The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Restaurant was a licensed public food service establishment located at 9472 South Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando, Florida. The Restaurant was first licensed in January 2006, and its food service license number is 5811536. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of hotels (public lodging establishments) and restaurants (public food service establishments) pursuant to chapter 509. Sandra Hopper is a sanitation and safety specialist for Petitioner. Ms. Hopper has worked for Petitioner for one and one-half years. Prior to working for Petitioner, Ms. Hopper worked in the hospitality industry for over 20 years in various positions. Additionally, she was an instructor at a hospitality school. Ms. Hopper received Petitioner's standardized training on the laws and rules governing public food service establishments.4/ Ms. Hopper is a certified food manager and obtains monthly in-house training from Petitioner on her job duties. Through the testimony of Ms. Hopper and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, Petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence that as of April 14, 2011, the following critical deficiencies existed at the Restaurant: (1) food was stored on the floor (raw chicken, flour, onions, and beverages) contrary to Rule 3-305.11, FC; food was left uncovered in the holding unit (gelatin or jello was left uncovered) contrary to Rule 3-302.11(A)(4), FC; every handwashing sink was blocked from usage (the employees could not wash their hands at the handwashing sinks) contrary to Rule 5-205.11(A), FC; (4) there were no handwashing signs posted at each sink contrary to Rule 6-301.14, FC; and (5) food that was removed from its original containers was not properly identified by their common names in other containers contrary to Rule 3- 302.12, FC. Critical violations are those violations that, if uncorrected, are most likely to contribute to contamination, illness or environmental health hazards, and present an immediate threat to public safety. Also, through the testimony of Ms. Hopper and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, Petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence that, as of April 14, 2011, the following non-critical deficiencies existed at the Restaurant: (1) equipment was in poor repair contrary to Rules 4-501.11, 4-501.12, and 4-101.11, FC; (2) old food was stuck to clean dishware and utensils contrary to Rule 4-603.12, FC; (3) non-food contact surfaces were soiled contrary to Rule 4- 601.11(C), FC; (4) clean equipment was improperly stored contrary to Rules 4-903.11(B) and 4-903.12(A), FC; (5) building and fixtures were in poor repair contrary to rule 61C-1.004(6); and (6) carbon dioxide/helium tanks were not adequately secured contrary to rule 61C-1.004(7). None of the other putative violations mentioned in the inspection or re-inspection reports (Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 3) were addressed at final hearing. Therefore, those are irrelevant to this proceeding. On September 21, 2010, a Final Order (based on a Stipulation and Consent Order) was issued to the Restaurant regarding a May 28, 2008, Administrative Complaint. This Administrative Complaint was based on Restaurant inspections that were conducted on September 5, 2007; February 19, 2008; February 21, 2008; and April 25, 2008. Some of the issues therein are repeat violations. On September 21, 2010, a Final Order on Waiver was issued to the Restaurant regarding a June 10, 2010, Administrative Complaint. This Administrative Complaint was based on Restaurant inspections that were conducted on December 3, 2009; March 16, 2010; and June 4, 2008. The issues therein are not the same violations found in the current issues.
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 the Restaurant guilty of violating five critical and six non-critical Food Code or rule standards and imposing a suspension of the Restaurant's license for four consecutive days. The suspension shall begin on the fortieth day after the final order is filed with Petitioner's agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 August, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether on October 23, 2013, and May 6, 2014, Respondent was out of 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, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, 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. At all times material to this case, Respondent was licensed as a public food service establishment, operating a restaurant located at 1658 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, and holding license number 6020868. Ms. Tara Palmer has been employed by the Division for almost five years. She is presently a Senior Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Division. Prior to her employment with the Division she was employed in the food industry for approximately 20 years. She has had training in sanitation and inspection, standardized training regarding the Food Code, on- the-job training, and continual monthly education. She performs approximately 1000 inspections yearly. On October 23, 2013, Ms. Palmer conducted a food service inspection on Respondent. Ms. Palmer prepared a Food Service Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-015. The violations observed during the inspection were recorded on the report. Respondent's manager, or individual in charge, followed Ms. Palmer throughout the inspection, and signed the report to acknowledge receipt on behalf of Respondent. Through the testimony of Ms. Palmer and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, the Division established that, on October 23, 2013, Respondent's Roma and Alfredo sauces had been prepared the previous day, placed in tightly covered 22 quart gallon containers, and cooled overnight in a walk-in cooler. Due to this methodology, at the time of inspection, the sauces were 52°F. Respondent was cited with a deficiency for improper cooling methods, in violation of Food Code Rule 3-501.15. The improper cooling method deficiency was deemed a violation that required further review; however, same was not an immediate threat to the public. Respondent was notified that the observed violation must be corrected by December 24, 2013. On January 8, 2014, Ms. Palmer performed a "call-back" inspection. On that date, the improper cooling deficiency observed on October 23, 2014, had been corrected. On May 6, 2014, Ms. Palmer conducted a food service inspection of Respondent. Ms. Palmer prepared a Food Service Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-015. The violations observed during the inspection were recorded on the report. Respondent's manager, or individual in charge, followed Ms. Palmer throughout the inspection, and signed the report to acknowledge receipt on behalf of Respondent. Through the testimony of Ms. Palmer and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, the Division established that, on May 6, 2014, Respondent's spicy and Pomodoro sauces had been prepared the previous day, placed in a tightly covered 22-quart gallon container, and cooled overnight in a walk-in cooler. Due to this methodology, at the time of inspection, the spicy sauce was 48°F at the start of the inspection and 47.5°F at the end of the inspection. The Pomodoro sauce was found to be 48°F at the start of the inspection and 47.3°F at the end of inspection. Again, Respondent was cited with a deficiency for improper cooling methods, in violation of Food Code Rule 3- 501.15. No evidence was introduced to indicate that Respondent had any previous violations. No evidence was introduced to refute the above-noted deficiencies.
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 Italio East Boca, LLC, d/b/a Italio, in violation of two intermediate violations, and imposing a fine of $400, to be paid within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 30th day of October, 2014.
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 the Respondent, Michelle's Café, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating public food service establishments operating within the State of Florida. See §§ 509.032 and 509.261, Florida Statutes (2007). At all times material to the allegations of this case the Respondent, Michele’s Café, was a licensed public food establishment governed by the provisions of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2006). The Respondent’s address of record is 299 East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On July 31, 2006, in his capacity as a trained inspector for the Petitioner, Mr. Torres visited the Respondent’s place of business in order to conduct an inspection. Mr. Torres performs between 800 to 1000 inspections per year of licensed food establishments to assure that such businesses are in compliance with all food service rules and regulations. At the time of the inspection, Jessica Sanchez, the manager on duty, represented the Respondent. The inspection report for July 31, 2006, identified several critical violations that needed to be corrected. Mr. Torres notified Mr. Villeda, as the owner and/or operator of the licensed entity, of the inspection results. Mr. Villeda later identified himself as the manager of the café. Critical violations are items that must be corrected because, if not corrected, they pose a threat for imminent food- borne illness, contamination, or environmental hazard. Non- critical violations are less serious but can also lead to a potential health hazard. As to each type of violation, the Petitioner expects the licensee to take appropriate action to correct the cited deficiency. Mr. Torres notified Mr. Villeda of the findings of his inspection of July 31, 2006, because he anticipated that the violations would be corrected in advance of a “call back” inspection. The “call back” inspection was performed on September 18, 2006. This inspection was also performed by Mr. Torres and disclosed the following uncorrected deficiencies (these had been identified to the Respondent in the July 31, 2006 inspection report): There was no thermometer to measure the temperature of food products. This is a critical violation. Food products must be stored and maintained at an acceptable temperature to prevent bacteria from growing. Without a thermometer there is no verifiable system to confirm that acceptable temperatures are being maintained. Additionally, to retain prepared food on-site for sale or use, the prepared food item must be labeled to detail the date of its initial preparation. Ready to eat food can be retained for a maximum of seven days. After that period, there is a presumption that the item may not be safely consumed. Consequently, all prepared food must be clearly labeled to assure it is disposed of at the appropriate time. Because the sale of out-of-date food presents a health hazard, the labeling requirement is considered critical. The failure to follow the guideline is, therefore, considered a critical violation. Sanitizing chemicals used in the cleansing of dishes or food service preparation equipment must be tested to assure a proper level is utilized. The sanitizing chemicals may be toxic, therefore too much can lead to the contamination of the food service item and too little may fail to sanitize and kill bacteria. Accordingly, when used in conjunction with a three-compartment sink or dish machine, a chemical testing kit allows the user to easily verify that the amount of sanitizing chemical is correct. The failure to have and use a test kit is considered a critical violation as the improper use of chemicals may pose a public health hazard. The Respondent did not have the chemical kit to measure the product being used at its location. Food dispensing equipment, such as soda machines, must be kept clean. A build-up of slime on the soda dispenser nozzle poses a threat as mold can form and be dispensed with the soda to the user’s beverage. As illness can result, this deficiency is also considered a critical violation. In this regard the Respondent's soda machine had a build-up of slime on its dispensing nozzle. Food containers must also be kept clean. The interior of Respondent’s reach-in cooler had accumulated a residue of food or soil. As this could contaminate food placed in the cooler, this deficiency is also considered critical. Similarly, food contact surfaces must also be kept smooth and easily cleanable. In this regard, the Respondent’s use of ripped or worn tin foil to cover a shelf was not appropriate. As to each of the deficiencies noted above, the Respondent failed or otherwise refused to timely correct the item. Mr. Villeda represented that the violations were corrected by the last week of September 2006. Implicit in that representation is the admission that such violations were not corrected by September 18, 2006, the date of the “call back” inspection. The Respondent does not have a mop sink. The Respondent’s representation that the owners of the building have a mop sink elsewhere (that is used for the licensed area) has been deemed plausible. If a building janitor uses a mop sink located elsewhere to clean up spills (as was represented), the absence of a mop sink within the licensed area does not demonstrate that no mop sink existed. In this regard the Respondent has been given the benefit of the doubt. The Respondent did not explain why the deficiencies were not corrected before the “call back” inspection. It is accepted that the corrections were later made and the Respondent has been given consideration of this effort in the penalty recommended in this case.
Recommendation Based upon 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, impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00 against the Respondent, Michelle’s Café. S DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesus Villeda Michelle's Cafe 13161 Northwest 11th Court Sunrise, Florida 33323 Joshua B. Moye, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 William Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monore Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monore Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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 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.
