The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the subject Administrative Complaints, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Chapter 500, Florida Statutes, is the Florida Food Safety Act. Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida that is responsible for the administration and enforcement of Chapter 500. Section 500.032(1) provides as follows: [Petitioner] is charged with the administration and enforcement of this chapter in order to prevent fraud, harm, adulteration, misbranding, or false advertising in the preparation, manufacture, or sale of articles of food. It is further charged to enforce the provisions of this chapter relating to the production, manufacture, transportation, and sale of food, as well as articles entering into, and intended for use as ingredients in the preparation of food. Section 500.02(1) authorizes Petitioner to establish by rule conditions for the manufacturing, processing, packing, holding, or preparation of food and the selling of food at wholesale or retail. Pursuant to that authority, Petitioner has adopted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 5K-4.002(4), pertinent parts of the "2001 Food Code" and the "Supplement to the 2001 Food Code," published by the U.S. Public Health Service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (the Food Code). The violations alleged by Petitioner in both administrative complaints, if proven, would constitute violations of the Food Code and, consequently, violations of chapter 500. At the times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent operated a convenience store located in Miami, Florida, that sold mostly pre-packaged food products at retail, but also provided ancillary food service (the facility). The facility had a retail sales area, a backroom storage area, a walk-in cooler, and an ice machine. The food service operation included a hot case unit that prepared pre-cooked ready-to-eat food products in individual portions for consumption and drinks such as milk, juice, sodas, and beer. Violations of the Food Code can be categorized as "critical" or "non-critical". As compared to a non-critical violation, a critical violation typically involves unsanitary conditions that are more likely to cause physical harm to a consumer or someone handling a product. June 22, 2010 Inspection Jorge Ojeda, a sanitation and safety specialist employed by Petitioner, performed a routine inspection of the facility on June 22, 2010. Mr. Ojeda's inspection revealed numerous food safety violations, including violations that are deemed critical violations. The following are the critical violations found by Mr. Ojeda on June 22, 2010: Rodent droppings were present in the walk-in cooler and retail area; Ice found in bags in the retail area had not been tested for safety. An ice bag in the retail area was missing a food label. There was evidence of smoking in the retail and backroom areas. There was no established employee health policy; A food employee was observed washing utensils or equipment in a hand-wash sink. Meat patties in the heat case were kept below the minimum approved temperature. Other non-critical violations included general disrepair of the facility, holes in walls, standing water, mold on the ice machine, and failure to maintain equipment. During the June 22, 2010, inspection, Mr. Ojeda issued a Stop Sale Order for the meat patties in the hot case unit until the product was reheated to the minimum temperature. After the temperature was raised to an approved level, Mr. Ojeda lifted the Stop Sale Order for the meat patties. Mr. Ojeda also issued a Stop Sale Order for products in the walk-in cooler and in the ice machine until the walk-in cooler and the ice machine were cleaned and sanitized. As noted above, rodent droppings were found in the walk-in cooler. Mr. Ojeda testified that he found mold inside the ice machine. Mr. Ojeda assigned Respondent a "poor" rating and advised that he would return for a follow-up inspection. August 2, 2010 Inspection Mr. Ojeda conducted a follow-up inspection of the facility on August 2, 2010. The inspection revealed numerous food safety violations, some of which are repeat violations. The following are the critical violations found by Mr. Ojeda on August 2, 2010: There was evidence of rodent droppings and live roaches in the facility; Ice found in bags in the retail area had not been tested for safety. An ice bag in the retail area was missing a food label. There was evidence of smoking in the retail and backroom areas. There was no established employee health policy; A food employee was observed washing utensils in a hand-wash sink. Meat patties in the heat case were kept below the minimum approved temperature. Other violations included general disrepair of the facility, holes in walls, and failure to maintain equipment and fixtures. Administrative Complaint for Case No. 10-9186 Following the August 2, 2010, inspection, Petitioner prepared an administrative complaint that underpins DOAH Case No. 10-9186. Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the total amount of $3,700.00 for the violations found during the inspections on June 22 and August 2. August 18, 2010 Inspection Mr. Ojeda conducted an inspection of the facility on August 18, 2010. During that inspection Mr. Ojeda found numerous food safety violations. The following are the critical violations found by Mr. Ojeda on August 18, 2010: There was evidence of the presence of insects and rodents in the store. There was evidence of smoking in the retail and back room areas where food is processed or prepared, where clean equipment or utensils are stored, or were food is uncovered or exposed. There was mold present on the ice machine. Equipment and utensils were not properly sanitized. Items for sale in the retail area were not marked for individual sale. There was no established employee health policy. Food label was missing or incomplete. Juice drinks were not labeled for individual sale. Other violations included general disrepair of the facility, holes in walls, standing water, and failure to maintain equipment and fixtures. Mr. Ojeda issued a Stop Sale Order for all food items in the store due to evidence of rodents and rodent droppings throughout the store. Mr. Ojeda issued a Stop Use Order for the ice machine because he found mold inside the unit. Mr. Ojeda also issued a Stop Sale Order for the hot holding unit because the unit and associated utensils were not properly sanitized. Mr. Ojeda assigned Respondent a "poor" rating and advised that he would return for a follow-up inspection. September 9, 2010 Inspection Mr. Ojeda conducted a follow-up inspection of the facility on September 9, 2010. During that inspection Mr. Ojeda found numerous food safety violations. The following are the critical violations found by Mr. Ojeda on August 18, 2010: There was evidence of the presence of insects and rodents throughout the store. There was evidence of smoking in the retail and back room areas where food is processed or prepared, where clean equipment or utensils are stored, or were food is uncovered or exposed. Grade A milk and milk products were being sold or used beyond the expiration date on the container. Items for sale in the retail area were not marked for individual sale and were missing labels. F. There was no established employee health policy. Other violations included general disrepair of the facility, holes in walls, standing water, and failure to maintain equipment and fixtures. Mr. Ojeda issued a Stop Sale Order for the expired milk offered for sale in the retail area. The product, which expired the day before the inspection, was released to be returned to the distributor. Mr. Ojeda also issued a Stop Sale Order for all food items in the store due to evidence of rodents and rodent droppings throughout the store. Administrative Complaint for Case No. 10-10095 Following the September 9, 2010, inspection, Petitioner prepared an administrative complaint that underpins DOAH Case No. 10-10095. Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the total amount of $1,550.00 for the violations found during the inspections on August 18 and September 9. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed the violations alleged in Case No. 10-9186. The testimony of Dr. Fruin established that an administrative fine in the amount of $3,700.00 is reasonable for those violations. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed the violations alleged in Case No. 10-10095. The testimony of Dr. Fruin established that an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00 is reasonable for those violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order that finds Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Case No 10-9186 and imposes an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $3,700.00 for those violations. It is further recommended that the final order find Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Case No 10-10095 and impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,500.00 for those violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2011, 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 17th day of February, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Lorena Holley, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Adam Putman Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Steven Lamar Hall, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Hamid Lakhani Super Stop Six Avenue, Inc., d/b/a Super Stop 15150 Northeast 6th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162
The Issue The issue in this case is whether on April 19, 2010, and July 27, 2010, Respondent was in compliance with food safety requirements set forth in administrative rules of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Division), and if not, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Division is responsible for monitoring all licensed food service establishments in the state to ensure that they comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Julianne Browning has been employed as a senior inspector with the Division for six or seven years. It is part of her responsibility to inspect food service establishments for safety and sanitation. She conducts approximately 850 inspections each year. Respondent is licensed as a public food establishment operating as The Green Mango at 7625 West Newberry Road, Gainesville Florida. On April 19, 2010, Ms. Browning conducted a food service inspection on Respondent. Ms. Browning prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth the violations that she observed during the inspection. During her April inspection, Ms. Browning observed an employee engage in food preparation, handle clean equipment or utensils, or touch unwrapped single service items, without washing hands. Ms. Browning identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015, the Food Service Inspection Report. The failure of a food service employee to wash their hands constitutes a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. Inspector Browning also observed in April potentially hazardous cold food held at temperatures greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. Specifically, she observed potatoes at 68 degrees, batter at 70 degrees, rice at 85 degrees, soup at 55 degrees, turnovers at 90 degrees, and butter at 90 degrees. Ms. Browning made notes of these observations in her report. She identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015, the Food Service Inspection Report. Potatoes, batter, rice, soup, and turnovers are potentially hazardous foods and Respondent failed to maintain them at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less. This failure constituted a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. On July 27, 2010, Ms. Browning conducted another food service inspection on Respondent. Again she prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth the violations that she observed during the inspection. During the July inspection, Ms. Browning again observed an employee engage in food preparation, handle clean equipment or utensils, or touch unwrapped single service items, without washing hands. She observed that an employee did not wash his hands before putting on gloves to prepare food. Ms. Browning identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022- 015, the Food Service Inspection Report. It is necessary for employees preparing food to wash their hands even if they are going to be wearing gloves because the gloves could have a tear, or a pin hole, or be otherwise compromised. The failure to wash hands constituted a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. During the July inspection, Ms. Browning observed what she described as clarified butter, which here will be referred to as ghee, on the counter with a temperature of 80 degrees. Inspector Browning also again observed potentially hazardous cold food held at temperatures greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. In this instance she observed cream at 47 degrees, tofu at 45 degrees, milk at 45 degrees, potatoes at 45 degrees, yoghurt at 45 degrees, and cooked vegetables at 55 degrees. Ms. Browning identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015, the Food Service Inspection Report. Cream, tofu, milk, potatoes, yoghurt, and cooked vegetables are potentially hazardous foods and Respondent failed to maintain them at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Potentially hazardous food must be kept at 41 degrees Fahrenheit or below because when the temperature rises above that temperature, bacteria begin to grow at a much faster rate. A person consuming the food can then contract a food-borne illness. The failure to maintain these temperatures constituted a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. Ms. Pandey, witness for Respondent, is an experienced cook. She worked for many years at a Hare Krishna Temple in Alachua County. She is knowledgeable in the preparation and use of ghee. Ms. Pandey testified that ghee is a form of clarified butter that has been used for a great many years in India, and is still used in significant amounts there, precisely because of the widespread lack of refrigeration. Ghee does not spoil as fast as butter or milk or yoghurt. Ms. Pandey testified that ghee is not perishable and that it is therefore not dangerous when at room temperature. She further testified that refrigeration in fact makes it very difficult to use ghee, because it becomes hard and loses its flavor. It was not clear from the evidence presented that ghee is a potentially hazardous food or that failure to keep it at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less constituted a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. The testimony and admitted reports of Inspector Browning as to the failure of Respondent's employee to wash his hands were clear and the reports were recorded at the time of the observation. Ms. Pandey offered no evidence to the contrary. Her unsworn assertion during argument that her husband was not preparing food, but only put on protective gloves because he was aware of the inspection and was scared was not credible, even if it had been offered as testimony. The testimony and admitted reports of Inspector Browning as to the temperature of the foods was clear and was recorded at the time of the observation. Ms. Pandey offered no evidence to the contrary. Her unsworn assertion during argument that the refrigerator holding the food was not being used in the restaurant but was only for storage of personal items was not credible, even if it had been offered as testimony. Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent for the above violations on August 2, 2010. Respondent has had two previous disciplinary Final Orders entered within 24 months of the Administrative Complaint issued in this case. In the first Stipulation and Consent Order, signed by Anuradha Pandey on January 10, 2010, and entered on January 15, 2010, Respondent agreed to pay a fine of $1550.00, but did not admit nor deny the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint, which would have constituted critical violations. In the second Stipulation and Consent Order, signed by Anuradha Pandey on June 2, 2010, and entered on June 10, 2010, Respondent agreed to pay a fine of $2,000.00, but again did not admit or deny the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint, which would have constituted critical violations. The June 10, 2010 Stipulation and Consent Order was in settlement of an administrative complaint issued on May 10, 2010, alleging violations of the Food Code revealed in an April 19, 2010 inspection, one of the same inspections for which evidence was submitted in this case.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a Final Order imposing a total fine of $1500.00 against The Green Mango for the two critical violations occurring on July 27, 2010, to be paid within 30 calendar days of the filing of the Final Order with the Agency Clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2012.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 19, 2007, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Demills Family Restaurant (hereinafter referred to as "Demills Family Restaurant" or "establishment"), a public food establishment, is licensed and regulated by the Division. The establishment's license number is 2200535. Demills Family Restaurant is located at 6501 Park Boulevard, Pinellas Park, Florida 33781. Larry Burke is employed by the Department as a senior sanitation and safety specialist. Upon being employed with the Department, Mr. Burke was trained in laws and rules for both food service and public lodging establishments. Mr. Burke is certified as a food manager and attends continuing education on a monthly basis. As part of his job responsibilities, Mr. Burke conducts approximately 1000 inspections a year, many of which include inspections of public food establishments. On April 26, 2007, Mr. Burke conducted a routine unannounced inspection of the Demills Family Restaurant. During the inspection, Mr. Burke observed several violations at the establishment which were critical violations that were required to be corrected within 24 hours. Mr. Burke set forth his findings in a Food Service Inspection Report on the day of the inspection and provided a copy of the report to Debra Nunez, one of the owners of the establishment. A violation of the Food Code or other applicable law or rule, which is more likely than other violations to contribute to food contamination, illness, or environmental health hazards, is considered a critical violation. In the April 26, 2007, Food Service Inspection Report, Mr. Burke specified that certain critical violations had to be corrected within 24 hours. However, there were other critical violations observed on April 26, 2007, for which the owners of the establishment were given a warning and an additional 30 days to correct the violations. On April 27, 2007, Mr. Burke conducted a call-back inspection at the Demills Family Restaurant to determine if the critical violations he had observed the previous day had been corrected. During the "call back" inspection, Mr. Burke observed that all the critical violations found during the April 26, 2007, which were required to be corrected within 24 hours, had been corrected within that time period. Also, some of the non-critical violations observed on April 26, 2007, had been corrected when the "call-back" inspection was conducted. (The violations cited in the April 26, 2007, routine inspection and that were corrected during the call-back inspection the following day are not at issue in this proceeding.) During the April 27, 2007, call-back inspection, Mr. Burke prepared a Callback Inspection Report on which he noted violations first observed during the routine inspection conducted on April 26, 2007, but which had not been corrected on April 27, 2007. In accordance with applicable guidelines, Mr. Burke issued a warning to the establishment's owners and gave them 30 days or until May 27, 2007, to correct the uncorrected violations observed on April 27, 2007. This warning appeared on the April 27, 2007, Callback Inspection Report which was given to Mrs. Nunez. On May 31, 2007, Mr. Burke performed a second call-back inspection at Demills Family Restaurant. During this call-back inspection, Mr. Burke observed and cited the violations previously cited on the April 27, 2007, Call-Back Inspection Report that had not been corrected. These violations are discussed below. Violation No. 02-13, one of the uncorrected violations, involved the establishment's failure to provide a consumer advisory on raw/undercooked meat. This violation was based on information provided by personnel in the kitchen that hamburgers in the establishment are "cooked to order." In light of this policy, there are some customers who will likely order hamburgers that are undercooked. In those instances, pathogens may not be eliminated from the meat. Thus, establishments, such as Respondent, are required to inform customers of the significantly increased risk of eating such meat. After the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection and prior to this proceeding, the owners of the establishment posted signs throughout the dining room area which warned customers about the risks of consuming raw or undercooked foods (i.e., meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish or eggs). Violation No. 02-13 is a critical violation, but not one that is required to be corrected within 24 hours. Rather, this was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation after it was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Violation No. 32-15-1, one of the uncorrected violations, involved Respondent's failure to have hand-wash signs at the sinks designated for use by employees. The display of hand-washing signs at these sinks is important because it reminds employees to wash their hands, which helps prevent the transmission of food-borne disease by employees. This was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation and one which was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Mr. Nunez does not dispute that at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, there were no hand-wash signs. However, since that time, he has placed signs that notify employees to wash their hands. These signs are placed at all hand-wash sinks used by employees, including the one in the cooks' kitchen and in the waitresses' station, and are clearly visible to the employees. The establishment also has hand-wash signs at all sinks in the establishment, including those used by customers. Violation No. 37-14-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on part of the ceiling in the establishment being in disrepair. Specifically, the section of the ceiling that was in disrepair was above a food storage area which contained "open food product." This offense is not classified as a critical violation under the Food and Drug Administration or under Florida law. Mr. Nunez does not dispute that part of the ceiling in the establishment was in disrepair at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection and the previous April 2007 inspections. Although Mr. Nunez was aware of the problem, he had to rely on the landlord of the building in which the establishment was located to repair the roof. The problems with the roof contributed to the ceiling being in disrepair. Finally, after about four years of asking the landlord to repair the roof, after the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, the landlord had the roof repaired. The roof repairs are still not complete. However, based on the roof repairs that were completed by early to mid September 2007, Mr. Nunez was able to repair the section of the ceiling at issue in this proceeding. These ceiling repairs were completed by or near the middle of September 2007. Violation No. 37-14-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on Mr. Burke observing that the establishment's exit sign in the dining room was not properly illuminated. The requirement for exit signs to be illuminated is a safety issue. This was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation and one that was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Mr. and Mrs. Nunez do not dispute that at the time of the call-back inspection of May 31, 2007, the exit sign was not illuminated. The problem was caused by a problem with a wire in the sign. The person who does electrical work in the establishment had been out-of-town for several weeks and was unavailable to repair the exit sign. However, about three days after the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, after the repair person returned, he repaired the exit sign; since then, it is properly illuminated. Violation No. 47-16-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on Mr. Burke observing an uncovered electrical box. The box needed to be covered to protect the breaker and to protect the employees and anyone else who had access to the box. This uncorrected violation was a critical violation at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection. Mrs. Nunez does not dispute that there was an electrical box that was uncovered on May 31, 2007. However, Mrs. Nunez testified that during the initial walk-through in April 2007, Mr. Burke showed her the uncovered electrical box that was located above the walk-in freezer. At that time, the cover was off the electrical box and the wires were exposed. Mrs. Nunez thought that the electrical box above the walk-in freezer was the only electrical box that was cited as a violation after the April 27, 2007, call-back inspection. Based on that understanding, that violation was corrected. However, during the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, Mr. Burke showed Mrs. Nunez another electrical box in the establishment that was in violation of applicable provisions. Until that time Mrs. Nunez had not been told, and was not aware, that the second electrical box constituted a violation. This mistake on her part was likely caused by the fact that the structure of the second electrical box was completely different from that of the electrical box over the walk-in freezer. The electrical box over the walk-in freezer had wires which were exposed when the box was not covered. On the other hand, the second electrical box resembles a fuse box and did not have any exposed wires. Violation No. 28-02-1 involved the reuse of single- service articles. This violation is based on Mr. Burke observing Respondent's employees reusing plastic food containers, such as the ones sour cream and cottage cheese are in when delivered to the establishment. Such plastic containers should not be used once the food is exhausted. The reason is that the plastic in such containers is not "food service grade for sanitation purposes." Violation No. 28-02-1 is a non- critical violation. The owners of the establishment do not contest Violation No. 28-02-1, related to the reuse of single-service articles. Mrs. Nunez testified that she purchased containers that could be reused and instructed appropriate staff to use those containers. After being given those instructions, the employees told Mrs. Nunez that they were no longer reusing containers for single-service articles although they were doing so. However, as a result of the violation cited during the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, Mrs. Nunez is committed to checking to ensure that employees are not reusing the plastic containers for single-service articles. Violation No. 61-13-1 is based on Mr. Burke observing that no Heimlich sign was posted in the establishment. The purpose of the Heimlich sign is to provide information in the event a customer in the restaurant is choking. This is a non- critical violation because it makes customers aware in the event of a choking situation. In July 2007, Mr. Nunez left his job as a project engineer to become involved in the day-to-day operations of the Demills Family Restaurant after he realized there were problems at the restaurant that required his attention. Among the issues Mr. Nunez had to initially deal with were the violations cited in the May 31, 2007, Call-Back Inspection Report. Throughout the initial inspection and the call-back inspections, the owners have cooperated with Mr. Burke and corrected most of the violations for which the establishment was cited. Mr. Burke has not conducted an inspection of the Demills Family Restaurant since the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection. However, since that time, all the violations which are the subject of this proceeding have been corrected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent, Demills Family Restaurant, violated Food Code Rules 3-603.11, 4-502.13(a) and 6-301.14; Florida Administrative Code Rules 61C-1.004(2)(C), 61C-1.004(6) and 61C-1.004(10); and NFPA Rule 70.300.31. Imposing a total administrative fine of $2,800 for the foregoing violations. Requiring Respondent (through its employees and/or owners) to attend, at personal expense, an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 2007.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated June 27, 2011, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Restaurant was licensed as a public food service establishment in the State of Florida by the Department, having been issued license type 2010 and license number 1620035. At all times material hereto, the Restaurant was located at 1145 South Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316. A critical violation in food service is considered to be a violation of the Food Code that, if not corrected, will most likely cause and is directly related to food-borne illness, food contamination, or environmental hazards. A non-critical violation in food service is considered to be a violation that is less likely to cause and will not directly contribute to food-borne illness or food contamination. On October 27, 2010, Lynden Lewis, an inspector with the Department, conducted a routine inspection of the Restaurant. During the inspection, Inspector Lewis found violations, which were considered to be critical and non- critical violations. Further, during the inspection, Inspector Lewis prepared a food inspection report, setting forth the alleged violations and that the violations were required to be corrected by the next unannounced inspection. The inspection report was signed by Inspector Lewis and a representative of the Restaurant. Inspector Lewis made the representative aware of the alleged violations and that the violations were required to be corrected by the next unannounced inspection, and he provided the representative with a copy of the inspection report. On June 16, 2011, Inspector Lewis and Begum Khatoon, an inspector with the Department, conducted an unannounced routine inspection of the Restaurant. Among other things, three critical violations were not corrected from the routine inspection of October 27, 2010. During the unannounced inspection, Inspector Khatoon prepared a food inspection report, setting forth, among other things, the alleged critical violations. The unannounced inspection report was signed by Inspector Khatoon and a representative of the Restaurant, and Inspector Khatoon provided the representative with a copy of the inspection report. Inspector Khatoon made the representative aware of the alleged violations and that an administrative complaint would be recommended. The most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on October 27, 2010, and was not corrected by June 16, 2011, was raw animal food was stored over ready-to-eat food--raw eggs were being stored over yogurt--in the reach-in cooler. This violation is critical because the ready-to-eat food (yogurt) has already been cooked and gone through the process of pathogenic destruction and will not go through that process again; whereas, the raw animal food (eggs) has not been cooked and not gone through the process of pathogenic destruction. Cross-contamination could occur from the raw animal food by dripping onto or touching of the ready-to-eat food, and any pathogens present on the ready-to-eat food, as a result of the cross-contamination, would pass-on to consumers when the ready-to-eat food is served. Mr. Rocchio's testimony that eggs are stored on the bottom of the refrigerator (reach-in cooler) is found to be credible; however, most importantly, the evidence fails to show that, on the day of the inspection, eggs were stored on the bottom of the refrigerator. The next most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on October 27, 2010, and was not corrected by June 16, 2011, was the hand wash sink in the kitchen was not accessible for employee use at all times. A garbage can was placed in front of the hand wash sink in the kitchen, making the sink inaccessible to employees at all times to wash their hands. Even though Mr. Rochhio testified, and his testimony is found to be credible, that the garbage can was "not a large garbage can," the evidence fails to show, most importantly, that the garbage can did not cause the hand wash sink to be inaccessible to the employees at all times. This violation is a critical violation because the hands of employees become contaminated as employees work and, if the handwash sink is not accessible, the employees will be discouraged from washing their hands. The next most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on October 27, 2010, and was not corrected by June 16, 2011, was handwashing cleanser was lacking at the hand washing lavatory in the kitchen. This violation is a critical violation because hands are a vehicle of contamination, and the use of soap by employees, when washing their hands, removes bacteria and viruses that can contaminate the employees' hands.
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 Valentinos Cucina Italiana violated section 509, Florida Statutes, through a violation of Food Code Rules 3-302.11(A)(1), 5-205.11(A), and 6-301.11; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $750.00 against Valentinos Cucina Italiana. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 25th day of July, 2012.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated December 29, 2009, 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 section 509.032(1), Florida Statutes. Carvel is a food service establishment licensed and regulated by the Department and located at 3148 Coral Way, Miami, Florida 33145. On July 22, 2009, Jorge Gandolff, a senior inspector of public food service establishments employed by the Division, inspected the premises of Carvel. As an inspector for the Division, Mr. Gandolff was required to complete a Food Service Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-016 and -015 ("Form HR 5022-016 and -15"), for each public food service establishment that he inspected. During the inspection of Carvel, Mr. Gandolff noted that Carvel was not in compliance with a number of the items listed on the Form HR 5022-016 and -15 inspection report. Mr. Gandolff noted that, among other things, he "observed soiled reach-in freezer gaskets"; "observed buildup of soiled material on mixer head"; "observed buildup of slime in the interior of ice machine"; observed that "covered waste receptacle not provided in women's bathroom"; "observed food stored on floor"; "observed food container not properly labeled." It was Mr. Gandolff's practice, and the usual practice of Division inspectors, to complete the Form HR 5022-016 and -15 inspection report and record the violations he observed at a public food service establishment on a personal digital computer. At the end of the inspection, it was his practice to obtain the signature of the person in charge on the Form HR 5022-016 and -15 inspection report, print a copy of the report, and review the violations that had been noted with the person in charge. Mr. Gandolff followed his usual practice in completing the inspection of Carvel on July 22, 2009. He prepared a Form HR 5022-016 and -15 Food Service Inspection Report setting forth his findings and noted on the report that Carvel "MET INSPECTION STANDARDS during this visit" and that "ANY VIOLATIONS noted herein must be corrected by the NEXT UNANNOUNCED INSPECTION." (Emphasis in original.) Zoila Fernandez, an employee of Carvel, signed the inspection form, and Mr. Gandolff went over the inspection findings with her. Mr. Gandolff inspected the premises of Carvel for the second time on November 24, 2009. In addition to several other violations, Mr. Gandolff noted on the Form HR 5022-016 and -15 inspection report that he again "observed soiled reach-in freezer gaskets"; "observed buildup of soiled material on mixer head"; "observed buildup of slime in the interior of ice machine"; observed that "covered waste receptacle not provided in women's bathroom"; "observed food stored on walk-in cooler floor Cardboard boxes of chocolate chip"; "observed food container not properly labeled ice cream containers not labeled stored inside self service freezer in customer area." These six items were considered repeat violations; that is, these items were found to be out of compliance with the Food Code at the July 22, 2009, inspection. In addition, these six items were marked with an asterisk on the Form HR 5022-016 and - 15 inspection report, which designated them as "critical" violations. Mr. Gandolff recommended that these items be included as violations in an Administrative Complaint. Mr. Gandolff also noted on the Form HR 5022-016 and -15 inspection report that the "Inspector determined violations require further review, but are not an immediate threat to the public." Zoila Reyes, an employee of Carvel who was on the premises during the November 24, 2009, inspection signed the inspection report. She was not able to accompany Mr. Gandolff during the entire inspection because the store was busy, but Mr. Gandolff went over the inspection report with her. Ms. Shah was not present during either of the inspections. It is her practice to come into the store early and prepare the store to open. Her preparations include cleaning the premises and the equipment. Mr. Gandolff found three items during both the July 22, 2009, and November 24, 2009, inspections that he wrote up as a single violation of the Food Code and that he considered the most serious violation of the Food Code. The first item was the build-up of food on the mixer head that was not just the normal amount of build-up that occurs during a workday but was old, dry, and crusted. Mr. Gandolff considered this a serious condition because this piece of equipment came in direct contact with food and could contaminate it. The second item was the slime build-up inside the interior of the ice machine, which Mr. Gandolff considered a serious condition because the ice came into direct contact with the interior of the ice machine and could be contaminated by the slime. The third item was the soiled gaskets on the reach-in freezer that was a black residue probably resulting from the buildup of old product. Mr. Gandolff considered this a serious condition because the freezer gaskets are very close to the product in the freezer, and the product could be contaminated if it came into contact with the gaskets. The violation Mr. Gandolff considered the next most serious violation of the Food Code found during both the July 22, 2009, and November 24, 2009, inspections was a cardboard box containing chocolate chips stored directly on the floor of the walk-in cooler because the food product inside the box could be contaminated by water or any other residue on the floor of the cooler, especially if, as here, the food product is stored in a cardboard box that could absorb water from the cooler floor. In addition, Mr. Gandolff considered the absence of labels on containers of ice cream stored in a freezer accessible to customers to be a serious violation of the Food Code because a customer must be able to look at the label on the food product and know the ingredients in the product and the date the product was prepared so the customer can make a determination if the product is safe for them to eat. Mr. Gandolff also considered the uncovered trash receptacle in the women's bathroom a serious violation of the Food Code because such receptacles must be covered to avoid exposure of women's sanitary napkins. These violations are all critical violations because they pose a significant danger to the public health and because they are identified as critical violations on the inspection report forms Mr. Gandolff completed on July 22, 2009, and November 24, 2009, recording his observations of the Carvel premises. Ms. Shah has owned the Carvel store for approximately 14 years, and, during that time, the store has not been cited for any violations as a result of inspections by the Division. The Carvel store owned by Ms. Shah is very small and, because of the poor economic conditions of recent years, Ms. Shah makes very little money at the store and is barely able to keep the business open. Summary The evidence presented by the Division is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that there were five repeat violations of the Food Code on the premises of Carvel during the November 24, 2009, inspection. Ms. Shah failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the violations observed by Mr. Gandolff were not present. First, her explanation of the missing cover on the waste receptacle in the women's bathroom, that the receptacle had just been emptied and that the cover was sitting on the floor beside the receptacle, could have explained the missing cover during the first inspection, but the same explanation would have presented too much of a coincidence to be a persuasive explanation for the missing cover at the second inspection. Second, Ms. Shah's categorical denial that any equipment on the store's premises was soiled or otherwise not perfectly clean, her testimony that she cleans everything in the store every morning; that the equipment is cleaned continually during the day; and that all supplies are stored properly in the walk-in cooler and her testimony is not sufficient to refute the specific observations noted by Mr. Gandolff on the inspection reports. Finally, Ms. Shah's testimony that all pre-packed ice cream available for purchase in the store's self-service freezer is packed in containers with labels provided by Carvel, Inc. In the absence of information regarding the content of the labels provided by Carvel, Inc., Ms. Shah's testimony does not refute the Mr. Gandolff's contention that the containers of ice cream did not have labels disclosing the date the ice cream was packed into the containers and the ingredients in the ice cream.
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 Carvel Ice Cream Bakery guilty of having violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-4.010(1)(c) and Food Code Rules 3-305.11; 3-602.11(A); 4-602.11(C) and (D); and 5-501.17; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $525.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Patricia M. Hart 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 14th day of June, 2011.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent's dishmachine chlorine sanitizer was not at proper minimum strength, in violation of Food Code Rule 4-501.114(A); whether vacuum breakers were missing from hose bibs at the mop sink, in violation of Food Code Rule 5-203.14; and whether kitchen ceiling light fixtures hosted an accumulation of dead insects, in violation of Food Code Rule 6-501.112. If any of these violations are proved, an additional issue is the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent operated a restaurant located at 1261 South Powerline Road in Pompano Beach, Florida, as a public food service establishment under Permanent Food Service license SEA1620854, profession 2010. On March 17, 2015, Petitioner's inspector conducted an inspection of Respondent's restaurant. The inspection uncovered several violations. The violations included a dishmachine chlorine sanitizer that tested at zero parts per million, which is below proper minimum strength; a missing vacuum breaker at the hose bibb at the mop sink in the rear; and an accumulation of dead insects in the kitchen ceiling light fixtures. The first two violations are "high priority," and the third violation is "basic." The inspector gave Respondent until May 20, 2015, to correct these violations. On May 20, 2015, Petitioner's inspector conducted a followup inspection of Respondent's restaurant. The inspection uncovered several violations, including the three violations cited in the preceding paragraph. The inspector issued warnings for these three uncorrected violations, but gave Respondent an extension of time until July 21, 2015, to correct these violations. On July 21, 2015, Petitioner's inspector conducted a second followup inspection of Respondent's restaurant. The inspection uncovered three violations, which were the three violations cited in the preceding paragraphs. There were now two hose bibbs lacking vacuum breakers. The failure to maintain the proper strength of chlorine in the dishmachine sanitizer jeopardizes the process by which used items are cleaned and sanitized, so as to be free of pathogens, germs, and viruses. The failure to maintain a vacuum breaker, which creates an air gap in a water line, raises the possibility that dirty water will backflow into, and thus contaminate, a potable water line. The failure to remove the dead insects from the kitchen ceiling fixture poses a risk of attracting additional insects. In the 24 months preceding the issuance of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent had been the subject of one disciplinary order. By Stipulation and Consent Order filed October 21, 2014, Respondent agreed to pay an administrative fine of $840 to settle allegations of several Food Code violations, which Respondent neither admitted nor denied.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the three violations set forth above and imposing a fine of $1875. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 8th day of February, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Blanca Balcazar Latin Bohemia Grill 1261 South Powerline Road Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Marc A. Drexler, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Diann S. Worzalla, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) William N. Spicola, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent violated Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and specific provisions of the Food Code, 2001, Recommendations of the United States Public Health Service/Food and Drug Administration (Food Code), adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.001(14); and, if so, (b) what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the operation of public food service establishments pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2010). Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, licensed by or subject to Petitioner's jurisdiction. Respondent has been licensed at least since October 2007. Respondent's business address is 4860 Northwest 38th Avenue, Suite C, Gainesville, Florida. "Critical violations" are violations of the Food Code that pose a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and which are identified as food-borne illness risk factors that require public health intervention. "Non-critical violations" are any other type of violation prohibited by statute or rule. After inspections on December 19, 2007, August 4, 2008, and August 6, 2008, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint dated September 16, 2008, in Petitioner's Case No. 2008051321 against Respondent. The complaint alleged the following violations: (a) 03A-07-1, potentially hazardous food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit; (b) 30-02-1, mop sink's vacuum breaker missing at hose bibb; (c) 36-13-1, grease accumulated under cooking equipment; (d) 37-05-1, observed walls soiled with accumulated food debris; (e) 52-01-1, misrepresentation of food or food product by advertising crab on sushi menu but using imitation crab; and (e) 53B-08-1, no proof of required employee training. On October 6, 2008, Respondent signed a Stipulation and Consent Order, agreeing to pay a fine in the amount of $1,550. in Petitioner's Case No. 2008051321. Petitioner issued a Final Order in that case on October 22, 2008. The record does not indicate whether Respondent ever paid the administrative fine. Daniel Fulton is Petitioner's Senior Inspector. Mr. Fulton performed inspections of Respondent's business on January 22, 2009, April 3, 2009, August 12, 2009, and August 17, 2009. These inspections resulted in the issuance of the Administrative Complaint at issue in DOAH Case No. 10-2427. Julianne Browning is Petitioner's Senior Sanitation and Safety Specialist. Ms. Browning performed inspections of Respondent's business on February 15, 2010 and April 19, 2010. These inspections resulted in the issuance of the Administrative Complaint at issue in DOAH Case No. 10-3294. On January 22, 2009, Mr. Fulton performed an unscheduled inspection of Respondent's restaurant. During the inspection, Mr. Fulton observed the following critical violations: (a) 03A-07-1, potentially hazardous cold food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit, including but not limited to, noodles on cook line at 51 degrees Fahrenheit; (b) 31-09-1, hand sink in preparation area not accessible for employee use at all times; (c) 35A-03-1 and 35A-05-1, dead and live roaches on premises in several locations; (d) 06-04-1, thawing potentially hazardous foods improperly because water was not running; (e) 22-20-1, food contact surfaces not sanitized because interior of ice maker not kept clean; and (f) 30-02-1, plumbing not properly installed and/or maintained because vacuum breaker missing on hose bibb at front hand sink. During the January 22, 2009, inspection, Mr. Fulton observed the following non-critical violations: (a) 14-37-1, cutting board grooved/pitted and no longer cleanable; (b) 10-07- 1, in-use utensils, such as a spoon, stored in standing water at less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit; and (c) 24-05-1, clean utensils were not properly stored because spoons in the customer area were facing food side up and there were unprotected plates in the sushi area. After the January 22, 2009, inspection, and a callback inspection on April 3, 2009, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint dated May 19, 2009, in Petitioner's Case No. 2009026581 against Respondent. The complaint alleged the following critical violations: (a) 03A-07-1, potentially hazardous cold food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit; (b) 12A-12-1, employee working with raw food then with ready-to- eat food without washing hands or changing both gloves; (c) 12A- 13-1, employee handled soiled equipment or utensils then prepared food, handled clean equipment or utensils, or touched unwrapped single-service items without washing hands or changing gloves; (d) 21-12-1, wet wiping cloth not stored in sanitizing solution between uses; and (e) 32-15-1, no hand-washing sign at hand sink used by food employees. On August 1, 2009, Respondent signed a Stipulation and Consent Order, agreeing to pay a fine in the amount of $1,750. in Petitioner's Case No. 2009026581. Petitioner issued a Final Order in that case on July 1, 2009. The record does not indicate whether Respondent ever paid the administrative fine. On August 12, 2009, Petitioner's staff made a routine inspection of Respondent's restaurant. During the inspection, Petitioner's staff observed the following critical violations: (a) 03A-07-1, cold food not at proper temperature during storage, display, or service, including but not limited to tofu on the cook line at 75 degrees Fahrenheit; (b) 31-09-1, hand- washing sink not accessible for employee use at all times; (c) 35A-03-1, dead roaches on premises; (d) 06-04-1, potentially hazardous foods improperly thawed at room temperature, including beef, pork, fish, and hamburger; (e) 22-20-1, food contact surfaces not clean and sanitized due to buildup of slime in the interior of the icemaker; and (f) 30-02-1, vacuum breaker missing at hose bibb. During the August 12, 2009, inspection, Mr. Fulton observed the following non-critical violations: (a) 14-37-1, cutting board grooved/pitted and no longer cleanable; (b) 10-07- 1, in-use utensil stored in standing water less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit; and (c) 24-05-1, clean glasses, cups, utensils, pots and pans not stored inverted or in a protected manner. On August 17, 2009, Mr. Fulton performed a callback inspection of Respondent's restaurant. During the inspection, Mr. Fulton observed the following critical violations: (a) 31- 09-1, hand-washing sink not accessible for employee use at all times; (b) 35A-03-1 and 35A-05-1, live and dead roaches on the premises; (c) 06-04-1, potentially hazardous food thawed at room temperature; (d) 22-20-1, food contact surfaces not clean and sanitized due to buildup of slime in the interior of the icemaker; and (e) 30-02-1, vacuum breaker missing at hose bibb. During the August 17, 2009, inspection, Mr. Fulton observed the following non-critical violations: (a) 14-37-1, cutting board grooved/pitted and no longer cleanable; (b) 10-07- 1, in-use utensil stored in standing water less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit; and (c) 24-05-1, clean glasses, cups, utensils, pots and pans not stored inverted or in a protected manner. On February 15, 2010, Ms. Browning performed a routine inspection of Respondent's restaurant. During the inspection, Ms. Browning observed the following critical violations: (a) 03A-07-1, cold food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit during storage, display, or service, including seafood broth, rice, chicken curry in reach-in cooler, chicken in top of reach-in cooler, fish eggs on counter, cream cheese in sushi case, and fish tempura in sushi area; (b) 08A-26-1, food not properly protected during storage based on observation of raw animal food stored over ready-to-eat foods, such as raw eggs over soup and raw beef over cooked shrimp; (c) 12A-13-1, employee handled soiled equipment or utensils then engaged in food preparation, handled clean equipment or utensils, or touched unwrapped single-service items without washing hands or changing gloves; (d) 01B-24-1, ready-to-eat potentially hazardous food, such as eggroll mix with pork, not consumed/sold within seven days after opening/preparation; (e) 12B-03-1, employee drinking from an open beverage container in a food preparation or other restricted area while rolling silverware; (f) 08B-04-1, using paper as a food contact surface by storing bread crumbs on greasy brown paper; (g) 22-20-1, build-up of slime in the interior of the ice machine; (h) 30-02-1, vacuum breaker missing at hose bibb; (i) 05-09-1, no conspicuous thermometer in holding units such as sushi case and two reach-in freezers; (j) 09-05-1, improper use of bowl/plastic container or other container with no handle to dispense food such as rice that is not ready-to-eat; (k) 27-16-1, hot water not provided at mop sink because shut off; and (l) 52-01-1, misrepresentation of identity of food or food product because advertising crab delight in sushi bowl and salad platter but using imitation crab instead. During the February 15, 2010, inspection, Ms. Browning observed the following non-critical violations: (a) 21-11-1, wiping-cloth sanitizing solution not at proper strength and not provided at sushi bar; (b) 14-32-1, using wood that is not hard and close-grained, such as bamboo sushi mats, as a food contact surface; (c) 18-04-1, old labels stuck to food containers after cleaning; (d) 26-02-1, improper re-use of single-service articles such as reusing plastic wrap to cover sushi mats; and (e) 23-05-1, residue build-up on towel dispenser at cook-line hand sink. On April 10, 2010, Ms. Browning performed a callback inspection at Respondent's restaurant. During the inspection, Petitioner's staff observed the following critical violations: (a) 03A-07-1, potentially hazardous food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit, including seafood broth, rice, chicken curry in reach-in cooler, chicken in top of reach-in cooler, fish eggs on counter, fish tempura in sushi area, and conch, salmon, tuna, and cream cheese all in sushi case; (b) 08A-26-1, raw animal food stored over ready-to-eat food, such as eggs over soup; (c) 12A-13-1, employee handling soiled equipment or utensils then preparing food, handling clean equipment or utensils, or touching unwrapped single-service items, without washing hands or changing gloves; (d) 01-B-24-1, potentially hazardous food not consumed/sold within seven days after opening/preparation; (e) 12B-03-1, employee drinking from an open beverage container in a food preparation or other restricted area while rolling silverware; (f) 08B-04-1, paper used as a food-contact surface, such as bread crumbs stored on greasy brown paper; (g) 22-20-1, buildup of slime in the interior of the ice machine; (h) 30-02-1 vacuum breaker missing at hose bibb in mop sink; (i) 05-09-1, no conspicuous thermometer in holding units, such as two reach-in freezers; (j) 09-05-1, improper use of bowl/plastic food container or other container with no handle used to dispense food that is not ready-to-eat, such as rice; (k) 27-16-1, no hot water at mop sink because shut off; and (l) 52-01-1, misrepresentation of food identity, such as advertising crab delight in sushi bowl and salad platter but using imitation crab. During the inspection on April 10, 2010, Ms. Browning observed the following non-critical violations: (a) 21-11-1, wiping-cloth chlorine sanitizing solution not at proper minimum strength and none at the sushi bar; (b) 14-32-1, improperly using wood that is not hard or close-grained as a food-contact surface, such as bamboo sushi mats; (c) 18-04-1, old labels stuck to food containers after cleaning; (d) 26-02-1, re-use of single-service articles, such as using plastic wrap over and over on sushi mats; and (e) 23-05-1, residue build-up on nonfood-contact surfaces, as found on towel dispenser at hand sink on cook line. During the above-referenced inspections, Petitioner's staff repeatedly observed the same critical and non-critical violations of the Food Code at Respondent's restaurant. Even if Respondent was able to correct some of the violations while Petitioner's staff was on the premises, Respondent made no effort to ensure that the violations did not re-occur before the next inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for six consecutive days as a penalty in DOAH Case No. 10-2427 and for ten consecutive days as a penalty in DOAH Case No. 10-3294. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Hung Nguyen Taste of Saigon II 4860 Northwest 39th Avenue, Suite C Gainesville, Florida 32606 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of the violation described in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of restaurants pursuant to chapter 509. By rule, it has incorporated by reference the regulations in the federal Food Code. These regulations apply to all public food service establishments. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.001(14). Respondent operates a public restaurant (using its corporate name) located at 12318 University Mall Court, Tampa, Florida, and is subject to Petitioner's regulatory jurisdiction. It holds license number NOS3917320 (Permanent Food Service). Rule 61C-1.005(5)(a)-(c) classifies violations of the Food Code as either "high priority," "intermediate," or "basic," essentially reflecting the level of threat to public health posed by the deficiency. A high priority violation is one that poses a direct or significant threat to public health. Id. This type of violation is at issue in this case. Around 12:24 p.m. on June 11, 2014, Ashley Herrmann, a trained and experienced sanitation and safety specialist employed by Petitioner, performed a routine inspection of Respondent's restaurant, during which Ms. Herrmann observed various violations of the Food Code, including a "high priority" violation. According to the Food Code, except during preparation, cooking, or cooling, potentially hazardous food must be maintained at a temperature of 41° Fahrenheit or less.2 See rule 3-501.16(A)(2)(a), Food Code. A violation of this regulation is classified a high priority violation because food maintained above that temperature is a major contributor to foodborne illnesses. Ms. Herrmann observed several potentially hazardous food items in the walk-in cooler, including (a) raw meat/ poultry, (b) cooked fruits/vegetables, and (c) cheese/milk/ creamer/other dairy products, that were maintained at a temperature greater than 41° Fahrenheit. See Ex. 2. At the conclusion of her inspection, Ms. Herrmann prepared a written report documenting the Food Code violations observed by her. A copy of the inspection report was given to Javari Moore, an employee who was present at that time, and the violations were explained to him. Also, he was told that the violations must be corrected by 10:30 a.m. the following day, June 12, 2014, and that a call-back inspection would be performed at that time to verify that the violations had been corrected. Around 10:30 a.m. on June 12, 2014, Ms. Herrmann performed a call-back inspection of Respondent's premises. While some violations had been corrected, she observed that the high priority Food Code violations observed during the routine inspection on June 11, 2014, had not been corrected. See Ex. 3. Before leaving, Ms. Herrmann provided a copy of the inspection report to Mr. Moore and discussed the violations with him. The findings contained in the inspection reports were used in the preparation of an Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent. Other than stating that no food had been taken out of the walk-in cooler that morning, Mr. Moore gave no further explanation for the high priority violation.3 There is no evidence that Respondent has been found guilty of a prior offense of this nature.
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 finding that Respondent is guilty of one high priority violation, and imposing a fine of $250.00. Such fine shall be due and payable to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 calendar days of the date the final order is filed with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 21st day of October, 2014.
