant threat to the health, safety, and welfare of people. A non- critical violation is one that does not rise to the level of a critical violation. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that a cashier employed by Petitioner handed clean plates to customers after handling money but without washing his hands. The manner in which the cashier handled the clean plates and the fact that he did not wash his hands after handling money violated Section 2-301.14 of the Food Code, which is a critical violation. Respondent’s manager established that the cashier’s handling of the food plates was contrary to Respondent’s policies and the training given by Respondent to its employees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order finding that Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing against Respondent a fine in the amount of $500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2006, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 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, 2006.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Charles L. Harriss, was the owner and operator of a food service establishment known as Mister Donut located at 5567 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida. Respondent holds license control number 21-1041-R issued by petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division), and is subject to that agency's regulatory jurisdiction. Mister Donut is a retail bakery outlet that sells donuts, coffee and other similar items. On the afternoon of July 9, 1986, a Collier County environmental health specialist conducted a routine inspection of respondent's establishment to determine if prescribed health and safety standards were being maintained. The inspection was made in the presence of an employee of respondent. The specialist found respondent to have violated various food service rules promulgated by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in twenty- five respects. All but two, which respondent has conceded are correct, are in dispute. After an informal conference failed to resolve the matter, this proceeding ensued. The Donut Shop is one of three retail bakery outlets owned by Harriss. Besides the store in question, he operates a second outlet in Naples and one in Miami. There is no baking or cooking done on the premises of the establishment, although some "finishing" of products (such as adding sugar or filling) occurs. Donuts are delivered to the establishment from Harriss' other Naples store at 5:30 a.m. each morning, and from noon to 3:00 p.m. on an as-needed basis. The finishing of the product generally takes place shortly after it is delivered. There are three work shifts for employees: 6:00 a.m. -- 12:00 noon; 12:00 -- 6:00 p.m.; and 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The floors are to be mopped and the area cleaned at the end of each shift. The busiest time of the day is between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. The store is located in a shopping center. Although the specialist's qualifications to conduct a competent inspection were challenged by Harriss during the witness' testimony, it is found he has the experience, education and training necessary to adequately perform his job. In conjunction with his inspection, the specialist filled out a food service inspection report identifying each violation detected. This report has been received into evidence as petitioner's exhibit number 2. In addition, the specialist categorized violations as either being major or minor. When the inspection was made, the specialist was accompanied by a food services coordinator who also made her own inspection as a cross- check on the specialist's work. Her report has been received into evidence as petitioner's exhibit number 5. The violations are identified on the report by number. For ease in discussing the numerous violations, reference to the number on the report will be made in the findings hereinafter. Violation 02 -- Drawers containing food components (candy toppings) were not labeled as required by Rule 10D- 13.24(9), Florida Administrative Code. The drawers were also soiled with food particles. Violation 03 -- Food (soup) was not being maintained at proper temperature (140 degrees) as required by Rule 10D-13.24(2), Florida Administrative Code. Violation 04 -- Although petitioner charged Harriss with having no "indicating thermometer" on the food warmer, it was established that the warmer had low, medium and high settings. This constitutes substantial compliance with Rule 10D-13.24(2), Florida Administrative Code. Violation 05 -- Harriss has been cited with violating Rule 10D- 13.24(8), Florida Administrative Code, for failure to have conspicuous thermometers in or on his refrigerator and the food warmer. However, the more persuasive evidence is that a thermometer was hung on the top left side of the refrigerator while the food warmer had low, medium and high settings. This satisfies the foregoing rule. Violation 08 -- During the course of the inspection, donuts and rolls were found in uncovered or non- encased display areas. This is contrary to Rule 10D-13.24(1), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that such food be in a glassed case or otherwise covered in some manner. Violation 09 -- An employee was observed scooping ice into a cup without an ice scoop. This resulted in the employee's hand coming into contact with the ice in violation of Rule 10D-13.24(8), Florida Administrative Code. Violation 10 -- In conjunction with the prior violation, no ice scoop was seen or used. Rule 10D-13.24(10), Florida Administrative Code, requires that food be served in a manner that will minimize contamination. Violation 12 -- The specialist observed respondent's employee with food particles and sugar on her hands. Rule 10D-13.25(3), Florida Administrative Code, requires that employees wash their hands as often as necessary to remove soil and contamination. Violation 13 -- Employees are required to wear hair nets or hair spray to keep hair from getting into food. Although no hair net was worn by the employee, the employee used an effective hair restraint (hair spray) so as to comply with the rule. Violation 14 -- As noted earlier, a proper utensil for serving ice was not being used or displayed. This is in contravention of Rule 10D-13.24(8), Florida Administrative Code. Violation 15 -- It was established that non-food contact surfaces were covered with frosting and powdered sugar. Rule 10D-13.26(4)(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires that such surfaces be cleaned at such intervals as is necessary to keep them in a clean and sanitary condition. Violation 17 -- Chemical test kits are required by Rule 10D- 13.26(5)(a)2.d., Florida Administrative Code, for the purpose of accurately measuring solutions used for sanitization purposes. Although a kit was not seen by the specialist, there was such a testing kit on the first shelf near the three compartment sink on respondent's premises. Violation 20 -- The specialist could not recall the nature of this violation. Violation 21 -- According to Rule 10D-13.26(4)(d), Florida Administrative Code, soiled cloths and sponges must be stored in a sanitizing solution between uses. The specialist found several soiled cloths in a sink. However, since these were just temporarily placed in the sink for rinsing before being placed in a linen bag for laundry service, no violation occurred. Violation 22 -- The drawer containing candy topping was not clean. Rule 10D-13.26(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires that food contact surfaces be cleaned at least once a day. Since the inspection occurred in the afternoon, and prior to the end of the day, it was not shown that respondent failed to clean this area that day. Violation 23 -- The interior of non-food contact areas such as cabinets, shelves, refrigerator and sides of equipment were observed to have food particles on them, and were not clean. This was in violation of Rule 10D- 13.26(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that non-food contact surfaces of equipment be cleaned, and kept in a sanitary condition. Violation 24 -- Various utensils in drawers were not clean. Rule 10D- 13.26(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires that all kitchenware be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized after each use. Violation 25 -- The specialist found respondent storing food (toppings) in single service articles (paper cups). However, the applicable rule (10D-13.26(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code) simply provides that such articles be used "only once". There was no indication that these articles were used more than one time, and consequently no violation of the rule occurred. Violation 31 -- It was established that a three compartment sink was not readily accessible since a trash can blocked access to the sink, and dirty linens were in the sink itself. No pertinent rule was cited by petitioner as governing the accessibility of sinks. Violation 32 -- No hand soap was found in any sink. This controverted the requirements of Rule 10D-13.27(6), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that each establishment be provided with hand cleansing soap. Violation 33 -- The specialist observed the trash can in front of the sink to be uncovered. This was a violation of Rule 10D-13.27(7), Florida Administrative Code, which requires such receptacles to be kept covered with tight fitting lids. Violation 34 -- There is a dumpster directly behind respondent's store which was found to be unclosed, and with overflow trash on the ground. However, this dumpster is shared by other shopping center tenants, and is the responsibility of the center rather than respondent. Violation 35 -- The specialist detected ants in the food preparation area. Although respondent has a monthly pest control service, the presence of such insects violated Rule 10D-13.27(8), Florida Administrative Code, which requires effective control measures against rodents, flies, roaches and other vermin. Violation 36 -- The floors in the food preparation area were observed to be littered with food particles. This is in contravention of Rule 10D- 13.28(1), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that floor surfaces in rooms where food is prepared to be "clean". Violation 37 -- The walls in the food preparation area were "splattered" with food and toppings. In addition, certain equipment attached to the walls had toppings, frosting and glazing covering them. This was in violation of Rule 10D- 13.29(2), Florida Administrative Code, which requires such walls and equipment to be kept clean. Violations 38 and 41 -- Respondent has not disputed these violations, and it is found that these violations occurred. Violation 42 -- The specialist found the outside area of the premises to be littered with cigarette butts, paper and other debris. However, this is a common problem throughout the entire shopping center, and fault cannot be attributed to respondent for this condition. Violation 44 -- As previously noted in violation 21, soiled linens were observed in a sink. However, they were placed there only temporarily for rinsing before being stored in a linen bag. Therefore, there was no rule violation. Violation 45 -- The fire extinguisher on respondent's premises did not have a current inspection tag. While this may violate some regulation, the rule relied upon by the specialist (10D-13.28(2), Florida Administrative Code) is not applicable. Violation 46 -- An exit light was observed to have been burned out. Again, the same rule relied upon by the specialist is inapplicable. Violation 47 -- It was alleged that respondent used extension cords in the food preparation area. However, the specialist could not recall which appliance used such a cord. Respondent's testimony that no such cords were used is more persuasive, and it is found that no extension cords were used by Harriss. Violation 53 -- When the inspection was made, there was no employee on the premises with a valid food management certification. Such a certification is required by Rule 10D-13.25(2), Florida Administrative Code. After the inspection was completed, the specialist reviewed the inspection report with one of respondents employees. It was the specialist's opinion that the above cited violations rendered the establishment unsafe for the public. A second inspection was simultaneously conducted by a food service coordinator. Her findings tend to corroborate the same violations noted by the specialist. Reference to her specific findings is accordingly not necessary. Aside from his own testimony, Respondent presented the testimony of the employee who was present when the inspection occurred, and his local manager. Except where noted above, they did not credibly contradict the testimony of the two inspectors. At the same time, Harriss pointed out that by the very nature of the donut business, it is impossible to keep crumbs and other food particles off the floor and other areas. He has been in the business for twenty-three years, and has no prior violations. He contended the specialist was "nit-picking", and that most of the violations are minor in nature. He also asserted that he has made all reasonable efforts to correct the problems.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law , it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be found guilty of the eighteen violations cited in conclusion of law number 2, and that he pay a $1000 civil fine within thirty days after the date of Final Order. All other charges should be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1986.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed against it, and, if so, the appropriate penalty to be imposed, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Perpulys Sport Bar and Restaurant, has been licensed as a public food service establishment by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. Respondent is located in Homestead, Florida. Michael Brown, one of Petitioner's inspectors, has extensive experience and education in the food service industry. On July 19, 2006, he inspected Respondent's premises and found a number of violations of public food service establishment rules. He noted these on his inspection report and gave a copy of the report to Respondent. The report noted that the violations must be corrected by August 20, 2006. On August 21, 2006, Brown returned to Respondent's premises to conduct his "callback" inspection. Four critical item violations remained uncorrected, and he noted them in his report. After he had completed his report, one of Respondent's employees placed a thermometer in the cold holding unit which had lacked one during Brown's inspection. However, the exit signs were still not properly illuminated. Exit signs in a food service establishment are required to be clearly illuminated so that patrons will know where to exit the premises if a fire or other emergency should occur. Improperly illuminated exit signs are a critical item violation. Respondent's employees were still touching ready-to-eat food with their bare hands even though the establishment did not have in place an alternative operating procedure approved by Petitioner. Since touching ready-to-eat food with bare hands can lead to serious illness of the business' patrons, this is also a critical item violation. During that same call-back inspection, raw animal food was stored over ready-to-eat food, specifically, raw steak was stored over cooked shrimp. Since such storage can lead to cross-contamination, which can lead to serious illness of the business' patrons, this is also a critical item violation.
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 three critical item violations, imposing a fine of $1,500 to be paid within 30 days, and requiring Respondent to attend an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 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 17th day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: William Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Soco Salgado Perpulys Sports Bar & Restaurant 113 South Homestead Boulevard Homestead, Florida 33030
