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.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of various violations of Florida statutes and rules in the operation of his restaurant and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license control number 46-04280R, which is in effect from December 1, 1999, through December 1, 2000. The license authorizes Respondent to operate a restaurant known as Speedy Two Shop at 2957 Martin L. King Boulevard in Fort Myers. Petitioner has previously disciplined Respondent. By Stipulation and Consent Order filed May 22, 1997, the parties agreed that Respondent would pay an administrative fine of $1100 and correct all violations by April 30, 1997. The Stipulation and Consent Order incorporates the findings of inspections on February 25 and March 7, 1997. These inspections uncovered seven violations, including missing hood filters over the cooking surface, heavy grease accumulations on the inside and outside of the hood, a fire extinguisher bearing an expired tag (May 1995), and operation without a license. In Petitioner's District 7, which includes Fort Myers, the licensing year for restaurants runs from December 1 to December 1. Respondent's relevant licensing history includes annual licenses for the periods ending December 1, 1997; December 1, 1998; and December 1, 1999. However, Respondent has operated his restaurant for substantial periods without a license. Respondent renewed his license ending in 1997 after four months of operating without a license, his license ending in 1998 after 17 months of operating without a license, his license ending in 1999 after six and one- half months of operating without a license, and his license ending in 2000 after one and one-half months of operating without a license. For each of these late renewals, Respondent paid a $100 delinquent fee. Petitioner conducts periodic inspections of restaurants. These inspections cover a broad range of health and safety conditions. Certain violations, as marked on the inspection forms, "are of critical concern and must be corrected immediately." This recommended order refers to such violations as "Critical Violations." On January 22, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted an inspection of Respondent's restaurant. The inspection uncovered seven Critical Violations. Two Critical Violations involved Respondent's compliance with licensing and training requirements. Respondent was operating the restaurant without a license, and no employee had a food manager's card, which evidences the successful completion of coursework and a test in managing a restaurant. The report warns that if Respondent did not renew his license before February 1, 1998, Petitioner would impose a fine and possibly revoke his license. The report requires Respondent to ensure that an employee obtains a food manager's card by March 3, 1998. Two Critical Violations involved Respondent's noncompliance with fire safety requirements. The fire extinguisher and built-in fire suppression system both bore outdated tags. The former tag expired in April 1997, and the latter tag expired in May 1997. The remaining three Critical Violations were that the restaurant lacked a filter in his hood over the stove, ceramic tiles over the three-compartment sink, and sanitizing solution in the bucket that was supposed to contain sanitizing solution. Respondent's employee explained that the hood filters were being cleaned, but apparently offered no explanation for the other two Critical Violations. Despite the specific warnings concerning the licensing and training violations, the January 1998 inspection report requires only that Respondent correct the violations by the next routine inspection. On March 26, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted an reinspection of Respondent's restaurant. The inspection uncovered the same Critical Violations, except for the sanitizing solution. The report states that Respondent must come to Petitioner's office in the next seven days to renew his license. On April 2, 1998, Petitioner served upon Respondent an Administrative Complaint alleging that, on January 1, 1998, Respondent was operating without a license. Neither this nor any subsequent charging document cites any of the other six Critical Violations found in the January 22, 1998, inspection as bases for discipline, so this recommended order treats these other violations as background, rather than as independent grounds for discipline. On June 30, 2000--over two years after issuing the Administrative Complaint--Petitioner transmitted the Administrative Complaint to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the purpose of conducting a formal hearing, and DOAH assigned this case DOAH Case number 00-2694. On April 29, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted another reinspection. Upon identifying himself to Respondent's employee, the employee denied the inspector access to the premises and told him to return at 2:00 PM. The inspector replied that the reinspection would take only five minutes and that he could not return at 2:00 PM, but the employee continued to deny the inspector entry. On May 12, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted another reinspection and found the same seven Critical Violations present during the January 1998 inspection. New Critical Violations were the presence of one "small mouse and roaches" under the three-compartment sink and the presence of cooked sausage patties and links with an internal temperature too low to prevent the proliferation of bacteria. As for the food manager's card, Respondent told the inspector that he had left it at home. The report warns that Respondent must correct the violations by May 18, 2000, 8:00 AM. On September 29, 1998, Petitioner served upon Respondent a Notice to Show Cause alleging the violations found during the inspections of March 26, April 29, and May 12, 1998. On June 30, 2000--one year and nine months after issuing the Administrative Complaint--Petitioner transmitted the Administrative Complaint to DOAH for the purpose of conducting a formal hearing, and DOAH assigned this case DOAH Case number 00-2697. On July 31, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted another reinspection and found five of the same Critical Violations: operating without a license, no employee with a food manager's card, fire suppression system bearing an outdated tag, ceramic tile missing over the three-compartment sink, and heavy grease accumulation on the hood filters, which had been reinstalled. Petitioner never cited these five Critical Violations in any charging document, so this recommended order treats these other violations as background, rather than as independent grounds for discipline. On October 2, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted an inspection and found four of the original Critical Violations: no license, no employee with a food manager's card, no current tag on the fire suppression system, and no ceramic tile over the sink. Although the fire extinguisher was presumably current, it was improperly placed on the floor. Other Critical Violations included the storage of sausage at the improperly warm temperature of 51 degrees, the absence of a thermometer in the home-style refrigerator, the presence of rodent feces on the floor, the absence of working emergency lights, the absence of a catch pan in the hood system, a broken self-closer on the side door, a clogged hand sink, an extension cord serving a toaster, and the evident expansion of the restaurant without an approved plan. The report gives Respondent until October 9, 1998, at 11:00 AM to correct the violations. On October 12, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted a reinspection and found all of the Critical Violations cited in the preceding paragraph still uncorrected. On October 20, 1998, Petitioner served upon Respondent an Administrative Complaint alleging the violations found during the inspections of October 2 and 12, 1998. On June 30, 2000--one year and eight months after issuing the Administrative Complaint--Petitioner transmitted the Administrative Complaint to DOAH for the purpose of conducting a formal hearing, and DOAH assigned this case DOAH Case number 00-2695. For some reason, Petitioner neither prosecuted the pending charges nor conducted repeated inspections for several months after October 1998 inspections and Administrative Complaint. The next inspection of Respondent's restaurant took place on April 30, 1999. Despite the six and one-half months that Petitioner effectively gave Respondent to correct the numerous Critical Violations cited in the October 12, 1998, inspection, Respondent continued to violate many of the same provisions for which he had been cited throughout nearly all of 1998. The inspection report discloses that, again, Respondent was operating without a license. The report notes that he lacked a license for the licensing years ending in 1998 and 1999. One of Petitioner's inspectors testified that Respondent had been making progress on the licensing issue. However, the implication that Respondent was unable to pay the $190 licensing fee (usually accompanied by a $100 delinquent fee) is quietly rebutted by the notation, also in the April 30, 1999, report, that Respondent had completed the expansion project--still, without the required plan review. Again, no employee at the restaurant had a food manager's card. Again, the fire suppression system was in violation--this time because the indicator revealed that it needed to be recharged. Again, the hood filters were missing above the cooking surface. Again, the hand sink was inoperative- -this time, it was not only clogged, but it also lacked hot water. Again, emergency lighting was inoperative. Again, the ceramic tile was missing over the three-compartment sink. Again, food was maintained too warm in the refrigerator--this time, chicken was at 69 degrees. A new Critical Violation was the exposure of live electrical lines and insulation. The April 1999 inspection report gives Respondent until May 14, 1999, at 11:00 AM to correct the violations. On May 14, 1999, Petitioner's inspector conducted a reinspection and found that Respondent still had not obtained a license for the licensing year ending in 1999, still lacked an employee with a food manager's card, still had not obtained approval of its expansion plan, still lacked ceramic tile over the three-compartment sink, still had a clogged hand sink without hot water, still lacked working emergency lights, still tolerated exposed electrical line and insulation, and still lacked hood filters above the cooking surface. On June 2, 1999, Petitioner served upon Respondent an Administrative Complaint alleging the violations found during the inspections of April 20 and May 14, 1999. On June 30, 2000--one year and one month after issuing the Administrative Complaint-- Petitioner transmitted the Administrative Complaint to DOAH for the purpose of conducting a formal hearing, and DOAH assigned this case DOAH Case number 00-2696. Over a period of 16 months, Petitioner conducted eight inspections of Respondent's restaurant. On what would have been a ninth inspection, one of Respondent's employees denied access to the inspector. On each of these eight inspections, Respondent was operating without a license, lacked an employee with a food manager's card, and lacked ceramic tile over the three- compartment sink. On seven of these eight inspections, the fire suppression system was expired or discharged, and the hood filter was missing or excessive grease had accumulated on the filter or the liner. On three of these eight inspections, the fire extinguisher was outdated, and, on a fourth inspection, it was improperly stored on the floor. On three of these eight inspections, sausage or chicken was at improper temperatures--the 86 degrees at which sausage was served on one occasion was only 17 degrees warmer than the 69 degrees at which chicken was stored on another occasion. On three of these eight inspections, the hand sink was unusable because it was clogged or lacked hot water, the emergency lights did not work, and restaurant expansion was taking place or had taken place without review or approval of the plans. On two of these eight inspections, the inspector saw signs of rodents in the kitchen--one time actually seeing a small mouse. On two of these eight inspections, exposed electrical lines and insulation were present in the kitchen. Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed all of the cited violations. Uncorrected violations over 16 months amount to more than a failure to take advantage of the numerous opportunities that Petitioner gave Respondent to bring his restaurant into compliance. These uncorrected violations constitute a refusal to comply with the basic requirements ensuring the health and safety of the public. The penalty must weigh, among other things, Respondent's blatant disregard of fundamental requirements in licensing, training, and fire and food safety; Petitioner's demonstrated lack of diligence in enforcing Respondent's compliance with these requirements; and the peril posed by these failures upon the public health and safety.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order revoking Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan R. McKinley, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurant Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Gail Hoge, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angelo E. Ruth 2774 Blake Street Fort Myers, Florida 33916
The Issue The 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.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the State agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a restaurant operating at 3100 Northwest 17th Avenue, Miami, Florida, and holding food service license number 2328990. On May 19, 2010, and July 23, 2010, Respondent was inspected by Reginald Garcia, a sanitation and safety specialist employed by the Division. During both visits, Mr. Garcia noticed multiple items that were not in compliance with the laws which govern the facilities and operations of licensed restaurants. Through the testimony of Mr. Garcia and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, the Division presented clear and convincing evidence that as of July 23, 2010, the following deficiencies subsisted at Respondent Alma Caribe Café Restaurant: (1) potentially hazardous food held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit, contrary to Food Code Rule 3-501.16(A); (2) potentially hazardous food not cooled from 135 to 41 degrees Fahrenheit within six hours, in violation of Food Code Rule 3-501.14(A); (3) holding equipment incapable of maintaining potentially hazardous food at proper temperatures, in violation of Food Code Rule 4-301.11; (4) raw food stored over cooked food, contrary to Food Code Rule 3- 302.11(A)(1); and (5) no proof of required employee training, in violation of section 509.049, Florida Statutes. Each of the foregoing deficiencies is considered a critical violation by the Division. Critical food code violations are those that, if uncorrected, present an immediate threat to public safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order: (a) finding Respondent guilty in accordance with the foregoing Recommended Order; and (b) ordering Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $1250, to be paid within 30 days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated food safety standards established by section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and the implementing rules as charged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate sanctions.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Dominos Pizza was owned and operated by Narverud Restaurant Systems, Inc., as a licensed permanent public food service establishment located at 13081 Spring Hill Drive, Spring Hill, Florida. Elizabeth Narverud is its vice president. Narverud Restaurant Systems, Inc., holds License No. 3700896.2/ The Division is responsible for monitoring and inspecting licensed food service establishments to ensure that they comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules, and the Food Code. On March 26, 2013, Nick Roff, Sanitation and Safety Specialist for the Division, conducted a food service inspection of Dominos Pizza. On the date of the inspection, Mr. Roff had been employed by the Division for approximately three months and was still under probation. Mr. Roff had no experience in the food service industry prior to his employment with the Division. Mr. Roff received training from the Division in the laws relating to food service, and has become certified as a food manager. The Division additionally provides monthly in-house training which Mr. Roff has attended. During his probationary period, Mr. Roff accompanied his senior inspector on food service establishment inspections, observing how the inspector conducted inspections, identified violations, and provided corrective actions. As part of his training, Mr. Roff was also “shadowed” by his senior inspector as Mr. Roff conducted inspections. On the date of the final hearing, Mr. Roff had conducted approximately 600 restaurant inspections. Cited Violations On March 26, 2013, Mr. Roff prepared an Inspection Report noting a total of 13 alleged violations of the standards set forth in applicable statutes, administrative rules, and the Food Code. Among the violations Mr. Roff noted was the absence of a backflow preventer on the mop sink faucet. Mr. Roff observed that the mop sink faucet was threaded but no backflow preventer was installed. Food Code Rule 5-203.14 provides as follows: A PLUMBING SYSTEM shall be installed to preclude backflow of a solid, liquid, or gas contaminant into the water supply system at each point of use at the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, including on a hose bibb if a hose is attached or on a hose bibb if a hose is not attached and backflow prevention is required by LAW, by: (A) Providing an air gap as specified under § 5-202.13; or (B) Installing an approved backflow prevention device as specified under § 5-202.14. Food Code Rule 5-202.13, entitled “Backflow Prevention, Air Gap,” provides as follows: An air gap between the water supply inlet and the flood level rim of the PLUMBING FIXTURE, EQUIPMENT, or nonFOOD EQUIPMENT shall be at least twice the diameter of the water supply inlet and may not be less than 25 mm (1 inch). A vacuum breaker or other backflow preventer prohibits backflow of water from the mop bucket, when being filled in the mop sink (or by hose attached to the mop sink faucet), into the water supply system in the event of a loss of water pressure, which creates a siphoning action. The Food Code provides an exception when the distance between the end of the faucet and the top of the rim of the sink is twice the diameter of the faucet but not less than one inch. Violation of rule 5-203.14 is designated by the Division as a high priority violation. Among other violations, Mr. Roff noted on the Inspection Report that the reach-in cooler gasket was torn or in disrepair. Mr. Roff did not testify specifically whether the gasket was torn, or otherwise in disrepair. He testified that he typically reaches in and spreads the gasket apart to inspect for tears. Food Code Rule 4-501.11(B) provides, “Equipment components such as doors, seals, hinges, fasteners, and kick plates shall be kept intact, tight, and adjusted in accordance with manufacturer?s specifications.” A torn or otherwise damaged cooler gasket can cause cross-contamination and prevent the storage of foods at the required temperature. Mr. Roff did measure the temperature of the food in the reach-in cooler, but did not testify with certainty whether the temperature met the standard of 41 degrees or less. Mr. Roff did not note temperature of food stored in the reach-in cooler as a violation. Given the totality of the evidence, the undersigned finds that the food stored in the reach-in cooler met the temperature standard. Violation of rule 4-501.11(B) is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Among the other violations observed by Mr. Roff was that the utensil used to scoop corn meal from its bulk container was resting flat on top of the corn meal, where the handle came into contact with the corn meal. Food Code Rule 3-304.12 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: During pauses in food preparation or dispensing, food preparation and dispensing utensils shall be stored: * * * (B) in food that is not potentially hazardous (time/temperature control for safety food) with their handles above the top of the food within containers or equipment that can be closed, such as bins of sugar, flour, or cinnamon. At Dominos Pizza, corn meal is used in stretching the pizza dough. The corn meal is scooped from a bulk container onto the food preparation surface and spread by hand on the surface before stretching the dough. Violation of rule 3-304.12 is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Mr. Roff met with Ms. Narverud during the inspection on March 26, 2013, walked through each of the alleged violations with her, and gave her a copy of the Inspection Report, which she signed. The Inspection Report notes a callback inspection date of May 27, 2013. On May 30, 2013, Mr. Roff performed a callback inspection at Respondent?s food service establishment. Ms. Narverud was not present. Mr. Roff observed that eight of the violations noted in the March 26, 2013, Inspection Report had been corrected. However, the three violations detailed above –- no backflow preventer at the mop sink, gasket on reach-in cooler torn or in disrepair, and corn meal scoop not stored with handle above food –- were not corrected. Mr. Roff prepared a Callback Inspection Report, which was signed by Julio Diaz as Manager. The Callback Inspection Report recommended filing an Administrative Complaint. Petitioner introduced no evidence of prior violations by Respondent of the applicable statutes, administrative rules, or the Food Code. Owner?s Response Ms. Narverud has worked as a food service manager for 25 years, has a food manager certification from the Division, and is a certified trainer for Dominos where she trains employees in sanitation requirements. Ms. Narverud is an advocate for food safety and training in order to protect the Dominos brand and reputation. Ms. Narverud testified that the gasket on the reach-in cooler was replaced approximately one year prior to the inspection. Ms. Narverud testified credibly that a gasket generally lasts three to five years. Ms. Narverud admitted that the gasket was stained with tomato sauce, but maintained it was not torn, soiled, or mildewed. Respondent introduced a photograph of the gasket in question, which appeared to be in good repair. However, the picture was taken two weeks before the hearing, so it is not accepted as evidence of the condition of the gasket at the time of inspection. Ms. Narverud contacted her plumber following the March inspection to request that a backflow preventer be installed at the mop sink faucet. The plumber informed her there was no backflow preventer device which would fit that particular faucet.3/ Further, Ms. Narverud maintained that the particular mop sink is exempt from the backflow preventer requirement because the air gap between the end of the faucet and the top of the mop sink was two inches or more, and no hose was attached to the faucet. Mr. Roff could not recall whether a hose was located within the vicinity of the sink during either the initial or callback inspection. There was no evidence of the distance between the end of the faucet and the flood level rim of the mop sink, other than Respondent?s testimony. Ms. Narverud planned to discuss the issue of the mop sink with Mr. Roff when he returned for the callback inspection. However, Mr. Roff returned on May 30, rather than May 27, the date noted in the March Inspection Report. Ms. Narverud was not present when the callback inspection was conducted. Having been cited in the Administrative Complaint for the lack of a backflow preventer, despite her plumber?s advice and her belief that no backflow preventer was required for the type of faucet installed, Ms. Narverud has subsequently had the entire faucet replaced and a backflow preventer installed. As to the issue of the scoop handle in the corn meal bin, Ms. Narverud disagrees that a violation occurred. Because the corn meal is spread by hand onto the food preparation surface after scooping, Ms. Narverud argues that it should be irrelevant whether the scoop handle touches the corn meal in the bin. Mr. Narverud?s argument, while understandable, is not compelling. But for the handle, employees might as well be scooping the corn meal directly from the bin with their hands. The handle is the carrier by which corn meal in the bin may become contaminated by any number of germs and viruses present on employees? hands. The citation may be picky, but it is nevertheless a violation.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent, Dominos Pizza, violated section 509.032(2)(d), and Food Code Rules 5-203.14. and 3- 304.12, adopted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C- 1.001(13), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; Finding that Respondent, Dominos Pizza, did not violate section 509.032(2)(d), and Food Code Rule 4-501.11(B), as alleged in Administrative Complaint; Applying a mitigating factor based on the 12-year length of time that Respondent has been in operation without incident, her good-faith belief that a backflow preventer was not required for the mop sink, and her extraordinary efforts in correcting the violations; and Imposing an administrative penalty against Respondent, Dominos Pizza, in the amount of $200, payable to the Division within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Flamers, committed the violation alleged and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating hotels and restaurants within the State of Florida regarding health and safety codes. See § 509.032, Fla. Stat. (2007). At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent operated as a public food service establishment subject to the Petitioner’s jurisdiction (see Petitioner’s Exhibit A). In his capacity as a sanitation and safety specialist for the Petitioner, Mr. Morales visited the Respondent’s place of business located at 801 North Congress Avenue, Boynton Beach, Florida, on two occasions. Mr. Morales has extensive training and education in food service related matters and has performed numerous inspections for the Petitioner. He is familiar with all relevant food service law and rules pertaining to the inspection of licensed food service establishments. First, on May 11, 2007, Mr. Morales visited the Respondent’s place of business and noted several Food Service Inspection violations. These violations were documented (Petitioner’s Exhibit B) and a copy of the inspection report was provided to Mr. Yo. Mr. Yo owns the restuarant and was present during this first inspection. The violation pertinent to this case is more fully described below (see "callback" inspection results). At the time of the first inspection, Mr. Morales warned that a “call back” inspection would be performed and issued the Respondent with a warning regarding the violations noted on the inspection form. The “call back” inspection was provided to afford the Respondent with time to correct the deficiencies noted in the first inspection and to assure that the deficiencies were timely corrected. On June 14, 2007, Mr. Morales returned to the Respondent’s place of business to perform the “call back” inspection. The “call back” inspection report (Petitioner’s Exhibit C) noted two violations had not been corrected. Only one of these violations remains at issue. Specifically, Mr. Morales found that the food containers that stored food overnight were not clearly marked and dated. This is not an approved method of storing food. Mr. Yo was not present during this "call back" inspection. Michael Evancich was present during the "call back." Mr. Evanich identified himself to Mr. Morales as the Respondent's "manager." Mr. Evancich signed the Food Service Inspection Report that detailed the violation. Mr. Morales noted that potentially hazardous food was prepared and held in containers for more than 24 hours without being clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the food would be consumed, sold, or discarded. See Food Code Rule 3-501.17(A). Food containers with hot dogs, chicken breasts, and burgers were not dated and were stored overnight inside a cooler. According to Mr. Morales this is a critical violation. Undated and out-dated food can grow bacteria leading to a potential health hazard. The purpose of the labeling assures that potentially hazardous products are not sold to the public or consumed. Although he was not present during the "call back" inspection, Mr. Yo maintained that the Respondent has a policy to assure that food products are marked and stored in an approved manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00. S DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: William Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restuarants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jessica Leigh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Richard Yo 6205 Floridian Circle Lake Worth, Florida 33463
The Issue Whether Respondent has committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with the licensing and regulation of public food service establishments, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a restaurant holding food service license number 6500911. Respondent is owned by Barbque Ventures, Inc. Daniel Fulton is employed by the Department as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist. In that capacity, he conducts inspections of food service and lodging establishments for compliance with Chapter 509, Florida Statutes; the Food Code; and the relevant Florida Administrative Code Rules. Mr. Fulton is a certified food manager. Critical violations are violations of the relevant rules and statutes that are more likely to contribute to a food-borne illness, an environmental hazard, or to food contamination. Non-critical violations are those violations that are less likely to contribute to a food-borne illness, an environmental hazard, or to food contamination. On March 21, 2007, Mr. Fulton inspected the premises of Bono's Barbeque Sports Bar at 1001 A1A Beach Boulevard, in St. Augustine, Florida. During the inspection, Mr. Fulton prepared a Food Service Inspection Report setting forth the findings from his inspection. The Food Service Inspection Report was provided to and signed for by Debra Barnes, who was listed as manager for the restaurant. During the March 21, 2007, inspection, Mr. Fulton recorded a number of violations of the Food Code. Only four of them are relevant to the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Mr. Fulton observed that foods in the walk-in cooler were not labeled and dated. This is considered a critical violation because food that has been cooked is allowed only a certain number of hours to cool to 41 degrees. If previously prepared food is not marked, it cannot be determined whether it has met the schedule for cooling. Failure to mark and date previously-prepared food is considered a critical violation. The failure to label and date food was noted in the March 21 inspection report at the top of the third page, stating: 02-06-1: Observed combined ready-to-eat potentially hazardous food held more than 24 hours not date marked according to earliest date of opening/preparation. However, Mr. Fulton did not testify that the meat in question had been held over 24 hours. He testified only that it was placed in the walk-in cooler 18 hours before. Mr. Fulton also observed that the food in the walk-in cooler was between 44 and 46 degrees. According to Mr. Fulton, this is considered a critical violation because bacteria will grow above 41 degrees, and the longer the food is above 41 degrees, the more the bacteria will grow. The violation was noted on page three of the March 21 inspection report as "03A-07-1: Observed potentially hazardous food cold held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit." The walk-in cooler was replaced after the call-back inspection and three repairs. Mr. Fulton observed uncovered food in the walk-in cooler. Walk-in coolers are not considered to be food-contact surfaces, and in order to protect the food, it needs to be off the floor and covered at all times. Failure to cover the food in the walk-in cooler is considered a critical violation. This violation was recorded in the inspection report as "08A-29-1: Observed uncovered food in holding unit/dry storage area. TEA Corrected on Site." Finally, Mr. Fulton observed two sinks that had no hand towels available for handwashing. Without proper handwashing, employees' hands are "virtually bacteria spreaders." Failure to provide hand towels at hand sinks hampers the employees' hand washing efforts, and is considered a critical violation. The violation was listed on the inspection report as "32-16-1: Hand wash sink lacking proper hand drying provisions. TWO SINKS." On May 1, 2007, Mr. Fulton returned to Bono's Barbeque for a call-back inspection. At that time he completed a Call Back Inspection Report, which was signed by Debra Barnes as the manager. The Call Back Inspection Report contains the following: The following items(s) have been recommended for Administrative Complaint: Violation 32-16-1 Hand wash sink lacking proper hand drying provisions. TWO SINKS. Violation 08A-29-1 Observation uncovered food in holding unit/dry storage area. WIC Violation 03A-07-1 Observed potentially hazardous food cold held at greater than 41 degrees /Fahrenheit. EVERYTHING IN WIC IS AT 44 TO 46 F. Violation 02-06-1 Observed combined ready-to-eat potentially hazardous food held more than 24 hours not date marked according to earliest date of opening/preparation. BBQ COOKED AND COOLED ON 04/30/07 IN WIC. The Food Inspection Report, the Call-Back Inspection Report, the Administrative Complaint and the copies of relevant rules provided at hearing all reference provisions of the Food Code. However, none of these documents indicate what version of the Food Code is being referenced.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 2007.
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 Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaints dated July 8, 2015, and September 30, 2015; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: The Division is the state agency charged with regulating public lodging and public food service establishments pursuant to chapter 509. At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a public food service establishment in the state of Florida by the Division. Pet. Ex. 1. The Division's first witness, Inspector Audain, is employed by the Division as a sanitation and safety specialist at 5080 Coconut Creek Parkway, Suite A, Margate, Florida 33063. Audain has worked for the Division for approximately ten years as an inspector. Prior to working for the Division, Audain worked in the food industry as a managing partner at a restaurant in New York. Upon gaining employment in the Division, Audain was trained on the Food Code and the laws and rules pertaining to public food service establishments and public lodging establishments. Audain is also a certified food manager. Audain receives continuing education and training on a monthly basis. Audain performs more than 700 inspections each year. The Division's second witness, Inspector Howard, is employed by the Division as a sanitation and safety specialist at 5080 Coconut Creek Parkway, Suite A, Margate, Florida 33063. Howard has worked for the Division for approximately one and one- half years. Prior to working for the Division, Howard worked in the food industry as an executive chef at a Hilton Hotel in Tampa, a chef at a W Hotel in South Beach, and a chef at Los Hotel in South Beach. Upon gaining employment in the Division, Howard was trained on the Food Code and on the laws and rules pertaining to public food service establishments and public lodging establishments. Howard is also a certified food manager. Howard receives continuing education and training on a monthly basis. Howard performs approximately 800 inspections each year. "Basic Item" means an item defined in the Food Code as a Core Item. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.001(5) (January 1, 2013). "Basic violation" means a violation of a basic item, as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.001 or a violation of chapter 509 or chapter 61C, which relates to general sanitation and does not meet the definition of high priority violation or intermediate violation and is not otherwise identified in subsection (6) of rule 61C-1.005. "Intermediate violation" means a violation of an intermediate item, as defined in rule 61C-1.001 or a violation of chapter 509 or chapter 61C, 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 rule 61C-1.005. "High priority violation" means a violation of a high priority item, as defined in rule 61C-1.001 or a violation of chapter 509 or chapter 61C, 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 rule 61C-1.005. DBPR Case No. 2015-029646 On July 1, 2015, Audain performed an inspection of Latchman's Seafood Market and Grill, Inc. During the inspection, Audain prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth the violation she encountered during the inspection. Pet. Ex. 2. On July 1, 2015, Audain notified Respondent of the cited violation. Ricardo Latchman signed the inspection report on behalf of Respondent. Pet. Ex. 2. During the inspection on July 1, 2015, Audain observed roach activity present as evidenced by eight live roaches found crawling on the floor in the food service area, three live roaches crawling on the fryer in the kitchen, three live roaches found by the water heater in the kitchen, two live roaches found between the hose from the water heater and the wall, two live roaches found underneath the kitchen prep table, at least six live roaches found in the air conditioner closet, one live roach crawling on the wall next to the refrigerator, five live roaches crawling on the reach-in cooler by the door to the front service area, and one live roach crawling on the wall in the front service area of the establishment. This is a violation because roaches can place the health of consumers at risk by transferring and transmitting bacteria and disease to food, food contact surfaces, and food storage areas. Pet. Ex. 2. As a result of these observations, the Division entered an Order of Emergency Suspension of License and Closure against Respondent. The emergency order was issued on the same date as the inspection, July 1, 2015. Pet. Ex. 7. DBPR Case No. 2015-042510 On July 16, 2015, Audain performed an inspection of Latchman's Seafood Market and Grill, Inc. During this inspection, Audain prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth the violations she encountered during the inspection. Pet. Ex. 3. On July 16, 2015, Audain notified Respondent about the violations and informed Respondent that the violations needed to be corrected by July 17, 2015. Mr. Latchman signed the inspection report on behalf of Respondent. Pet. Ex. 3. On July 17, 2015, Howard performed a callback inspection of Latchman's Seafood Market and Grill, Inc. During the inspection, Howard prepared and signed an inspection report indicating that some of the violations noted on the July 16, 2015, inspection report had not been corrected. Pet. Ex. 4. On July 17, 2015, Howard notified Respondent about the violations and informed Respondent that the violations needed to be corrected by September 1, 2015. Mr. Latchman signed the inspection report on behalf of Respondent. Pet. Ex. 4. On September 2, 2015, Audain performed a callback inspection of Latchman's Seafood Market and Grill, Inc. During the inspection, Audain prepared and signed an inspection report indicating that some of the violations noted on the July 16, 2015, and July 17, 2015, inspection reports had not been corrected. Pet. Ex. 5. On September 2, 2015, Audain notified Respondent about the violations and informed Respondent that the violations needed to be corrected by September 3, 2015. Mr. Latchman signed the inspection report on behalf of Respondent. Pet. Ex. 5. On September 3, 2015, Audain performed a callback inspection of Latchman's Seafood Market and Grill, Inc. During the inspection, Audain prepared and signed an inspection report indicating that some of the violations noted on the July 16, 2015; July 17, 2015; and September 2, 2015, inspection reports had not been corrected. Pet. Ex. 6. The first violation was observed during the July 16, 2015; September 2, 2015; and September 3, 2015, inspections. Audain observed employees engaging in food preparation without proper hair restraints. This is a violation because hair can be both a direct and indirect vehicle for contamination. Food employees may contaminate their hands when they touch their hair. Proper use of a hair restraint keeps dislodged hair from ending up in the food and may also deter employees from touching their hair. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for the first violation as a Core Item. The Division has designated violations of Core Items as basic violations. Pet. Ex. 3, 5-6; Food Code 2009 - Annex 3 Public Health Reasons/Administrative Guidelines, p. 367; Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). The second violation was observed during the July 16, 2015; July 17, 2015; September 2, 2015; and September 3, 2015, inspections. The inspectors observed equipment in poor repair as evidenced by a freezer chest door having filament (insulation) exposed. This is a violation because failure to properly maintain equipment could lead to violations of the associated requirements of the Food Code that place the health of the public at risk. Refrigeration units in disrepair may no longer be capable of properly cooling or holding potentially hazardous (time/temperature control for safety) foods at safe temperatures. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for the second violation as a Core Item. The Division has designated Core Items as basic violations. Pet. Ex. 3-6; Food Code 2009 - Annex 3 Public Health Reasons/Administrative Guidelines, p. 460; Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). The third violation was observed during the July 16, 2015; September 2, 2015; and September 3, 2015, inspections. During the July 16, 2015, inspection, Audain observed roach activity present as evidenced by four live roaches found nestled in crevices by the air conditioner in the kitchen and one live roach crawling on the floor in front of the reach-in cooler between the kitchen and front service area. During the September 2, 2015, inspection, Audain observed one live roach crawling on the kitchen floor. Audain also observed one dead roach in the dining room freezer and one dead roach near the kitchen door during her inspection on September 3, 2015. This is a violation because roaches can place the health of consumers at risk by transferring and transmitting bacteria and disease to food, food contact surfaces, and food storage areas. The Division properly designated this violation as a high priority violation. Pet. Ex. 3, 5-6; Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(a). The fourth violation was observed during the July 16, 2015; July 17, 2015; September 2, 2015; and September 3, 2015, inspections. The inspectors observed outer openings to the establishment not protected as evidenced by a rear door which was not self-closing. This is a violation because the presence of insects and rodents (which may transmit bacteria and disease to food) is minimized by protecting and securing outer door openings to the food establishment. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for the fourth violation as a Core Item. The Division has designated violations of Core Items as basic violations. Pet. Ex. 3-6; Food Code 2009 - Annex 3 Public Health Reasons/Administrative Guidelines, pp. 485-486; Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). The fifth violation was observed during the July 16, 2015; July 17, 2015; September 2, 2015; and September 3, 2015, inspections. During these inspections, the establishment failed to provide the inspectors with proof of the manager's food manager certification upon request. This is a violation because managers are required to pass an approved food manager certification course and test which ensures managers have a higher level of knowledge regarding sanitation and food handling, preparation, and storage. Lack of the required knowledge can result in breakdowns in these processes. The Division has designated this violation as an intermediate violation. Pet. Ex. 3-6; Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C- 1.005(5)(b). The sixth violation was observed during the July 16, 2015; July 17, 2015; September 2, 2015; and September 3, 2015, inspections. During these inspections, the establishment failed to provide the inspectors with proof of the employees’ required state-approved employee training. This is a violation because employees of restaurants are required to have basic food safety training, which imparts knowledge of basic food handling skills, including proper glove use, procedures for food temperatures and hot/cold holding, cooking temperature requirements, and basic sanitation measures, such as personal hygiene and hand-washing. Lack of this knowledge can result in a breakdown in these processes, possibly leading to food-borne illness or unsanitary conditions. The Division properly designated this violation as an intermediate violation. Pet. Ex. 3-6; Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C- 1.005(5)(b). Respondent had one Emergency Order of Suspension of License and Closure filed with the agency clerk by the Division within the 12 months preceding the date the current administrative complaints were issued. The Emergency Order of Suspension of License and Closure was filed on July 7, 2015. Pet. Ex. 7.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, ordering Latchman's Seafood Market and Grill, Inc., d/b/a Latchman's Seafood Market and Grill, Inc., to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $500.00 for the violation listed above in DBPR Case No. 2015-029646 and an administrative penalty in the amount of $1,650.00 in DBPR Case No. 2015-042510, for a total administrative penalty of $2,150.00, plus any applicable and authorized investigative expenses or costs, due and payable to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 calendar days of the date of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 5th day of May, 2016.
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
