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 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 the Respondent, Rosarios II Italian Restaurant (Respondent), committed the violations alleged and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating hotels and restaurants within the State of Florida regarding health and safety codes. See § 509.032, Fla. Stat. (2008). At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent operated as a public food service establishment subject to the Petitioner’s jurisdiction (See Petitioner’s Exhibit 1). The Respondent's license number is 1617840. In his capacity as an inspector and as a sanitation and safety supervisor for the Petitioner, Sean Grofvenor visited the Respondent’s place of business (12691 West Sunrise Boulevard, Sunrise, Florida) on November 13, 2007. On that date, the violations, more fully described in the inspection report of that date, (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) warranted the closure or emergency order of suspension of license for the establishment. The Respondent was made aware of the violations and the Petitioner announced that it would come back in 24 hours to reassess the closure. The closure was deemed appropriate to protect the public. The 24-hour call-back inspection was provided to reassess the "critical" problems depicted in the inspection report. The November 13, 2007, inspection report described the following "critical" violations: Live and dead roaches present at the establishment; Ready-to-eat food prepared on site and held more than 24 hours without proper date and time tagging; A hand-wash sink lacked proper drying provisions by the dish machine; Uncovered food was discovered in a holding unit, the dry storage area, and in a walk-in cooler; and Soiled gaskets at numerous stations within the food preparation areas. After the 24-hour call-back inspection was completed, the Respondent was allowed to reopen but was advised that a second follow up inspection would be performed. The Respondent was given until January 14, 2008, to correct all of the violations previously identified and described in the inspection report of November 13, 2007. Robert Becker is a sanitation and safety specialist employed by the Department. He accompanied Mr. Grofvenor on the November 13, 2007, inspection of the Respondent's establishment and assisted in the compilation of the violations noted in the first inspection report. Inspector Becker performed a call-back inspection of the Respondent's establishment on January 17, 2008. This final call-back inspection report (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) described the violations that remained uncorrected. The Department uses the terms "critical" and "non- critical" to describe violations of the "Food Code." 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- The Food Code is also available through the U. S. Food and Drug Administration Internet website. "Critical" violations of the Food Code are conditions that, if not corrected, could lead to food contamination, food borne illness, or environmental degradation. A "non-critical" violation relates to a preventative measure or practice to keep the environmental conditions of food preparation and service in proper order. If not corrected, a "non-critical" violation has the potential to become a "critical" situation. When Inspector Becker returned to the Respondent's establishment on January 17, 2008, the critical violations described in paragraph 4 were not fully corrected. For example, Inspector Becker observed roach activity within the kitchen of the Respondent's establishment. Roach activity is considered a critical violation as roaches are a direct contributor to the contamination of food and the spread of bacteria and disease. Inspector Becker documented the number and location for each roach discovered at the site. Additionally, Inspector Becker observed unmarked ready-to-eat food that was not appropriately tagged. Date marking ready-to-eat food is necessary to prevent spoilage and the growth of bacteria. Foods may only be held at designated temperatures and within certain conditions for a limited time period. If left unmarked, it is impossible to discern whether the guidelines have been met. Third, Inspector Becker found the hand wash sink lacked proper drying provisions. Although a repeat violation from the previous inspection, the Respondent corrected this violation on site. The fourth critical violation related to uncovered food in holding situations. Food must be properly covered to prevent exposure to contamination. Whether in a walk-in cooler or other station, food must be covered. Sauces and pasta are considered "food." The final critical violation was soiled gaskets on several kitchen appliances or preparation surfaces. Cooler gaskets at the prep reach-in cooler, cooler gaskets at the pizza station, and gaskets near a fryer were dirty or soiled. When gaskets are soiled the mere opening and closing of the device can spread filth and expose food to contaminants. Gaskets must be kept clean and free of all potential contaminants. In addition to the foregoing, there were several non- critical violations of a preventative nature that the Respondent failed to correct. These violations could easily be corrected and did not pose an immediate threat to the public. For example, a restaurant employee without hair restraint is easily corrected. In testifying for the Respondent, Mr. Pierre Louis maintained that while the inspection report of November 13, 2007, was correct, he had since made the corrections necessary to bring the restaurant into compliance. Those corrections were not, however, completed before January 17, 2008. Mr. Pierre Louis described difficulty finding replacement gaskets for the equipment. The inference being that the gaskets could not be cleaned but had to be replaced. Mr. Pierre Louis did not advise the Department of the difficulty in making the replacements until the time of hearing. The Respondent was given over 60 days within which to make the necessary corrections. The Respondent did not correct the roach problem between November 13, 2007, and January 17, 2008, despite its representation that it had hired an extermination company to address the problem. Roach presence is a critical violation that cannot go unattended or inadequately treated.
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 the Respondent in the amount of $3,500.00. The Respondent should also be required to attend training for a better understanding of the requirements of the Food Code to assure that proper sanitary measures are adopted at the restaurant. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 2008, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned Luczynski, 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 Cheri-ann Granston Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ernst Pierre Louis Rosarios II Italian Restaurant 12691 West Sunrise Boulevard Sunrise, Florida 33323
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
