The Issue The issue in this case is whether on April 5 and October 18, 2011, and on February 28, 2012, Respondent was in compliance with the food safety requirements of section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and implementing administrative rules of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and if not, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division) is responsible for monitoring all licensed food-service establishments in the state to ensure that they comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Mr. Douglas Peterson has been employed as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Division for five and one-half years. He previously worked in the restaurant industry for over 21 years, including eight years as a kitchen manager and five years as a restaurant assistant manager. He has had training, including monthly in-house training and field training, in food inspection. On average, he conducts about five safety and sanitation inspections of food-service establishments per day, and about 1000 inspections per year. China King is a licensed permanent public food-service establishment operating at 4941 East Busch Boulevard, Suite 120, in Tampa, Florida. The owner of China King, Mr. Chi Kin Chan, speaks very little English. Representing the restaurant was Mr. Chan’s daughter, Ms. Man Chan, who assists her father with the restaurant. Under all of the circumstances, including the facts that Ms. Chan helps operate the restaurant, demonstrated basic knowledge of applicable statutes and rules, and demonstrated her ability to capably and responsibly represent Respondent, Ms. Chan was accepted as a Qualified Representative. China King was inspected by Mr. Peterson on August 25, 2010, and October 26, 2010. The Administrative Complaint alleged violations based upon these inspections, and testimony and exhibits as to these violations were offered at hearing. However, an earlier Administrative Complaint relating to these inspections has already been settled, as discussed below. The Stipulation and Consent Order in the earlier case settled any violations based upon these inspections, and no purpose is served by delineating the details of those inspections here. On April 5, 2011, Inspector Peterson conducted another food service inspection on China King. Inspector Peterson prepared a Food Service Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022- 015, using his Personal Data Assistant (PDA) to record the violations that he observed during the inspection. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the report on behalf of China King. During the April inspection, Mr. Peterson observed that China King had ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on-site and held more than 24 hours that had not been properly date-marked in the walk-in cooler, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that lack of proper date marking poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. Mr. Peterson also observed during the April inspection that China King was storing food on the floor in the cooks’ line and in the preparation area, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that storing food on the floor poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. During the April inspection, Mr. Peterson observed the improper use of a plastic food container or other container with no handle being used to scoop or dispense food that was not ready-to-eat, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that using containers without handles to scoop or dispense food fails to minimize food contact with bare hands, and poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Division has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. On October 18, 2011, Mr. Peterson conducted another inspection of China King. Inspector Peterson again prepared an inspection report on DBPR Form HR 5022-015 using his PDA to record the violations that he observed. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the report on behalf of China King. During the October inspection, Mr. Peterson again observed ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on- site and held more than 24 hours that had not been properly date-marked in the walk-in cooler, including egg rolls, cooked chicken, pork, and shrimp. He recorded this information in his report, along with a notation that it was a repeat violation. Mr. Peterson also observed food stored on the floor in the walk-in during his October inspection. He recorded this, noting that it was a repeat violation. During the October inspection, Mr. Peterson observed the improper use of a bowl or plastic food container without a handle as a scoop to dispense non ready-to-eat foods such as flour and starch, as well as ready-to-eat foods such as salt and sugar. He noted this in his report, along with a notation that this was corrected on-site. Mr. Peterson also observed an employee with no hair restraint during the October inspection. He noted this in his report along with the fact that it was corrected while he was on-site. On February 28, 2012, Mr. Peterson conducted a stipulation call-back inspection, as well as a full inspection of the China King. A stipulation call-back inspection is an inspection that is required as part of a stipulation which is conducted for the limited purpose of determining whether specific violations noted earlier have been corrected. Inspector Peterson prepared a Call Back Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-005, as well as DBPR Form HR 5022-015 on February 28, 2012, using his PDA to record the violations that he observed. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the reports on behalf of China King. On February 28, 2012, Mr. Peterson again observed that ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food that had been prepared on-site and held more than 24 hours had not been date-marked. He noted this in his reports. Mr. Peterson again observed food stored on the floor in the walk-in and cooks’ line during his February inspection and made note of this in his reports. Mr. Peterson again observed a can without a handle being used to scoop rice on February, 28, 2012, as was noted in his reports. Mr. Peterson also observed an employee without a hair restraint during his February inspection, noting this in his reports. In response to questioning from Respondent at hearing, Inspector Peterson stated that he was familiar with the description of the inspection process set out on the Division of Hotels and Restaurants’ website. Inspector Peterson was aware that these procedures state that an inspector will invite the manager to accompany him on the inspection walk-through, and that the inspector will go over each item on the inspection report. Mr. Peterson testified that at each inspection he advised persons at the restaurant of the violations and the need to correct them. Mr. Chi Kin Chan, owner of China King, testified that Mr. Peterson did show his badge when he conducted the inspection on February 28, 2012, although he did not announce who he was. Mr. Chan testified that Mr. Peterson just went through the restaurant on his own and did not invite Mr. Chan or anyone else from the restaurant to accompany him on his inspection. Mr. Chan testified that Mr. Peterson then just went to the front of the restaurant and prepared his report without discussing any of the alleged violations with Mr. Chan or operators of the restaurant. Mr. Taoso Tevega is engaged to be married to Ms. Man Chan, and so is the prospective son-in-law of Mr. Chan. Mr. Tevega occasionally assists the Chan family with the restaurant, but does not receive any paycheck from China King. He works in the receiving department of Advance Auto Parts. Mr. Tevega was present at China King during the February 28, 2012, inspection. Mr. Tevega testified that on February 28, 2012, Inspector Peterson just showed up in the back of China King without identifying himself and that he did not ask anyone to accompany him as he went about the restaurant conducting his inspection. Mr. Tevega testified that Mr. Peterson did not discuss or explain the violations to anyone, but just had Ms. Chan sign the report. Mr. Peterson testified that he was in business casual attire, with his employee identification tag secured from a lanyard worn around his neck, and that he presented identification before beginning each inspection. Mr. Peterson identified himself by displaying his badge before and during the February 28, 2012, inspection, as testified to by Mr. Chan and Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson did not invite anyone to accompany him as he conducted the inspection on February 28, 2012, as Mr. Chan and Mr. Tevega testified. Mr. Peterson advised operators at the restaurant of the violations and the need to correct them, as he testified. The Division issued an Administrative Complaint against China King for the above violations on or about March 7, 2012. Additional evidence introduced at hearing showed that China King had a previous disciplinary Final Order entered within 24 months of the Administrative Complaint issued in this case. That Stipulation and Consent Order was signed by China King Manager Ko Chan on January 13, 2012, and was filed on January 24, 2012. In the Order, China King agreed to pay a fine of $900.00, but neither admitted nor denied the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint. Some of those allegations would have constituted critical violations. The January 24, 2012, Stipulation and Consent Order was in settlement of an Administrative Complaint issued on November 8, 2010. That Administrative Complaint alleged violations of the Food Code based upon inspections conducted on August 25, 2010, and October 26, 2010, two of the inspections for which testimony and documentary evidence was submitted in this case, but which are discussed here only for penalty purposes.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a Final Order finding China King in violation of three critical violations and one non-critical violation and imposing a fine of $2,625, to be paid within 30 calendar days of the filing of the Final Order with the Agency Clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 2012.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent's dishmachine chlorine sanitizer was not at proper minimum strength, in violation of Food Code Rule 4-501.114(A); whether vacuum breakers were missing from hose bibs at the mop sink, in violation of Food Code Rule 5-203.14; and whether kitchen ceiling light fixtures hosted an accumulation of dead insects, in violation of Food Code Rule 6-501.112. If any of these violations are proved, an additional issue is the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent operated a restaurant located at 1261 South Powerline Road in Pompano Beach, Florida, as a public food service establishment under Permanent Food Service license SEA1620854, profession 2010. On March 17, 2015, Petitioner's inspector conducted an inspection of Respondent's restaurant. The inspection uncovered several violations. The violations included a dishmachine chlorine sanitizer that tested at zero parts per million, which is below proper minimum strength; a missing vacuum breaker at the hose bibb at the mop sink in the rear; and an accumulation of dead insects in the kitchen ceiling light fixtures. The first two violations are "high priority," and the third violation is "basic." The inspector gave Respondent until May 20, 2015, to correct these violations. On May 20, 2015, Petitioner's inspector conducted a followup inspection of Respondent's restaurant. The inspection uncovered several violations, including the three violations cited in the preceding paragraph. The inspector issued warnings for these three uncorrected violations, but gave Respondent an extension of time until July 21, 2015, to correct these violations. On July 21, 2015, Petitioner's inspector conducted a second followup inspection of Respondent's restaurant. The inspection uncovered three violations, which were the three violations cited in the preceding paragraphs. There were now two hose bibbs lacking vacuum breakers. The failure to maintain the proper strength of chlorine in the dishmachine sanitizer jeopardizes the process by which used items are cleaned and sanitized, so as to be free of pathogens, germs, and viruses. The failure to maintain a vacuum breaker, which creates an air gap in a water line, raises the possibility that dirty water will backflow into, and thus contaminate, a potable water line. The failure to remove the dead insects from the kitchen ceiling fixture poses a risk of attracting additional insects. In the 24 months preceding the issuance of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent had been the subject of one disciplinary order. By Stipulation and Consent Order filed October 21, 2014, Respondent agreed to pay an administrative fine of $840 to settle allegations of several Food Code violations, which Respondent neither admitted nor denied.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the three violations set forth above and imposing a fine of $1875. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Blanca Balcazar Latin Bohemia Grill 1261 South Powerline Road Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Marc A. Drexler, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Diann S. Worzalla, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) William N. Spicola, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in this disciplinary proceeding arise from Petitioner's allegation that Respondent, a licensed restaurant, violated several rules and a statutory provision governing food service establishments. If Petitioner proves one or more of the alleged violations, then it will be necessary to consider whether penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the State agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a restaurant operating at 4743 North Ocean Drive, Sea Ranch Lakes, Florida, and holding food service license number 1621866. On June 18, 2012, and August 20, 2012, Respondent was inspected by Jens Rammelmeier, a senior sanitation and safety specialist employed by the Division. During both visits, Mr. Rammelmeier noticed multiple items that were not in compliance with the laws which govern the facilities and operations of licensed restaurants. Through the testimony of Mr. Rammelmeier and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, the Division presented clear and convincing evidence that, as of August 20, 2012, the following deficiencies subsisted at Respondent Carina's Stone Fired Pizza-Gelato: (1) ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food was held for more than 24 hours with no date marking, in violation of Food Code Rule 3-501.17(B); (2) an employee made bare-hand contact with ready-to-eat foods without a written alternative operating procedure in effect, contrary to Food Code Rule 3-301.11(B); (3) a food handler came into contact with soiled equipment and thereafter engaged in food preparation without washing his hands, in violation of Food Code Rule 2-301.14; (4) an employee engaged in food preparation without wearing a hair restraint, contrary to Food Code Rule 2- 402.11; (5) an accumulation of dead roaches was observed under several kitchen counters and a dishwasher, in violation of Food Code Rule 6-501.112; and (6) no proof of required employee training, contrary to section 509.049. Each of the foregoing deficiencies, with the exception of the violation relating to the hair restraint, is considered a critical violation by the Division. Critical food code violations are those that, if uncorrected, present an immediate threat to public safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order: (a) finding Respondent guilty in accordance with the foregoing Recommended Order; and (b) ordering Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $1100, to be paid within 30 days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer 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 13th day of May, 2013.
The Issue Whether or not on April 27, 1987 the Respondent violated specific rules as alleged in its Notice to Show Cause dated May 27, 1987. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE At the commencement of formal hearing, Louis F. Petrillo sought to represent Respondent corporation as its qualified representative. Petitioner initially opposed this representation but subsequently withdrew its motion to disqualify. A resolution of the Respondent corporation, under its seal, authorizing Louis F. Petrillo to represent the corporation at formal hearing had previously been filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Upon the record, the undersigned inquired of the Respondent's president, Louis A. Petrillo, who acknowledged, under oath, that the resolution was authentic and that it was his desire, as the corporate president and the officer requesting formal hearing, that his father, Louis F. Petrillo, represent the corporation. 1/ Upon examination, the undersigned found Louis F. Petrillo to be a qualified representative to act for Respondent pursuant to Rules 22I-6.008 and 28-5.1055, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner had admitted three exhibits and presented the oral testimony of Norman Hayes and David Petty. Respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to prove the allegations of the Notice to Show Cause made prior to Petitioner's completing its case in chief was denied without prejudice. The motion was not renewed. Official recognition was taken of a certified copy of Respondent's 1987 Annual Report. Petitioner requested that judicial notice be taken of Rules 7C-4.0001; 10D- 13.026(2) and (3); 10D-13.026(1)(m) and (5); 10D-13.027(4) ; 10D-13.027(5) ; 10D-13.027(8) ; 10D-13.028(2) ; 10D- 13.028(3) and 10D-13.028(4), Florida Administrative Code, and Respondent opposed the request. Petitioner was permitted to file copies of the aforesaid rules with a speaking motion for official recognition within five days of the conclusion of formal hearing, and same was filed. Thereafter, Respondent never filed any formal opposition thereto, and upon consideration that these are matters for which official recognition is mandated, official recognition has been granted. However, it is axiomatic that only those statutes and rules in effect on April 27, 1987 and charged in the May 27, 1987 Notice to Show Cause, may be prosecuted against or applied to Respondent in this present license disciplinary proceeding. Respondent offered no documentary evidence, but Messrs. Louis A. Petrillo and Louis F. Petrillo each testified orally. No transcript was provided. Petitioner filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the findings of fact of which have been ruled upon in the appendix to this recommended order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. Respondent filed no post-hearing proposals.
Findings Of Fact The Notice to Show Cause, dated May 27, 1987, charges the following offenses existed on April 27, 1987: Violation of Florida Statutes, Section 509.032(1)(2) and (3). In particular, the following violations will be described and reference to the statutes, rules or regulation as follows: Florida Administrative Code - F.A.C. A. Violation of 10D-13.26(2)(3) , F.A.C. Failure to provide proper non-food contact surface. Repair loose door to deep fat fryer. B. Violation of 10D-13.26(1)(m)(5) F.A.C. Failure to provide chemical test kit. Violation of 10D-13.27(4) F.A.C. Failure to provide properly installed and main- tained plumbing. Reinstall kitchen lavatory. Violation of 10D-13.27(5) F.A.C. Failure to provide convenient, accessible, ade- quate toilet and handwashing facilities. Violation of 10D-13.27(5)(b) F.A.C. Failure to maintain and/or equipment [sic] restroom with proper handwashing and drying equipment. Violation of 10D-13.27(8) F.A.C. Failure to protect outer openings. Violation of 10D-13.28(2) F.A.C. Failure to provide properly maintained walls and attached equipment. Violaiton [sic] of 10D-13.28(3) F.A.C. Failure to provide proper shielding for kitchen ceiling lights. Violation of 10D-13.28(4) F.A.C. Failure to vent rooms and/or equipment required. The rules defining these offenses were all renumbered in August, 1987 and some rules were further amended. However, the rules as charged in the charging document and as in effect on the material date, April 27, 1987, govern this proceeding. Respondent, Petrillo Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Chicken Unlimited (hereinafter Chicken Unlimited), license 23-186220, was licensed at all times material as a public food establishment at 6757 Bird Road, Miami, Florida, and remained licensed as of the date of formal hearing, although it had ceased operation before the date of hearing. On April 22, 1987, Chicken Unlimited was operating as a public food service establishment and David Petty, an Environmental Health Supervisor for the Dade County Department of Public Health, made out a food service inspection report reflecting Respondent's noncompliance with 16 sanitary regulations of Petitioner. He ranked each as a "minor" violation. Mr. Petty was not asked at hearing if he observed these violations on that day, but on the basis of his testimony concerning certain violations corrected while he was still present on April 22, 1987 and other violations observed again by him upon his revisit to the public food establishment on April 27, 1987, I infer that he actually observed the conditions cited in the April 22, 1987 inspection report, which conditions Petty considered to be code violations. On April 27, 1987, Chicken Unlimited was operating as a public food service establishment and Mr. Petty conducted a reinspection to determine whether the violations not corrected on April 22 had now been corrected. During the reinspection, Mr. Petty observed 10 of the prior conditions which had not been corrected. These were as follows: A loose door on the deep fat fryer had not been repaired. The kitchen lavatory needed to be reinstalled. The rear kitchen door had not been sealed to prevent the entrance of vermin; missing wall tiles had not been replaced in the kitchen; proper shielding had not been installed for the kitchen ceiling lights; sanitizing test papers had not been procured; and a current manager certification in food management was not displayed or produced by personnel on the premises. (The failure of certification was noted in the reinspection report but never charged in the Notice to Show Cause against this Respondent.) In Petty's opinion, Chicken Unlimited also had failed to provide convenient, accessible and adequate toilet and handwashing facilities on both inspection dates. The ventilator fan in the men's restroom was not working. Petty personally observed that the fan was not working and that a broken sink was in the restroom under a counter on the reinspection date. When challenged on cross-examination regarding his qualifications to determine whether the fan was working, since he is not an electrical engineer, Mr. Petty replied that "if you turn the fan on at the switch and the blades don't rotate, something is wrong." His observation was made from inside the men's room looking up into the fan. Mr. Louis A. Petrillo, president and manager, was not present on the premises while Mr. Petty was there either on April 22 or 27, 1987. Respondent did not refute any of Mr. Petty's testimony. Louis A. Petrillo testified that copies of the statutes and rules applicable to Chicken Unlimited were not provided to him by Petitioner at the time his license was issued and that his own employee who received copies of the inspection report on April 22, 1987 and of the reinspection report on April 27, 1987 failed to transmit them to him. He maintained that for these reasons, he was unable to maintain the Chicken Unlimited premises according to the applicable rules and was also unable to timely correct the violations once they were cited.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent corporation guilty of the following eight violations as charged in paragraphs A (one violation), B (one violation), C, D, F, G, H, and I, constituting eight violations, respectively, 10D-13.26(2), 10D-13.26(5), 10D-13.27(4), 10D- 13.27(5), 10D-13.27(8), and 10D-13.28(2), (3) and (4), and fining Respondent $100 per offense for a total of $800. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1988.
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 Petitioner violated provisions of Chapter 500, Florida Statutes the Florida Food Safety Act, and Chapter 5K-4, Florida Administrative Code, on April 28, May 12 and May 25, 1995 and if so, whether an administrative fine should be imposed for those violations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Dunkin Donuts is a retail bakery located at 2025 West New Haven Avenue, West Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida, and had a valid food permit during the relevant time period. Respondent, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, is charged with the administration and enforcement of Chapter 500, Florida Statutes, the Florida Food Safety Act, and the rules promulgated thereunder relating to food safety and the selling of food to the consuming public. Following a complaint by a consumer, Respondent's food safety inspectors conducted food safety inspections at Petitioner's place of business on four occasions. On inspections conducted on April 28, 1995, May 12, 1995, and May 25, 1995, Petitioner received an overall rating of "poor". Not until the fourth inspection which was conducted on June 8, 1995, did Petitioner receive an overall rating of "good". On April 28, 1995, an inspection determined that Petitioner held food items in an unsanitary environment, and offered such food for sale to the consuming public. Among the violations observed were: food products improperly stored on the floor of the walk-in freezer; old dried food product spillage on the floor of the walk-in cooler, freezer and storeroom; unpackaged food product left uncovered in the storeroom; shell eggs improperly stored at internal temperature in excess of 60 degrees F.; employees without proper hair restraints; grease build up in several locations; unsealed wood table used for mixer; handwash sink inaccessible to employees. On May 12, 1995, a re-inspection determined that a few of the prior violations had been corrected. However, Petitioner continued to hold food items in an unsanitary environment and offered such food for sale to the consuming public. Among the violations observed were: improper storage of food; employees without proper hair restraints; improper use of pest strip in storeroom; no soap or hand drying device provided for employees; paint brush improperly used as pastry brush; cardboard improperly used as shelf liner and floor mats; and wiping cloths failed to be stored in sanitizing solution. On May 25, 1995, a re-inspection determined that several prior violations had not been corrected. Petitioner continued to hold food items in an unsanitary environment, and offered such food for sale to the consuming public. Among the violations observed were: improper storage of food; cardboard improperly used as shelf liner; improper use of pest strip; failure to provide soap or hand drying device in processing area; employees without hair restraints ; improper storage of equipment; wiping cloths failed to be stored in sanitizing solution; and failure to cover dumpster. Mr. Ornelas argues that he and his family and several employees operate the facility in an acceptable manner. They work long hard hours. They are baking donuts all the time and do not have time to keep the premises as clean as the inspectors insist. However, they do not offer unsanitary food to the consuming public, and the cited violations were eventually corrected; therefore, Petitioner should not be subjected to the payment of a fine, according to Mr. Ornelas.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be found guilty of numerous violations of the Florida Food Safety Act, on April 28, May 12 and May 25, 1995, and that final order be entered assessing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00 against Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, 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 9th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 Rejected as subsumed or a comment on the evidence: paragraph 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel Ornelas Officer and Director Dunkin Donuts 2025 West New Haven West Melbourne, Florida 32904 Linton B. Eason, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0910 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0910
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated provisions of the Food Code and, if so, should be penalized for such violations. For the reasons set forth below, Respondent has committed violations for which he should be penalized.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this matter, Respondent was licensed as a public food establishment in the State of Florida by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Department). Respondent's business address is 963 North Suncoast Boulevard, Crystal River, Florida. Petitioner's witness, Jill Craig, is employed by the Department as a senior sanitation safety specialist at 1313 North Tampa Street, Tampa, Florida 33602. Inspector Craig has worked for the Department in her current capacity for five years. Prior to working for the Department, Inspector Craig worked as a food server, prep cook, managed a grocery store, and performed housing inspections for the Department of Health in Indiana. Upon coming to work at the Department, Inspector Craig was versed in the Food Code, trained on the laws and rules pertaining to public food and lodging establishments, trained in Hazardous Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), and became a certified food manager. Inspector Craig continues to receive training on a monthly basis. She performs about 1,500 food service inspections a year. "Critical violations" are those that are likely to result in food-borne illness or environmental degradation. "Non-critical violations" are minor issues that are not classified as critical violations. Inspection reports are electronically prepared on a personal data assistant by the inspector. On October 26, 2009, Inspector Craig performed a routine food service inspection of Olive Tree Restaurant, Respondent's place of business. During the inspection, Inspector Craig prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth the violations she encountered during the inspection. On the date of that inspection, Inspector Craig notified Respondent about the violations. Respondent's representative, Manny Kokkolis, signed the inspection report. The inspector also informed Mr. Kokkolis that all of the violations would have to be corrected by December 28, 2009. On January 21, 2010, Inspector Craig performed a callback inspection of Olive Tree Restaurant. During the inspection, she prepared and signed an inspection report indicating that some of the violations had not been corrected. On the date of the callback inspection, Inspector Craig made Respondent aware of the violations that had not been corrected, and Respondent's representative, Caitlin Tellier, signed the inspection report. Based on the violations that had not been corrected, the inspector recommended an administrative complaint be issued against Respondent. The most serious violation observed during the October 26, 2009, and January 21, 2010, inspections was no certified food manager on duty with four or more employees engaged in food preparation. This is a critical violation because public food service establishments are required to have a certified food service manager on site when four or more employees are engaged in food preparation to oversee the employees and ensure compliance with the laws and rules relating to public food safety. Respondent admitted there was no certified food manager on duty when Inspector Craig made her two visits to Respondent's food service establishment. The next most serious violation observed during the two inspections was food stored on the floor in the dry storage area. This is a critical violation because packaged food must be stored at least six inches above the floor to prevent contamination by pathogens. Respondent testified that cases of food may have been placed on the ground after delivery and had not been there long. However, Food Code Rule 3-305.11 requires food to be protected from contamination at all times by storing the food at least six inches above the floor. The next most serious violations observed during the two inspections were accumulation of food residue on the reach-in freezer and soiled reach-in cooler and freezer gaskets. These are critical violations as well because pathogens on the food contact surface can contaminate the food product. Respondent testified that the refrigerator and gaskets acquire a build-up of mold, despite his efforts to keep them clean. He noted that the mold and residue was on the outside of the freezer and cooler. He also testified that following the callback visit by Inspector Craig, he had an additional two employees certified to handle food and supervise those who are handling food. The final three violations were all deemed non- critical by Inspector Craig. The first concerned the storage of bakery pan liners on the floor in the dry storage area. This is non-critical, but single serve articles can become contaminated before their intended use if exposed to pathogens like those found on the restaurant's floor. The second non-critical violation observed by Inspector Craig was the build-up of a mold-like substance on the surface of the mop sink. Although non-critical, the objective of cleaning is sanitization and that objective is not met when the mop sink is encrusted with mold. The final non-critical violation observed by Inspector Craig was that the floor and wall junctures were not coved.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a penalty in the amount of $250 for the critical violation concerning Respondent's failure to have a certified food manager on duty; $250 for the critical violation of storing food on the floor in the dry storage area; $250 for the critical violation of food residue on the freezer and cooler gaskets; $150 for the non-critical violation of storing bakery pan liners on the floor in the dry storage area; $150 for the non-critical violation of allowing a mold-like build-up on the mop sink; and $150 for the non-critical violation of not having the floor and wall junctures coved. The total fine in the amount of $1,200 shall be paid to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants within 30 days of the entry of its final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 15th day of July, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Paul Parnos Olive Tree Restaurant 963 North Suncoast Boulevard Crystal River, Florida 34429 Megan Demartini Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent violated food safety standards established by section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and the implementing rules as charged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate sanctions.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Dominos Pizza was owned and operated by Narverud Restaurant Systems, Inc., as a licensed permanent public food service establishment located at 13081 Spring Hill Drive, Spring Hill, Florida. Elizabeth Narverud is its vice president. Narverud Restaurant Systems, Inc., holds License No. 3700896.2/ The Division is responsible for monitoring and inspecting licensed food service establishments to ensure that they comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules, and the Food Code. On March 26, 2013, Nick Roff, Sanitation and Safety Specialist for the Division, conducted a food service inspection of Dominos Pizza. On the date of the inspection, Mr. Roff had been employed by the Division for approximately three months and was still under probation. Mr. Roff had no experience in the food service industry prior to his employment with the Division. Mr. Roff received training from the Division in the laws relating to food service, and has become certified as a food manager. The Division additionally provides monthly in-house training which Mr. Roff has attended. During his probationary period, Mr. Roff accompanied his senior inspector on food service establishment inspections, observing how the inspector conducted inspections, identified violations, and provided corrective actions. As part of his training, Mr. Roff was also “shadowed” by his senior inspector as Mr. Roff conducted inspections. On the date of the final hearing, Mr. Roff had conducted approximately 600 restaurant inspections. Cited Violations On March 26, 2013, Mr. Roff prepared an Inspection Report noting a total of 13 alleged violations of the standards set forth in applicable statutes, administrative rules, and the Food Code. Among the violations Mr. Roff noted was the absence of a backflow preventer on the mop sink faucet. Mr. Roff observed that the mop sink faucet was threaded but no backflow preventer was installed. Food Code Rule 5-203.14 provides as follows: A PLUMBING SYSTEM shall be installed to preclude backflow of a solid, liquid, or gas contaminant into the water supply system at each point of use at the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, including on a hose bibb if a hose is attached or on a hose bibb if a hose is not attached and backflow prevention is required by LAW, by: (A) Providing an air gap as specified under § 5-202.13; or (B) Installing an approved backflow prevention device as specified under § 5-202.14. Food Code Rule 5-202.13, entitled “Backflow Prevention, Air Gap,” provides as follows: An air gap between the water supply inlet and the flood level rim of the PLUMBING FIXTURE, EQUIPMENT, or nonFOOD EQUIPMENT shall be at least twice the diameter of the water supply inlet and may not be less than 25 mm (1 inch). A vacuum breaker or other backflow preventer prohibits backflow of water from the mop bucket, when being filled in the mop sink (or by hose attached to the mop sink faucet), into the water supply system in the event of a loss of water pressure, which creates a siphoning action. The Food Code provides an exception when the distance between the end of the faucet and the top of the rim of the sink is twice the diameter of the faucet but not less than one inch. Violation of rule 5-203.14 is designated by the Division as a high priority violation. Among other violations, Mr. Roff noted on the Inspection Report that the reach-in cooler gasket was torn or in disrepair. Mr. Roff did not testify specifically whether the gasket was torn, or otherwise in disrepair. He testified that he typically reaches in and spreads the gasket apart to inspect for tears. Food Code Rule 4-501.11(B) provides, “Equipment components such as doors, seals, hinges, fasteners, and kick plates shall be kept intact, tight, and adjusted in accordance with manufacturer?s specifications.” A torn or otherwise damaged cooler gasket can cause cross-contamination and prevent the storage of foods at the required temperature. Mr. Roff did measure the temperature of the food in the reach-in cooler, but did not testify with certainty whether the temperature met the standard of 41 degrees or less. Mr. Roff did not note temperature of food stored in the reach-in cooler as a violation. Given the totality of the evidence, the undersigned finds that the food stored in the reach-in cooler met the temperature standard. Violation of rule 4-501.11(B) is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Among the other violations observed by Mr. Roff was that the utensil used to scoop corn meal from its bulk container was resting flat on top of the corn meal, where the handle came into contact with the corn meal. Food Code Rule 3-304.12 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: During pauses in food preparation or dispensing, food preparation and dispensing utensils shall be stored: * * * (B) in food that is not potentially hazardous (time/temperature control for safety food) with their handles above the top of the food within containers or equipment that can be closed, such as bins of sugar, flour, or cinnamon. At Dominos Pizza, corn meal is used in stretching the pizza dough. The corn meal is scooped from a bulk container onto the food preparation surface and spread by hand on the surface before stretching the dough. Violation of rule 3-304.12 is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Mr. Roff met with Ms. Narverud during the inspection on March 26, 2013, walked through each of the alleged violations with her, and gave her a copy of the Inspection Report, which she signed. The Inspection Report notes a callback inspection date of May 27, 2013. On May 30, 2013, Mr. Roff performed a callback inspection at Respondent?s food service establishment. Ms. Narverud was not present. Mr. Roff observed that eight of the violations noted in the March 26, 2013, Inspection Report had been corrected. However, the three violations detailed above –- no backflow preventer at the mop sink, gasket on reach-in cooler torn or in disrepair, and corn meal scoop not stored with handle above food –- were not corrected. Mr. Roff prepared a Callback Inspection Report, which was signed by Julio Diaz as Manager. The Callback Inspection Report recommended filing an Administrative Complaint. Petitioner introduced no evidence of prior violations by Respondent of the applicable statutes, administrative rules, or the Food Code. Owner?s Response Ms. Narverud has worked as a food service manager for 25 years, has a food manager certification from the Division, and is a certified trainer for Dominos where she trains employees in sanitation requirements. Ms. Narverud is an advocate for food safety and training in order to protect the Dominos brand and reputation. Ms. Narverud testified that the gasket on the reach-in cooler was replaced approximately one year prior to the inspection. Ms. Narverud testified credibly that a gasket generally lasts three to five years. Ms. Narverud admitted that the gasket was stained with tomato sauce, but maintained it was not torn, soiled, or mildewed. Respondent introduced a photograph of the gasket in question, which appeared to be in good repair. However, the picture was taken two weeks before the hearing, so it is not accepted as evidence of the condition of the gasket at the time of inspection. Ms. Narverud contacted her plumber following the March inspection to request that a backflow preventer be installed at the mop sink faucet. The plumber informed her there was no backflow preventer device which would fit that particular faucet.3/ Further, Ms. Narverud maintained that the particular mop sink is exempt from the backflow preventer requirement because the air gap between the end of the faucet and the top of the mop sink was two inches or more, and no hose was attached to the faucet. Mr. Roff could not recall whether a hose was located within the vicinity of the sink during either the initial or callback inspection. There was no evidence of the distance between the end of the faucet and the flood level rim of the mop sink, other than Respondent?s testimony. Ms. Narverud planned to discuss the issue of the mop sink with Mr. Roff when he returned for the callback inspection. However, Mr. Roff returned on May 30, rather than May 27, the date noted in the March Inspection Report. Ms. Narverud was not present when the callback inspection was conducted. Having been cited in the Administrative Complaint for the lack of a backflow preventer, despite her plumber?s advice and her belief that no backflow preventer was required for the type of faucet installed, Ms. Narverud has subsequently had the entire faucet replaced and a backflow preventer installed. As to the issue of the scoop handle in the corn meal bin, Ms. Narverud disagrees that a violation occurred. Because the corn meal is spread by hand onto the food preparation surface after scooping, Ms. Narverud argues that it should be irrelevant whether the scoop handle touches the corn meal in the bin. Mr. Narverud?s argument, while understandable, is not compelling. But for the handle, employees might as well be scooping the corn meal directly from the bin with their hands. The handle is the carrier by which corn meal in the bin may become contaminated by any number of germs and viruses present on employees? hands. The citation may be picky, but it is nevertheless a violation.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent, Dominos Pizza, violated section 509.032(2)(d), and Food Code Rules 5-203.14. and 3- 304.12, adopted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C- 1.001(13), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; Finding that Respondent, Dominos Pizza, did not violate section 509.032(2)(d), and Food Code Rule 4-501.11(B), as alleged in Administrative Complaint; Applying a mitigating factor based on the 12-year length of time that Respondent has been in operation without incident, her good-faith belief that a backflow preventer was not required for the mop sink, and her extraordinary efforts in correcting the violations; and Imposing an administrative penalty against Respondent, Dominos Pizza, in the amount of $200, payable to the Division within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2013.
The Issue Whether Chef Creole Seafood, Inc., d/b/a Chef Creole (Respondent), committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 5, 2014, and if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Chef Creole Seafood, Inc., d/b/a Chef Creole (Respondent), was a restaurant subject to the regulation of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Petitioner). Respondent’s license number is 2330245. Respondent is required to comply with all relevant provisions set forth in chapter 509, Florida Statutes; Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61C; and the Food Code. Respondent has multiple locations. Respondent’s address at issue in this proceeding is 200 Northwest 54th Street, Miami, Florida 33127 (the subject premises). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Wilkinson Sejour was Respondent’s owner and president. Sharon Bures is employed by Petitioner as a sanitation and safety specialist. Ms. Bures is properly trained to conduct inspections of food service facilities to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Ms. Bures performed approximately 720 inspections during the fiscal year that preceded the formal hearing. On April 21, 2014, beginning at 3:57 p.m., Ms. Bures performed a routine inspection of the subject premises. As part of the inspection, Ms. Bures prepared a Food Service Inspection Report (Petitioner’s Exhibit 2) setting forth her findings. Ms. Bures prepared this report utilizing an electronic device while at the subject premises. Ms. Bures reviewed her findings with Mr. Sejour, the person in charge of the subject premises, and discussed with Mr. Sejour the deficiencies identified on Petitioner’s Exhibit 2. Mr. Sejour signed Petitioner’s Exhibit 2. Petitioner’s Exhibit 2 reflects that the subject premises was required to correct the noted deficiencies, and advised that a callback inspection would be conducted on or after June 21, 2014. Petitioner’s Exhibit 2 identified each of the alleged violations at issue in this proceeding. Ms. Bures performed the callback inspection of the subject premises on June 23, 2014, beginning at approximately 2:55 p.m. Ms. Bures prepared a callback Report (Petitioner’s Exhibit 3) setting forth her findings. Ms. Bures reviewed her findings with Mr. Sejour and explained to him the reasons for the deficiencies identified by Petitioner’s Exhibit 3. Ms. Bures’ findings included deficiencies that had been noted in the inspection on April 21, 2014, but had not been corrected. The uncorrected deficiencies found during the callback inspection include the five alleged violations at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner has classified two of the alleged violations as “basic,” two as “intermediate,” and one as “high priority.” A “basic item” is, pursuant to rule 61C-1.001(5), an item defined in the Food Code as a “Core Item.” Rule 61C- 1.005(5)(c) defines a basic violation as follows: (c) “Basic violation” means a violation of a basic item, as defined in Rule 61C-1.001, F.A.C., or a violation of Chapter 509, F.S., or Chapter 61C, F.A.C., which relates to general sanitation, operational controls, standard operating procedures, facilities or structures, equipment design, or general maintenance and not meeting the definition of high priority violation or intermediate violation and is not otherwise identified in subsection (6) of this rule. An “intermediate item” is, pursuant to rule 61C- 1.001(19), an item defined in the Food Code as a “Priority Foundation Item.” Rule 61C-1.005(5)(b) defines an intermediate violation as follows: (b) “Intermediate violation” means a violation of an intermediate item, as defined in Rule 61C-1.001, F.A.C., or a violation of Chapter 509, F.S., or Chapter 61C, F.A.C., which relates to specific actions, equipment or procedures that contribute to the occurrence of a high priority violation, but does not meet the definition of high priority violation or basic violation and is not otherwise identified in subsection (6) of this rule. A “high priority item” is, pursuant to rule 61C- 1.001(17), an item defined in the Food Code as a “Priority Item.” Rule 61C-1.005(5)(a) defines a high priority violation as follows: (a) “High priority violation” means a violation of a high priority item, as defined in Rule 61C-1.001, F.A.C., or a violation of Chapter 509, F.S., or Chapter 61C, F.A.C., determined by the division to pose a direct or significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and is not otherwise identified in subsection (6) of this rule. On both inspection dates, Ms. Bures observed a large tub of seasoning, peppers and hot peppers stored on the kitchen floor. Except for circumstances not applicable to this proceeding, Food Code rule 3-305.11(A)(3) requires that food shall be protected from contamination by storing the food at least 15 cm (6 inches) above the floor. Petitioner proved by the requisite evidentiary standard that Respondent violated the cited rule.2/ The testimony of Ms. Bures established that this violation is properly classified as a basic violation. On both inspection dates, Ms. Bures observed water dripping onto buckets containing raw poultry in a walk-in cooler. Sheets of plastic were used as lids to cover the buckets. On both inspection dates, water was dripping on the plastic “lids.” Food Code rule 3-305.12(G) prohibits the storage of food under a leaking water line. Petitioner proved by the requisite evidentiary standard that Respondent violated the cited rule.3/ The testimony of Ms. Bures established that this violation is properly classified as a basic violation. On both inspection dates, Ms. Bures observed an employee handle peppers and onions after having handled raw poultry without changing gloves. Food Code rule 1-201.10 defines ready-to-eat food as food that is edible without additional preparation to achieve food safety. Peppers and onions are ready-to-eat food. Raw poultry is not ready-to-eat food. Food Code rule 3-304.15 prohibits the use of single-use gloves for the working with ready-to-eat food after having worked with raw poultry. Petitioner proved by the requisite evidentiary standard that Respondent violated Food Code rule 3-304.15. The testimony of Ms. Bures established that this violation is properly classified as a high priority violation due to the danger of contaminating ready-to-eat food.4/ On both inspection dates, Ms. Bures observed that Mr. Sejour’s food protection manager’s certificate had expired. Mr. Sejour’s certificate had been issued March 10, 2009, and was valid through March 10, 2014. On both inspection dates, there were six or more employees working at the subject premises. Petitioner proved that on both inspection dates, Respondent violated rule 61C- 4.023(1) by failing to have a duly-licensed food protection manager on duty while six or more employees were working. The testimony of Ms. Bures established that this violation is properly classified as an intermediate violation because of the need for a certified food protection manager with up-to-date knowledge of the rules and regulations dealing with food-borne illnesses and other risk factors to be present to prevent mistakes and to instruct employees as to proper food temperatures, proper hygiene, and methods of prevention of food- borne illnesses. By “Final Order on Waiver” entered by Petitioner on May 7, 2013, Petitioner disciplined Respondent for certain violations in an unrelated proceeding for having violated rule 61C-4.023(1) by failing to have a duly-certified food protection manager on duty while six or more employees were working. By “Final Order on Waiver” entered by Petitioner on April 30, 2014, Petitioner disciplined Respondent for certain violations in another unrelated proceeding for having violated rule 61C-4.023(1) by failing to have a duly-certified food protection manager on duty while six or more employees were working.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order find Chef Creole Seafood, Inc., d/b/a Chef Creole guilty of violating Food Code rule 3-305.11(A)(3) as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $400.00 for that basic violation. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent guilty of violating Food Code rule 3-305.12(G) as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $400.00 for that basic violation. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent guilty of violating Food Code rule 3-304.15(A) as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $800.00 for that high priority violation. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent guilty of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-4.023(1) as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 for that intermediate violation. The total of the recommended fines is $2,600.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 2015.
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
