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 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 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 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 in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2006). At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a restaurant located at 7551 West Waters Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33615, holding Food Service license number 3903935. On July 11, 2006, Richard Decker, a senior inspector representing the Petitioner, performed a routine inspection of the Respondent that resulted in emergency closure of the restaurant due to a roach infestation problem. The inspection report stated that the deadline for correcting the roach problem was July 12, 2006, and the matter was apparently resolved in a timely manner. Mr. Decker found additional violations of applicable Food Code regulations on July 11, 2006, which were cited in a written Food Service Inspection Report, a copy of which was provided to restaurant owner Anthony Della Monica on the date of the inspection. Mr. Decker's inspection identified critical and non- critical violations. Critical Food Code violations pose serious public health risk due to potential transmission of food-borne illness. Critical life safety violations such as blocked exits increase the risk of public injury. Violations that do not pose a direct and imminent public health risk are identified as non- critical. Other than as set forth herein, the violations cited during the July inspections were to have been corrected by the time of Mr. Decker's August 15, 2006, re-inspection. Many of the previously cited violations had not been corrected at that time. The August 15, 2006, re-inspection report was received by Mr. Della Monica on the date of the inspection. Mr. Decker again re-inspected the restaurant on October 20, 2006. Several violations previously cited in July remained uncorrected at that time. The October 20, 2006, re- inspection report was received by Head Chef Kurt Clasen on the date of the inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for failing to have a certified food manager on the premises and for lacking of proof that employees had received food safety training. Such training was intended to reduce the potential for transmission of food-borne illness. These violations were deemed critical. Although Mr. Decker established an extended deadline of October 11, 2006, to correct the certified food manager and employee training violations, they remained uncorrected by the October 20, 2006, re-inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for lacking a hand sink in the dishwashing area and noted that a hand sink at the rear of the kitchen was being used for food preparation. The requirements related to hand sinks were intended to reduce the potential for transmission of food- borne illness. The violations of the requirements were deemed critical. The Respondent still lacked a hand sink in the dishwashing area at the time of both re-inspections. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for using extension cords on a non-temporary basis to power equipment in the kitchen. The Respondent's improper electrical cord use was a fire hazard and was deemed a critical violation. By law, extension cords can only be used on a temporary basis. The cited extension cords remained in use by the Respondent at the time of both re-inspections. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for removing food products from original packaging and storing them in unlabeled containers, a critical violation that increased the risk of confusing food products with non- edible products such as cleaning chemicals. The violation remained uncorrected at the time of both re-inspections. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for lacking a chemical testing kit used to ascertain that the dishwasher sanitization function was operating properly. Lack of proper sanitation increased the potential for transmission of food-borne illness. The violation, deemed critical, was not corrected by the time of either re-inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for failing to have a visible thermometer in a pizza- holding unit. The inability to monitor food-holding temperatures increased the potential for transmission of food- borne illness and was a critical violation. The violation was uncorrected at the time of the August re-inspection as it should have been, but it had been remedied by the October re- inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for the lack of light bulb shields in a food service area, which increased the risk that food could be contaminated by glass in the event of light bulb breakage. This was deemed a non-critical violation and remained uncorrected at the time of either re-inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order imposing a fine of $3,800 against the Respondent and requiring the Respondent to complete an appropriate educational program related to the violations identified herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Della Monica Mama D's Pasta & Grille 1819 Audubon Street Clearwater, Florida 33764 Jessica Leigh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 William Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether on April 5 and October 18, 2011, and on February 28, 2012, Respondent was in compliance with the food safety requirements of section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and implementing administrative rules of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and if not, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division) is responsible for monitoring all licensed food-service establishments in the state to ensure that they comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Mr. Douglas Peterson has been employed as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Division for five and one-half years. He previously worked in the restaurant industry for over 21 years, including eight years as a kitchen manager and five years as a restaurant assistant manager. He has had training, including monthly in-house training and field training, in food inspection. On average, he conducts about five safety and sanitation inspections of food-service establishments per day, and about 1000 inspections per year. China King is a licensed permanent public food-service establishment operating at 4941 East Busch Boulevard, Suite 120, in Tampa, Florida. The owner of China King, Mr. Chi Kin Chan, speaks very little English. Representing the restaurant was Mr. Chan’s daughter, Ms. Man Chan, who assists her father with the restaurant. Under all of the circumstances, including the facts that Ms. Chan helps operate the restaurant, demonstrated basic knowledge of applicable statutes and rules, and demonstrated her ability to capably and responsibly represent Respondent, Ms. Chan was accepted as a Qualified Representative. China King was inspected by Mr. Peterson on August 25, 2010, and October 26, 2010. The Administrative Complaint alleged violations based upon these inspections, and testimony and exhibits as to these violations were offered at hearing. However, an earlier Administrative Complaint relating to these inspections has already been settled, as discussed below. The Stipulation and Consent Order in the earlier case settled any violations based upon these inspections, and no purpose is served by delineating the details of those inspections here. On April 5, 2011, Inspector Peterson conducted another food service inspection on China King. Inspector Peterson prepared a Food Service Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022- 015, using his Personal Data Assistant (PDA) to record the violations that he observed during the inspection. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the report on behalf of China King. During the April inspection, Mr. Peterson observed that China King had ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on-site and held more than 24 hours that had not been properly date-marked in the walk-in cooler, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that lack of proper date marking poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. Mr. Peterson also observed during the April inspection that China King was storing food on the floor in the cooks’ line and in the preparation area, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that storing food on the floor poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. During the April inspection, Mr. Peterson observed the improper use of a plastic food container or other container with no handle being used to scoop or dispense food that was not ready-to-eat, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that using containers without handles to scoop or dispense food fails to minimize food contact with bare hands, and poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Division has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. On October 18, 2011, Mr. Peterson conducted another inspection of China King. Inspector Peterson again prepared an inspection report on DBPR Form HR 5022-015 using his PDA to record the violations that he observed. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the report on behalf of China King. During the October inspection, Mr. Peterson again observed ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on- site and held more than 24 hours that had not been properly date-marked in the walk-in cooler, including egg rolls, cooked chicken, pork, and shrimp. He recorded this information in his report, along with a notation that it was a repeat violation. Mr. Peterson also observed food stored on the floor in the walk-in during his October inspection. He recorded this, noting that it was a repeat violation. During the October inspection, Mr. Peterson observed the improper use of a bowl or plastic food container without a handle as a scoop to dispense non ready-to-eat foods such as flour and starch, as well as ready-to-eat foods such as salt and sugar. He noted this in his report, along with a notation that this was corrected on-site. Mr. Peterson also observed an employee with no hair restraint during the October inspection. He noted this in his report along with the fact that it was corrected while he was on-site. On February 28, 2012, Mr. Peterson conducted a stipulation call-back inspection, as well as a full inspection of the China King. A stipulation call-back inspection is an inspection that is required as part of a stipulation which is conducted for the limited purpose of determining whether specific violations noted earlier have been corrected. Inspector Peterson prepared a Call Back Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-005, as well as DBPR Form HR 5022-015 on February 28, 2012, using his PDA to record the violations that he observed. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the reports on behalf of China King. On February 28, 2012, Mr. Peterson again observed that ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food that had been prepared on-site and held more than 24 hours had not been date-marked. He noted this in his reports. Mr. Peterson again observed food stored on the floor in the walk-in and cooks’ line during his February inspection and made note of this in his reports. Mr. Peterson again observed a can without a handle being used to scoop rice on February, 28, 2012, as was noted in his reports. Mr. Peterson also observed an employee without a hair restraint during his February inspection, noting this in his reports. In response to questioning from Respondent at hearing, Inspector Peterson stated that he was familiar with the description of the inspection process set out on the Division of Hotels and Restaurants’ website. Inspector Peterson was aware that these procedures state that an inspector will invite the manager to accompany him on the inspection walk-through, and that the inspector will go over each item on the inspection report. Mr. Peterson testified that at each inspection he advised persons at the restaurant of the violations and the need to correct them. Mr. Chi Kin Chan, owner of China King, testified that Mr. Peterson did show his badge when he conducted the inspection on February 28, 2012, although he did not announce who he was. Mr. Chan testified that Mr. Peterson just went through the restaurant on his own and did not invite Mr. Chan or anyone else from the restaurant to accompany him on his inspection. Mr. Chan testified that Mr. Peterson then just went to the front of the restaurant and prepared his report without discussing any of the alleged violations with Mr. Chan or operators of the restaurant. Mr. Taoso Tevega is engaged to be married to Ms. Man Chan, and so is the prospective son-in-law of Mr. Chan. Mr. Tevega occasionally assists the Chan family with the restaurant, but does not receive any paycheck from China King. He works in the receiving department of Advance Auto Parts. Mr. Tevega was present at China King during the February 28, 2012, inspection. Mr. Tevega testified that on February 28, 2012, Inspector Peterson just showed up in the back of China King without identifying himself and that he did not ask anyone to accompany him as he went about the restaurant conducting his inspection. Mr. Tevega testified that Mr. Peterson did not discuss or explain the violations to anyone, but just had Ms. Chan sign the report. Mr. Peterson testified that he was in business casual attire, with his employee identification tag secured from a lanyard worn around his neck, and that he presented identification before beginning each inspection. Mr. Peterson identified himself by displaying his badge before and during the February 28, 2012, inspection, as testified to by Mr. Chan and Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson did not invite anyone to accompany him as he conducted the inspection on February 28, 2012, as Mr. Chan and Mr. Tevega testified. Mr. Peterson advised operators at the restaurant of the violations and the need to correct them, as he testified. The Division issued an Administrative Complaint against China King for the above violations on or about March 7, 2012. Additional evidence introduced at hearing showed that China King had a previous disciplinary Final Order entered within 24 months of the Administrative Complaint issued in this case. That Stipulation and Consent Order was signed by China King Manager Ko Chan on January 13, 2012, and was filed on January 24, 2012. In the Order, China King agreed to pay a fine of $900.00, but neither admitted nor denied the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint. Some of those allegations would have constituted critical violations. The January 24, 2012, Stipulation and Consent Order was in settlement of an Administrative Complaint issued on November 8, 2010. That Administrative Complaint alleged violations of the Food Code based upon inspections conducted on August 25, 2010, and October 26, 2010, two of the inspections for which testimony and documentary evidence was submitted in this case, but which are discussed here only for penalty purposes.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a Final Order finding China King in violation of three critical violations and one non-critical violation and imposing a fine of $2,625, to be paid within 30 calendar days of the filing of the Final Order with the Agency Clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 2012.
The Issue The issues in DOAH Case No. 10-1704 are whether Respondent, Stacked Subs (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated November 5, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. Similarly, the issues in DOAH Case No. 10-2445 are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 24, 2009, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact 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. (2009). At all times material to the allegations of these cases, Respondent operated as a public food service establishment subject to Petitioner’s jurisdiction. In his capacity as an inspector for Petitioner, Alfonso Rullan visited Respondent’s place of business (2054 State Road 436, Winter Park, Florida) on December 19, 2007. During the inspection, Mr. Rullan noted several food service violations that he memorialized in an inspection report provided to, and signed by, Mr. Nevarez. The violations, more fully described in Petitioner's Exhibit 2, required correction. It was contemplated that Respondent would correct the violations of the Food Code such that on second inspection the violations would no longer be found. Since the inspection revealed “critical” violations, it was incumbent on Respondent to timely correct the violations noted in the inspection report. “Critical” violations are violations that, if left uncorrected, can contribute to food contamination, food-borne illness, or adversely affect public health. Thus, “critical violations” must be timely corrected, as they are a present concern. Violations that could lead to critical violations are denoted as “non-critical.” These “non- critical” violations must also be corrected, but they do not constitute a present threat to the public On March 12, 2008, Inspector Will Goris returned to Respondent’s place of business and completed a second inspection report, denoting critical violations uncorrected from the prior inspection and itemizing the concerns that required correction. Mr. Nevarez signed the report. This report, Petitioner’s Exhibit 3, chronicled ten violations of the Food Code. Subsequently, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint (DOAH Case No. 10-1704), outlining the uncorrected and critical violations Respondent had failed to timely address. Respondent timely contested the complaint and sought an administrative hearing in connection with the allegations. Between December 2007 and March 12, 2008, Respondent failed to correct the following violations: Cheese in the reach-in cooler at the front counter was 51 degrees; Employees reported to work and handled food without first washing hands; The prep table was adjacent to the fryers and under the hood was encrusted and greasy; and Single service cups were stored on the floor by the register. Of the foregoing violations, the failure of employees to wash their hands prior to handling food was the most critical violation. This violation was noted by both inspectors. On January 26, 2009, Inspector Goris conducted a routine inspection of Respondent’s premises. On this date, minor violations of the Food Code were again noted, but Mr. Nevarez was given a “met inspection standards” review for this visit. Nevertheless, Petitioner expected Respondent to correct the non-critical violations in a timely manner. On June 17, 2009, when Inspector Goris presented at the restaurant, violations were discovered that led to the second Administrative Complaint, DOAH Case No. 10-2445. Two of the violations were deemed repeat violations, and two were critical violations directly related to public safety; to wit: the soda disperser had slime on it, and proof of employee food- handler training was not available. Respondent timely challenged the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 10-2445. As to all alleged violations, Respondent was provided adequate notice of the allegations and was provided sufficient time to correct deficiencies. Respondent maintains that inspectors should be trained in abuse of power as their inspections can be discretionary and arbitrary. For example, Respondent claimed that the sleeve of cups on the floor by the cash register had merely fallen there when the inspector cited the violation. Respondent’s claim of abuse of power was unsupported by factual evidence. Moreover, the inspections performed by both inspectors documented objective criteria unrelated to opinion or subjective review. For example, dirty, greasy, or encrusted food surfaces were documented. The failure of employees to wash their hands was documented. The inadequate or incorrect temperature of containers of food was documented. These are not subjective items, but were disclosed to Respondent during and at the time of inspection. It is determined that the inspectors’ testimony was credible and persuasive as to the violations cited. The "Food Code," as it is used in this record, refers to paragraph 1-201.10(B), Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 of the Food Code, 2001 Recommendations of the United States Public Health Service/Food and Drug Administration including Annex 3: Public Health Reasons/Administrative Guidelines; Annex 5: HACCP Guidelines of the Food Code; the 2001 Food Code Errata Sheet (August 23, 2002); and Supplement to the 2001 FDA Food Code (August 29, 2003). The Food Code has been adopted by the Department by rule. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.001. The Food Code is also available through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Internet website.
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 against Respondent in the amount of $1,750.00 for the violations listed in DOAH Case No. 10-1704 and $1,000.00 for the violations identified in DOAH Case No. 10-2445. The Respondent should also be required to attend training for a better understanding of the requirements of the Food Code to assure that proper guidelines are adopted and implemented at the restaurant. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 October, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida Carlos Nevarez Stacked Subs 32399 2054 State Road 436 Winter Park, Florida 32792 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 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
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated July 26, 2004, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is the state agency responsible for inspecting and regulating public food service establishments in Florida. See § 509.032, Fla. Stat. The Coffee Salom Tropical is a food service establishment licensed and regulated by the Division. Jorge Gandolff, an inspector employed by the Division, inspected the premises of Coffee Salom Tropical on May 18, 2004, and prepared a Food Service Inspection Report setting forth his findings. He noted in the report that he had observed a number of violations of the Food Code during the May 18, 2004, inspection. Mr. Gandolff went over the results of the inspection with Pilar Cruz, an owner of Coffee Salom Tropical, and he informed her that he would conduct a re-inspection on June 18, 2004. Mr. Gandolff conducted the re-inspection of Coffee Salom Tropical on July 15, 2004, and completed a Callback Inspection Report in which he noted that Coffee Salom Tropical was in compliance with all except five of the violations noted in the Food Service Inspection Report dated May 18, 2004. The five uncorrected violations Mr. Gandolff observed during the July 15, 2004, re-inspection were (1) "potentially hazardous food thawed in an improper manner"; (2) "no chemical test kit provided when using chemical sanitizer at three compartment sinks"; (3) "plumbing improperly installed, coffee machine draining into handsink"; (4) "manager lacking proof of Food Manager Certification"; and (5) "employee training provided by unapproved provider, training provided by a non certified food manager." After the inspection on May 18, 2004, Aracely Gonzalez, the secretary of the corporation that owns Coffee Salom Tropical, and her brother attended classes required as a prerequisite for taking the test for food manager certification. Ms. Gonzalez contacted a private testing company and arranged to take the test on July 21, 2004. Ms. Gonzalez passed the test and was issued her food manager certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division Of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order finding that Coffee Salom Tropical violated Food Code Rule 4-302.14; Sections 509.039 and 509.049, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-4.023(1) and (4), and imposing a fine in the amount of $2,500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 February, 2005.
