The Issue The ultimate issue for determination is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice to Show Cause, issued on February 6, 1990, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was doing business at 26712 Southwest 144th Avenue, Naranja, Dade County, Florida, 33032-7404 as Village Diner. The Village Diner was operated under restaurant license number 23- 16870R. Mr. Steven Hoffman, Environmental Health Specialist Supervisor, Dade County Public Health Department ("DCPHD"), is an expert in food hygiene, safety, and fire safety. Mr. Hoffman's qualifications include certification by the Federal Drug Administration as a food inspector and certification by the State of Florida in fire safety and as a food hygiene coordinator. Mr. Hoffman has been employed by the DCPHD in various capacities for approximately 13 years. Mr. Hoffman's employment duties on January 12, 1990, included performing inspections of food service establishments in response to complaints received by the DCPHD. In response to a complaint, Mr. Hoffman conducted an inspection of the Village Diner on January 12, 1990. Mr. Hoffman found conditions comprising 18 alleged rule violations, of which eight are classified by Petitioner as major violations. Potato salad, cole slaw, and corned beef was improperly refrigerated at 60 degrees. 2/ Such food must be refrigerated at 45 degrees in order to avoid growth of dangerous bacteria that can lead to food poisoning. Food was stored on the floor of the walk-in refrigeration box and was not covered. Uncovered food left on the floor is susceptible to contamination by other substances dripping into the uncovered food and by other bacteria. Food utensils were stored in dirty water. Food prepared or served with utensils stored in dirty water may be cross-contaminated with bacteria from food or filth in the dirty water. Bulk containers used to store flour were dirty and needed to be replaced. Food contact surfaces were not clean, including stove grills, fryers, and the interior of refrigerators. The reach-in box contained dried, hardened splashes of meat. Wilted lettuce and other food debris had accumulated on the bottom of the reach-in box over a substantial period. Non-food contact surfaces were not clean, including walls and storage shelves. Walls were covered with accumulated grease and smoke. These conditions increased the probability of cross-contamination from bacteria and attracted vermin. The premises were infested with roaches and mice. Live roaches and droppings from mice were observed in and around the premises. Mouse urine was observed with a black light. Paper in open cans had been nibbled by mice. Roaches cause cross-contamination of food by picking up bacteria on their legs and carrying it to other foods. Mice contaminate food by urinating on it and by transporting fleas and ticks from one food to another. The floor under the cooking equipment was dirty. Walls were encrusted with old grease and dirt. Such conditions attract vermin. Toxic items were not stored properly. Boric acid powder was spread on top of pipes directly above a food service steam table. Respondent used the boric acid powder to control mice and other vermin. Boric acid is poisonous when ingested and is moderately toxic by skin and subcutaneous contact. Pressurized CO-2 tanks were placed beside a stove in the kitchen. An extension cord was improperly used in the kitchen. Lights in the kitchen were not shielded to prevent glass from falling into food in the event that a light bulb either was inadvertently broken or burst during operation. A pit in the rear of the premises contained white, congealed grease and emitted a foul odor. A trench had been designed to direct grease away from the premises and into the pit. The grease pit attracted vermin and contaminated ground water approximately eight feet below the surface. A faucet outside the premises was not equipped with a "backflow preventer". The absence of a "backflow preventer" permits contamination of the city water system from the premises in the event of negative pressure in the city water system. Not all of the garbage cans in the rear of the premises had plastic liners. Trash and debris was collected outside the back door of the premises. Trash and unused equipment was stored in the rear of the premises and in the storage room. The collection of litter and equipment attracts vermin by providing food sources and hiding places. Mr. Hoffman issued a Food Inspection Report at the conclusion of his inspection on January 12, 1990. Respondent was given until January 17, 1990, to correct the major violations noted in Mr. Hoffman's Food Inspection Report, and was advised that a Notice to Show Cause would be issued. The premises were re-inspected by Mr. Hoffman on January 18, 1990, and a Call Back/Re-Inspection Report was issued. Respondent corrected all of the alleged rule violations found on January 12, 1990, except two. Respondent was instructed to provide proper light shields over food surfaces and to clean sides of grills, fryers, and the tops of refrigeration units. A Notice to Show Cause was issued on February 6, 1990, citing the 18 rule violations found to have existed during the inspection conducted by Mr. Hoffman on January 12, 1990.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a fine be imposed against Respondent in an amount not to exceed $1,150. In the event that Respondent is unable to pay the fine imposed, it is further recommended that Respondent's license be suspended for a period not to exceed 20 days. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of March, 1991. Daniel Manry Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1991.
The Issue The issues in DOAH Case No. 10-1704 are whether Respondent, Stacked Subs (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated November 5, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. Similarly, the issues in DOAH Case No. 10-2445 are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 24, 2009, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating hotels and restaurants within the State of Florida regarding health and safety codes. See § 509.032, Fla. Stat. (2009). At all times material to the allegations of these cases, Respondent operated as a public food service establishment subject to Petitioner’s jurisdiction. In his capacity as an inspector for Petitioner, Alfonso Rullan visited Respondent’s place of business (2054 State Road 436, Winter Park, Florida) on December 19, 2007. During the inspection, Mr. Rullan noted several food service violations that he memorialized in an inspection report provided to, and signed by, Mr. Nevarez. The violations, more fully described in Petitioner's Exhibit 2, required correction. It was contemplated that Respondent would correct the violations of the Food Code such that on second inspection the violations would no longer be found. Since the inspection revealed “critical” violations, it was incumbent on Respondent to timely correct the violations noted in the inspection report. “Critical” violations are violations that, if left uncorrected, can contribute to food contamination, food-borne illness, or adversely affect public health. Thus, “critical violations” must be timely corrected, as they are a present concern. Violations that could lead to critical violations are denoted as “non-critical.” These “non- critical” violations must also be corrected, but they do not constitute a present threat to the public On March 12, 2008, Inspector Will Goris returned to Respondent’s place of business and completed a second inspection report, denoting critical violations uncorrected from the prior inspection and itemizing the concerns that required correction. Mr. Nevarez signed the report. This report, Petitioner’s Exhibit 3, chronicled ten violations of the Food Code. Subsequently, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint (DOAH Case No. 10-1704), outlining the uncorrected and critical violations Respondent had failed to timely address. Respondent timely contested the complaint and sought an administrative hearing in connection with the allegations. Between December 2007 and March 12, 2008, Respondent failed to correct the following violations: Cheese in the reach-in cooler at the front counter was 51 degrees; Employees reported to work and handled food without first washing hands; The prep table was adjacent to the fryers and under the hood was encrusted and greasy; and Single service cups were stored on the floor by the register. Of the foregoing violations, the failure of employees to wash their hands prior to handling food was the most critical violation. This violation was noted by both inspectors. On January 26, 2009, Inspector Goris conducted a routine inspection of Respondent’s premises. On this date, minor violations of the Food Code were again noted, but Mr. Nevarez was given a “met inspection standards” review for this visit. Nevertheless, Petitioner expected Respondent to correct the non-critical violations in a timely manner. On June 17, 2009, when Inspector Goris presented at the restaurant, violations were discovered that led to the second Administrative Complaint, DOAH Case No. 10-2445. Two of the violations were deemed repeat violations, and two were critical violations directly related to public safety; to wit: the soda disperser had slime on it, and proof of employee food- handler training was not available. Respondent timely challenged the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 10-2445. As to all alleged violations, Respondent was provided adequate notice of the allegations and was provided sufficient time to correct deficiencies. Respondent maintains that inspectors should be trained in abuse of power as their inspections can be discretionary and arbitrary. For example, Respondent claimed that the sleeve of cups on the floor by the cash register had merely fallen there when the inspector cited the violation. Respondent’s claim of abuse of power was unsupported by factual evidence. Moreover, the inspections performed by both inspectors documented objective criteria unrelated to opinion or subjective review. For example, dirty, greasy, or encrusted food surfaces were documented. The failure of employees to wash their hands was documented. The inadequate or incorrect temperature of containers of food was documented. These are not subjective items, but were disclosed to Respondent during and at the time of inspection. It is determined that the inspectors’ testimony was credible and persuasive as to the violations cited. The "Food Code," as it is used in this record, refers to paragraph 1-201.10(B), Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 of the Food Code, 2001 Recommendations of the United States Public Health Service/Food and Drug Administration including Annex 3: Public Health Reasons/Administrative Guidelines; Annex 5: HACCP Guidelines of the Food Code; the 2001 Food Code Errata Sheet (August 23, 2002); and Supplement to the 2001 FDA Food Code (August 29, 2003). The Food Code has been adopted by the Department by rule. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.001. The Food Code is also available through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Internet website.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,750.00 for the violations listed in DOAH Case No. 10-1704 and $1,000.00 for the violations identified in DOAH Case No. 10-2445. The Respondent should also be required to attend training for a better understanding of the requirements of the Food Code to assure that proper guidelines are adopted and implemented at the restaurant. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida Carlos Nevarez Stacked Subs 32399 2054 State Road 436 Winter Park, Florida 32792 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue 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 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 Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 25, 2008, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a public food service establishment in the State of Florida by the Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. Respondent's business address is "Szechuan Panda," 3830 Southwest 13th Street, Gainesville, Florida 32608. Critical violations are violations that, if not corrected, can have a direct impact on cross-contamination and food-borne illness. This, in turn, causes an immediate threat to public health. Non-critical violations are violations that, if not corrected, can have an impact on the creation of critical violations. On December 19, 2007, Inspector Daniel Fulton performed a Complaint Food Service Inspection at Szechuan Panda. During that inspection, Inspector Fulton prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth violations he encountered during the inspection. From the time it was prepared until the date of the hearing, the inspection report has not been altered. On December 19, 2007, Mr. Fulton observed live roaches in Szechuan Panda in both the food preparation and food service areas. Inspector Fulton cited this as a critical violation because live roaches carry many diseases. Those diseases can be spread when the roaches crawl over clean or unclean food preparation equipment in their search for food and accordingly contaminate food preparation surfaces. On December 19, 2007, food was being stored at Szechuan Panda directly on the floor. When the terminology "directly on the floor" is used, it includes any food that could be contaminated by ordinary mopping. That is, food stored in a container which is not impervious to water, such as a cardboard container, or a plastic container which does not have a top and the sides of which are so low that mopping might contaminate its contents. On December 19, 2007, improper utensils were being used to scoop out food from food containers. According to Mr. Fulton, this is a critical violation because without the usage of a proper utensil with a handle, cross-contamination can occur when the food product touches an employee’s hand. On December 19, 2007, the carbon dioxide/helium tanks in Szechuan Panda were not adequately secured. According to Mr. Fulton, this is a violation because if the tanks become unsecured all of the pressure inside can cause the tanks to shoot off uncontrollably in an elliptical or variable pattern so as to damage anyone or anything with which they come in contact. On December 19, 2007, grease was built-up on non-food contact surfaces. Mr. Fulton cited this as a violation because such debris is enticing for consumption by any present rodents and/or roaches. Rodents and roaches carry diseases that can lead to cross contamination. On March 5, 2008, Mr. Fulton prepared a Complaint Inspection Report at Szechuan Panda in which some of the previously noted violations had not been corrected. From the time it was prepared until the date of hearing the report was not altered. On March 5, 2008, Mr. Fulton again observed live roaches in Szechuan Panda, in both the food preparation and food service areas. He cited this as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 5, 2008, dead roaches were observed throughout the business. Mr. Fulton cited this as a critical violation because live roaches will eat the carcasses of dead roaches, causing further cross-contamination, and because the presence of dead roaches also shows a general lack of cleanliness and due care. On March 5, 2008, cold foods were held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. According to Mr. Fulton, this is a critical violation because bacteria grows quicker, the closer food is held to 98 degrees Fahrenheit. Also on March 5, 2008, hot foods were held at a temperature less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit. Mr. Fulton classified this as a critical violation because any bacteria present on the food will grow, once the temperature drops below 135 degrees Fahrenheit. On March 5, 2008, foods in both the dining area and food storage areas at Szechuan Panda were not properly covered. This was classified as a critical violation because cross- contamination can occur by way of any bacteria present being easily transferable to the exposed food. On March 5, 2008, food also was being stored directly on the floor as previously described. On March 5, 2008, improper utensils were again being used to scoop out food from food containers. Mr. Fulton considered this a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 5, 2008, food contact services were encrusted with grease, and soil deposits were present in food containers. Mr. Fulton listed this as a critical violation because an unidentified slime growing within a food container poses a health risk that can possibly cross-contaminate other foods. On March 5, 2008, in-use utensils for non-potentially hazardous foods were not being stored in a clean, protective place. Mr. Fulton considered this a violation because any harmful debris present on the unit being used for storage can become stuck on the utensil. On March 5, 2008, the carbon dioxide helium tanks still were not adequately secured. This was listed as a violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 5, 2008, grease was built up on non-food contact surfaces. This was listed as a violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 5, 2008, a black substance was present on the wall around the dish-washing area. This was listed as a violation because the substance observed appeared mold-like, thus showing a lack of cleanliness. On March 6, 2008, Inspector Fulton prepared a call- back inspection report at Szechuan Panda noting that some of the violations remained uncorrected. From the time it was prepared until the date of the hearing, the call-back report has not been altered. On March 6, 2008, cold foods were held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. This was noted as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 6, 2008, hot foods were held at a temperature less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit. This was noted as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 6, 2008, foods in both the dining area and food storage area of Szechuan Panda were not properly covered, and this was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 6, 2008, a black substance was present on the wall around the dish-washing area. This was listed as a violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, Mr. Fulton prepared a complaint inspection report at Szechuan Panda in which some of the violations still were not corrected. From the time it was prepared until the date of the hearing, the report has not been altered. On March 24, 2008, dead roaches were observed throughout the business. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. Although some dead roaches may be evidence of attempts to exterminate all of a roach infestation as testified-to by Respondent, the presence of dead roaches also shows a general lack of cleanliness and due care. On March 24, 2008, cold foods were held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, hot foods were held at a temperature less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, foods in both the dining area and food storage area of Szechuan Panda were not properly covered. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, food was still being stored directly on the floor. On March 24, 2008, improper utensils were being used to scoop out food from food containers, This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, food contact surfaces were encrusted with grease, and soil deposits were present in food containers. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, in-use utensils for non-potentially hazardous foods were not being stored in a clean, protective place. This was listed as a violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 30, 2008, Mr. Fulton prepared a call-back inspection report at Szechuan Panda in which some of the previous violations were not corrected. From the time it was prepared until the date of the hearing the call-back report has not been altered. On March 30, 2008, cold foods were held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 30, 2008, hot foods were held at a temperature less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 30, 2008, foods in both the dining area and food storage areas were not properly covered. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 30, 2008, food contact surfaces were encrusted with grease, and soil deposits were present in food containers. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. As to most violations described by Mr. Fulton, Respondent Kang only protested that Chinese cooking was not conducive to meeting the regulations. He also apparently was not present when each of the foregoing inspections was made, so his testimony as to why certain foods were above or below the permissible temperatures; were stored on the floor; or otherwise met standards is not persuasive. Mr. Kang's testimony with regard to his quest for reputable and effective exterminators and his contracts with successive exterminators is credible. The area being largely clear of roaches after he hired a new exterminator is also noted. However, even giving Respondent all due credit for correcting certain inspection violations by call-back or subsequent inspection dates, his testimony as a whole does not evoke confidence in the cleanliness of the licensed establishment. Particularly, Mr. Kang’s defenses that "live roaches came with purchased goods or were quickly killed" by the pest control company, and that dead roaches are swept out at the end of each day but there are more roaches when the restaurant opens the following morning, do not help his situation much. Most troubling is that Mr. Kang described a procedure whereby, although the restaurant is cleaned at the conclusion of each serving day, dead roaches are not swept out the following morning but are allowed to remain where they lie until the restaurant is cleaned entirely at the end of the second work day. Likewise, Mr. Kang's testimony also indicates his lack of understanding of the Department's requirements for maintaining "safe" food temperatures. Mr. Fulton explained that most buffets use time and temperature for public health control, but he further testified that, per the regulations he goes by, a restaurateur may keep foods "out of temperature" only up to four hours, and to legitimately do so, pursuant to the Food Code, the restaurateur must write a statement explaining the precautions he has taken, and further state therein that if his food “out of temperature” is not sold within a four-hour period, it will be discarded. Then, with the foregoing statement displayed, that restaurateur must maintain a record with his foregoing posted declaration, on which he keeps track of each time food is taken "off temperature," and each time food is put "on temperature." Respondent posts no such declaration or record. Mr. Kang’s assertion that some of his prior inspection troubles were caused by disgruntled former employees has been considered, as has been his living in another city far from the location of his restaurant, so as to care for his disabled wife. However, his wife’s acute care situation occurred four or five years ago and none of his employee problems seem to be current. In any case, none of these concerns excuse a licensee from meeting the applicable statutory and rule requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent’s Hotels and Restaurant license, effective the first Monday, after 30 days from the date the final order is filed with the Agency Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 19th day of November, 2008.
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)
