The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in an Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Petitioner), against Pita's Restaurant (Respondent) are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2010).1/ At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a restaurant operating at 8412 West Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33615, and holding food service license number 3912285. On October 28, 2009, Rich Decker (Mr. Decker), employed by the Petitioner as a sanitation & safety specialist, performed a routine inspection of the Respondent and observed conditions that violated certain provisions of the Food Code. Food Code violations are classified as "critical" or "non-critical." A critical violation of the Food Code is one that poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and is a risk factor for food-borne illness. A non- critical violation of the Food Code is one that does not meet the definition of a critical violation. At the conclusion of the October 28, 2009, inspection, Mr. Decker noted the observed violations in an inspection report. The owner of the Respondent signed the report and received a copy at the time of the inspection. Mr. Decker advised the owner that a follow-up "callback" inspection was scheduled to occur on December 28, 2009, and that the violations needed to be corrected by that date. The callback inspection did not occur on December 28, 2009. Mr. Decker performed the callback inspection on January 5, 2010, and observed some of the same Food Code violations noted on the October 28, 2009, inspection report. At the conclusion of the January 5, 2010, inspection, Mr. Decker again noted the observed violations in an inspection report. The manager of the Respondent signed the report and received a copy at the time of the inspection. The Petitioner subsequently filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed raw eggs being stored above prepared, ready-to-eat pita bread. This violation was deemed to be critical because raw food stored above ready-to-eat food can lead to bacterial contamination of the ready-to-eat food. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed unidentified medicine being stored in a refrigeration unit along with food supplies. This violation was deemed to be critical, because the medicine could have contaminated the food. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed prepared, ready-to-eat, and potentially-hazardous food being stored without having been date-marked to identify the last date upon which the food could be consumed. Prepared food has a limited shelf life during which it may be safely consumed. The failure to date-mark prepared food was a critical violation, because such failure may result in the consumption of unsafe food. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed that there was no consumer advisory warning related to consumption of raw or undercooked foods posted on the premises. The Food Code requires the posting of such a notice, and the failure to comply is deemed a critical violation, because consumption of certain raw or undercooked foods poses a health risk to some consumers. During the October 28, 2009, inspection and again during the January 5, 2010, callback inspection, Mr. Decker observed an employee engaged in food preparation without wearing a hair net. Although food can be contaminated by human hair, this violation was deemed to be non-critical, because no immediate threat to human health was presented by the violation.
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 a fine of $1,350 against the Respondent and requiring that the Respondent complete an appropriate educational program related to the violations identified herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 20th day of May, 2011.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(2)(b) and the following provisions of the Food Code: 3-202.11, 3-501.16(A), 4-501.11, 5-203.14, 6-202.14, and 6-202.11, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the operation of public food service establishments, pursuant to section 20.165 and chapter 509, Florida Statutes. The Restaurant is and has been at all times material to this proceeding licensed by the Department, license number 58- 11330. The Restaurant is owned by Shea Lowe (Mr. Lowe) and is located in Eatonville, Florida. On April 14, 2010, Dennis Watson (Mr. Watson), an inspector for the Department, made a routine inspection of the Restaurant. Mr. Watson found that the temperature of the pancake batter that was being used on the cook line was 67 degrees, Fahrenheit (F.); the temperature of the sausage on the cook line was 64 Degrees, F.; eggs were being held on the cook line for more than 30 minutes at a temperature greater than 45 degrees, F.; the gaskets/seals on a cold holding unit were in poor repair; lights in the food storage area were missing proper covers; the vacuum breaker was missing at the hose bibb outside the back door; and the door to the men's restroom was not tight- fitting and self-closing. The Restaurant was given a warning for the violations found during the April 14, 2010, inspection. The Restaurant was given until June 14, 2010, to correct the violations. On June 15, 2010, Mr. Watson returned to the Restaurant for a call-back inspection. Mr. Watson found the following violations: the gaskets/seals on the cold holding unit were in poor repair; the vacuum breaker was missing at the hose bibb outside at the back door; the pancake batter and sausage were being held on the cook line for more than 30 minutes at temperatures greater than 41 degrees, F.; raw eggs in the shell were held on the cook line for more 30 minutes at room temperature; food in the glass door coolers were held at temperatures between 49 and 53 degrees, F.; the lights over the food storage rack/kitchen were missing the proper covers; and the door to the men's restroom was not tight-fitting and self- closing. The failure to maintain the food in the coolers at 41 degrees, F.; the failure to maintain raw, shell eggs at a temperature of 45 degrees, F.; the failure to keep the pancake batter and sausage on the cook line at the proper temperature; the failure to install a vacuum breaker on the hose bib outside the back door; and the failure to have a self-closing door for the men's restroom are critical violations. Rule 61C- 1.005(5)(a) defines "critical violation" as a violation which poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and which is identified as a food-borne illness risk factor or a public health intervention. Mr. Lowe acknowledged that the coolers were not working properly and has since replaced the coolers. He bought a self- closing latch for the restroom door, but the door will not self- close because the door frame does not fit the door, and he cannot afford to repair the door. He now keeps the eggs in the cooler until time to cook them. He has purchased some covers for the lights, but he did not know if they were in place when the inspections took place. The failure to have a self-closing door in the men's restroom and the failure to maintain the gaskets on the cooler door are non-critical violations. Both inspection reports were signed by persons other than Mr. Lowe. Mr. Lowe was not present for either inspection. The Restaurant has been previously disciplined by a Final Order entered on December 2, 2008, based on Stipulation and Consent Order entered into by the parties.
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, finding that Lowe's Good Eaton Restaurant violated rule 61C- 1.004(2)(B) and Food Code Rules 3-202.11, 3-501.16(A), 4-501.11, 5-203.14, 6-202.14, and 6-202.114-50; and imposing an administrative fine of $500 for each of the three critical violations and $250 for each of the two non-critical violations for a total administrative fine of $2,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN BELYEU KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 2011.
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 3582 West Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and holding food service license number 1621408. On October 17, 2012, and December 17, 2012, Respondent was inspected by Maor Avizohar, a sanitation and safety specialist employed by the Division. During both visits, Mr. Avizohar noticed several items that were not in compliance with the laws which govern the facilities and operations of licensed restaurants. Through the testimony of Mr. Avizohar and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, the Division presented clear and convincing evidence that, as of December 17, 2012, the following deficiencies subsisted at Respondent's facility: (1) an employee handwash station incapable of providing water at a temperature of at least 100 degrees Fahrenheit, in violation of Food Code Rule 5-202.12; and (2) the storage of in-use utensils in standing water less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit, contrary to Food Code Rule 3-304.12(F).3/ The deficiency relating to the lack of hot water at the handwash station 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: finding Respondent guilty of Counts One and Two, as charged in the Administrative Complaint; dismissing Count Three of the Administrative Complaint; and ordering Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $300, to be paid within 30 days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 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 August, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of various violations of Florida statutes and rules in the operation of his restaurant and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license control number 46-04280R, which is in effect from December 1, 1999, through December 1, 2000. The license authorizes Respondent to operate a restaurant known as Speedy Two Shop at 2957 Martin L. King Boulevard in Fort Myers. Petitioner has previously disciplined Respondent. By Stipulation and Consent Order filed May 22, 1997, the parties agreed that Respondent would pay an administrative fine of $1100 and correct all violations by April 30, 1997. The Stipulation and Consent Order incorporates the findings of inspections on February 25 and March 7, 1997. These inspections uncovered seven violations, including missing hood filters over the cooking surface, heavy grease accumulations on the inside and outside of the hood, a fire extinguisher bearing an expired tag (May 1995), and operation without a license. In Petitioner's District 7, which includes Fort Myers, the licensing year for restaurants runs from December 1 to December 1. Respondent's relevant licensing history includes annual licenses for the periods ending December 1, 1997; December 1, 1998; and December 1, 1999. However, Respondent has operated his restaurant for substantial periods without a license. Respondent renewed his license ending in 1997 after four months of operating without a license, his license ending in 1998 after 17 months of operating without a license, his license ending in 1999 after six and one- half months of operating without a license, and his license ending in 2000 after one and one-half months of operating without a license. For each of these late renewals, Respondent paid a $100 delinquent fee. Petitioner conducts periodic inspections of restaurants. These inspections cover a broad range of health and safety conditions. Certain violations, as marked on the inspection forms, "are of critical concern and must be corrected immediately." This recommended order refers to such violations as "Critical Violations." On January 22, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted an inspection of Respondent's restaurant. The inspection uncovered seven Critical Violations. Two Critical Violations involved Respondent's compliance with licensing and training requirements. Respondent was operating the restaurant without a license, and no employee had a food manager's card, which evidences the successful completion of coursework and a test in managing a restaurant. The report warns that if Respondent did not renew his license before February 1, 1998, Petitioner would impose a fine and possibly revoke his license. The report requires Respondent to ensure that an employee obtains a food manager's card by March 3, 1998. Two Critical Violations involved Respondent's noncompliance with fire safety requirements. The fire extinguisher and built-in fire suppression system both bore outdated tags. The former tag expired in April 1997, and the latter tag expired in May 1997. The remaining three Critical Violations were that the restaurant lacked a filter in his hood over the stove, ceramic tiles over the three-compartment sink, and sanitizing solution in the bucket that was supposed to contain sanitizing solution. Respondent's employee explained that the hood filters were being cleaned, but apparently offered no explanation for the other two Critical Violations. Despite the specific warnings concerning the licensing and training violations, the January 1998 inspection report requires only that Respondent correct the violations by the next routine inspection. On March 26, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted an reinspection of Respondent's restaurant. The inspection uncovered the same Critical Violations, except for the sanitizing solution. The report states that Respondent must come to Petitioner's office in the next seven days to renew his license. On April 2, 1998, Petitioner served upon Respondent an Administrative Complaint alleging that, on January 1, 1998, Respondent was operating without a license. Neither this nor any subsequent charging document cites any of the other six Critical Violations found in the January 22, 1998, inspection as bases for discipline, so this recommended order treats these other violations as background, rather than as independent grounds for discipline. On June 30, 2000--over two years after issuing the Administrative Complaint--Petitioner transmitted the Administrative Complaint to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the purpose of conducting a formal hearing, and DOAH assigned this case DOAH Case number 00-2694. On April 29, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted another reinspection. Upon identifying himself to Respondent's employee, the employee denied the inspector access to the premises and told him to return at 2:00 PM. The inspector replied that the reinspection would take only five minutes and that he could not return at 2:00 PM, but the employee continued to deny the inspector entry. On May 12, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted another reinspection and found the same seven Critical Violations present during the January 1998 inspection. New Critical Violations were the presence of one "small mouse and roaches" under the three-compartment sink and the presence of cooked sausage patties and links with an internal temperature too low to prevent the proliferation of bacteria. As for the food manager's card, Respondent told the inspector that he had left it at home. The report warns that Respondent must correct the violations by May 18, 2000, 8:00 AM. On September 29, 1998, Petitioner served upon Respondent a Notice to Show Cause alleging the violations found during the inspections of March 26, April 29, and May 12, 1998. On June 30, 2000--one year and nine months after issuing the Administrative Complaint--Petitioner transmitted the Administrative Complaint to DOAH for the purpose of conducting a formal hearing, and DOAH assigned this case DOAH Case number 00-2697. On July 31, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted another reinspection and found five of the same Critical Violations: operating without a license, no employee with a food manager's card, fire suppression system bearing an outdated tag, ceramic tile missing over the three-compartment sink, and heavy grease accumulation on the hood filters, which had been reinstalled. Petitioner never cited these five Critical Violations in any charging document, so this recommended order treats these other violations as background, rather than as independent grounds for discipline. On October 2, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted an inspection and found four of the original Critical Violations: no license, no employee with a food manager's card, no current tag on the fire suppression system, and no ceramic tile over the sink. Although the fire extinguisher was presumably current, it was improperly placed on the floor. Other Critical Violations included the storage of sausage at the improperly warm temperature of 51 degrees, the absence of a thermometer in the home-style refrigerator, the presence of rodent feces on the floor, the absence of working emergency lights, the absence of a catch pan in the hood system, a broken self-closer on the side door, a clogged hand sink, an extension cord serving a toaster, and the evident expansion of the restaurant without an approved plan. The report gives Respondent until October 9, 1998, at 11:00 AM to correct the violations. On October 12, 1998, Petitioner's inspector conducted a reinspection and found all of the Critical Violations cited in the preceding paragraph still uncorrected. On October 20, 1998, Petitioner served upon Respondent an Administrative Complaint alleging the violations found during the inspections of October 2 and 12, 1998. On June 30, 2000--one year and eight months after issuing the Administrative Complaint--Petitioner transmitted the Administrative Complaint to DOAH for the purpose of conducting a formal hearing, and DOAH assigned this case DOAH Case number 00-2695. For some reason, Petitioner neither prosecuted the pending charges nor conducted repeated inspections for several months after October 1998 inspections and Administrative Complaint. The next inspection of Respondent's restaurant took place on April 30, 1999. Despite the six and one-half months that Petitioner effectively gave Respondent to correct the numerous Critical Violations cited in the October 12, 1998, inspection, Respondent continued to violate many of the same provisions for which he had been cited throughout nearly all of 1998. The inspection report discloses that, again, Respondent was operating without a license. The report notes that he lacked a license for the licensing years ending in 1998 and 1999. One of Petitioner's inspectors testified that Respondent had been making progress on the licensing issue. However, the implication that Respondent was unable to pay the $190 licensing fee (usually accompanied by a $100 delinquent fee) is quietly rebutted by the notation, also in the April 30, 1999, report, that Respondent had completed the expansion project--still, without the required plan review. Again, no employee at the restaurant had a food manager's card. Again, the fire suppression system was in violation--this time because the indicator revealed that it needed to be recharged. Again, the hood filters were missing above the cooking surface. Again, the hand sink was inoperative- -this time, it was not only clogged, but it also lacked hot water. Again, emergency lighting was inoperative. Again, the ceramic tile was missing over the three-compartment sink. Again, food was maintained too warm in the refrigerator--this time, chicken was at 69 degrees. A new Critical Violation was the exposure of live electrical lines and insulation. The April 1999 inspection report gives Respondent until May 14, 1999, at 11:00 AM to correct the violations. On May 14, 1999, Petitioner's inspector conducted a reinspection and found that Respondent still had not obtained a license for the licensing year ending in 1999, still lacked an employee with a food manager's card, still had not obtained approval of its expansion plan, still lacked ceramic tile over the three-compartment sink, still had a clogged hand sink without hot water, still lacked working emergency lights, still tolerated exposed electrical line and insulation, and still lacked hood filters above the cooking surface. On June 2, 1999, Petitioner served upon Respondent an Administrative Complaint alleging the violations found during the inspections of April 20 and May 14, 1999. On June 30, 2000--one year and one month after issuing the Administrative Complaint-- Petitioner transmitted the Administrative Complaint to DOAH for the purpose of conducting a formal hearing, and DOAH assigned this case DOAH Case number 00-2696. Over a period of 16 months, Petitioner conducted eight inspections of Respondent's restaurant. On what would have been a ninth inspection, one of Respondent's employees denied access to the inspector. On each of these eight inspections, Respondent was operating without a license, lacked an employee with a food manager's card, and lacked ceramic tile over the three- compartment sink. On seven of these eight inspections, the fire suppression system was expired or discharged, and the hood filter was missing or excessive grease had accumulated on the filter or the liner. On three of these eight inspections, the fire extinguisher was outdated, and, on a fourth inspection, it was improperly stored on the floor. On three of these eight inspections, sausage or chicken was at improper temperatures--the 86 degrees at which sausage was served on one occasion was only 17 degrees warmer than the 69 degrees at which chicken was stored on another occasion. On three of these eight inspections, the hand sink was unusable because it was clogged or lacked hot water, the emergency lights did not work, and restaurant expansion was taking place or had taken place without review or approval of the plans. On two of these eight inspections, the inspector saw signs of rodents in the kitchen--one time actually seeing a small mouse. On two of these eight inspections, exposed electrical lines and insulation were present in the kitchen. Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed all of the cited violations. Uncorrected violations over 16 months amount to more than a failure to take advantage of the numerous opportunities that Petitioner gave Respondent to bring his restaurant into compliance. These uncorrected violations constitute a refusal to comply with the basic requirements ensuring the health and safety of the public. The penalty must weigh, among other things, Respondent's blatant disregard of fundamental requirements in licensing, training, and fire and food safety; Petitioner's demonstrated lack of diligence in enforcing Respondent's compliance with these requirements; and the peril posed by these failures upon the public health and safety.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order revoking Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan R. McKinley, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurant Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Gail Hoge, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angelo E. Ruth 2774 Blake Street Fort Myers, Florida 33916
The Issue Whether 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 595 West Church Street, Suite L, Orlando, Florida. The Restaurant was first licensed in July 2006, and its food service license number is 5811488. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of hotels (public lodging establishments) and restaurants (public food service establishments) pursuant to chapter 509. Will Goris is a sanitation and safety specialist for Petitioner. Mr. Goris has worked for Petitioner for eight years. Prior to working for Petitioner, Mr. Goris worked for the U.S. Army for eight years as a food safety inspector. Mr. Goris received Petitioner's standardized training on the laws and rules governing public food service establishments.2/ Mr. Goris is a certified food manager and obtains monthly in-house training from Petitioner on his job duties. On February 22, 2011, Mr. Goris performed a routine inspection of the Restaurant starting at approximately 12:39 p.m. The Restaurant was fully operational at the time, as it was the lunch hour. Mr. Goris observed live roach activity (infestation) at the Restaurant in the following locations: under a mat by the three-compartment sink; on a peg board adjacent to a hand-sink; under a box of onions; inside a box of pasta; by the water heater; and by the wheels of the reach-in cooler. Mr. Goris also observed dead roaches in various locations at the Restaurant. Critical violations are those violations that, if uncorrected, are most likely to contribute to contamination, illness or environmental health hazards. Insects and other pests are capable of transmitting diseases to humans by contaminating the food or food contact surfaces, and this roach infestation was identified by Mr. Goris as a "critical" violation. Maria Radojkovic is the manager of the Restaurant. As Mr. Goris was conducting the inspection, he asked Ms. Radojkovic to observe the same roach activity he was observing. At the conclusion of the February 22, 2011, inspection, Mr. Goris recorded the observed violations in an inspection report which he printed out. Ms. Radojkovic signed the inspection report and received a copy of it at that time. There was no evidence to dispute the allegations. Ms. Radojkovic confirmed that the roaches "got brought in by deliveries and boxes." The Restaurant had at least two extermination companies to combat the roach infestation problem. When the first company was unsuccessful, Ms. Radojkovic hired a different company. However, it took several months for the second company to "get rid of" the roaches. Ms. Radojkovic expressed her understanding that the Restaurant needs to be clean, and she is aware of the various access points for roaches to enter it. Although she maintains it is impossible for any restaurant to be roach-free, Ms. Radojkovic maintains that it "just takes time to contain" them. None of the other putative violations mentioned in the inspection report (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) were addressed at final hearing and are therefore irrelevant to this proceeding. No evidence was introduced that a patron had become ill as a result of the infestation. On February 22, 2011, the Restaurant was served an Emergency Order of Suspension (ESO) following the inspection of that date. Although there was no testimony as to when the ESO was actually lifted, at the time of the hearing, the Restaurant was open for business. On February 28, 2010, a Final Order was issued involving the Restaurant regarding an Administrative Complaint that was issued on September 29, 2009. This Administrative Complaint was based on a June 16, 2009, inspection and a September 9, 2009, re-inspection. The issue therein was unrelated to the issue at hand.
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 which confirms the violation found and imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 due and payable to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 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 13th day of June, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether on October 23, 2013, and May 6, 2014, Respondent was out of compliance with the food safety requirements of section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and implementing administrative rules of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Division is responsible for monitoring all licensed food service establishments in the state to ensure that they comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. At all times material to this case, Respondent was licensed as a public food service establishment, operating a restaurant located at 1658 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, and holding license number 6020868. Ms. Tara Palmer has been employed by the Division for almost five years. She is presently a Senior Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Division. Prior to her employment with the Division she was employed in the food industry for approximately 20 years. She has had training in sanitation and inspection, standardized training regarding the Food Code, on- the-job training, and continual monthly education. She performs approximately 1000 inspections yearly. On October 23, 2013, Ms. Palmer conducted a food service inspection on Respondent. Ms. Palmer prepared a Food Service Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-015. The violations observed during the inspection were recorded on the report. Respondent's manager, or individual in charge, followed Ms. Palmer throughout the inspection, and signed the report to acknowledge receipt on behalf of Respondent. Through the testimony of Ms. Palmer and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, the Division established that, on October 23, 2013, Respondent's Roma and Alfredo sauces had been prepared the previous day, placed in tightly covered 22 quart gallon containers, and cooled overnight in a walk-in cooler. Due to this methodology, at the time of inspection, the sauces were 52°F. Respondent was cited with a deficiency for improper cooling methods, in violation of Food Code Rule 3-501.15. The improper cooling method deficiency was deemed a violation that required further review; however, same was not an immediate threat to the public. Respondent was notified that the observed violation must be corrected by December 24, 2013. On January 8, 2014, Ms. Palmer performed a "call-back" inspection. On that date, the improper cooling deficiency observed on October 23, 2014, had been corrected. On May 6, 2014, Ms. Palmer conducted a food service inspection of Respondent. Ms. Palmer prepared a Food Service Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-015. The violations observed during the inspection were recorded on the report. Respondent's manager, or individual in charge, followed Ms. Palmer throughout the inspection, and signed the report to acknowledge receipt on behalf of Respondent. Through the testimony of Ms. Palmer and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, the Division established that, on May 6, 2014, Respondent's spicy and Pomodoro sauces had been prepared the previous day, placed in a tightly covered 22-quart gallon container, and cooled overnight in a walk-in cooler. Due to this methodology, at the time of inspection, the spicy sauce was 48°F at the start of the inspection and 47.5°F at the end of the inspection. The Pomodoro sauce was found to be 48°F at the start of the inspection and 47.3°F at the end of inspection. Again, Respondent was cited with a deficiency for improper cooling methods, in violation of Food Code Rule 3- 501.15. No evidence was introduced to indicate that Respondent had any previous violations. No evidence was introduced to refute the above-noted deficiencies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order finding Italio East Boca, LLC, d/b/a Italio, in violation of two intermediate violations, and imposing a fine of $400, to be paid within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2014.
The Issue The issue 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 Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent operated Humphrey's On 33rd, a bar/restaurant (with a "full kitchen") located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the holder of a license issued by Petitioner (license number 16-18150-R) authorizing it to operate Humphrey's On 33rd as a public food service establishment. Edward Humphrey is the majority owner of Respondent. On December 29, 2004, Michele Schneider, a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with Petitioner, conducted a routine inspection of the premises of Humphrey's On 33rd. Her inspection revealed, among other things, the following (which hereinafter will be referred to, collectively, as the "Conditions"): Respondent, upon request, was unable to produce evidence of "food handlers' training for employees by a certified food manager"; there were paper products and other potentially combustible items "on top of and around" a gas- powered hot water heater (which had an "open flame at the bottom"); there was no indication that violations (of the standards of the National Fire Protection Association) previously-noted by a "certified fire inspector" during an inspection of the hood range in the kitchen (which had an ansel fire suppression system) had been corrected; the service tag on the fire extinguisher in the establishment did not indicate the year the extinguisher was last serviced; and there was grease, garbage, and other debris in the "can wash area" outside the establishment, "right behind the back door." Before leaving the establishment, Ms. Schneider advised Mr. Humphrey that these Conditions were violations for which Respondent could be disciplined by Petitioner if not corrected by February 1, 2005. Ms. Schneider conducted a "callback" inspection of the premises of Humphrey's On 33rd on February 1, 2005, which revealed that each of the Conditions described in Finding of Fact 4 still existed. At neither the time of the December 29, 2004, routine inspection, nor the time of the February 1, 2005, "callback" inspection, was food being served at Humphrey's On 33rd. Respondent had "closed the kitchen down" in or around September of 2004. It was not until approximately six months later, after the December 29, 2004, and February 1, 2005, inspections, that Respondent started serving food again at the establishment. At no time during this six-month period that it stopped serving food did Respondent relinquish its license authorizing it to operate Humphrey's On 33rd as a public food service establishment. Its license remained in effect throughout this period.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order finding that Respondent committed Alleged Violation Nos. 1 through 5 and disciplining Respondent therefor by imposing a fine in the total amount of $250.00 and requiring Respondent's majority owner to attend, at his own expense, an "educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program." DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 20th day of December, 2005.
