The Issue The issues in this disciplinary proceeding arise from Petitioner's allegation that Respondent, a licensed restaurant, violated several statutes and rules 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 Respondent Latin America Cafeteria, Inc. ("Cafeteria") is a licensed food service establishment. As such, Cafeteria is subject to the regulatory and disciplinary jurisdiction of Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (the "Division"). On three occasions——February 11, 2005; February 15, 2005; and March 21, 2005——an inspector for the Division named Jorge Gandolff inspected a restaurant located at 2940 Coral Way in Miami, Florida, which establishment was operated by Cafeteria. During each visit, Mr. Gandolff noticed several items that were not in compliance with the laws which govern the facilities and operations of licensed restaurants. As of March 21, 2004, the following deficiencies subsisted: (1) Ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food had been held more than 24 hours with no date marking, in violation of Food Code Rule 3-501.17(A)i; (2) The reach-in freezer door was not durable under normal use conditions, in violation of Food Code Rule 4-201.11; (3) The walk-in cooler door was in poor repair, in violation of Food Code Rule 4-501.11; (4) The gaskets in the walk-in door were in poor repair, also in violation of Food Code Rule 4-501.11; (5) There was no chemical test kit available for persons using chemical sanitizer at three compartment sinks, in violation of Food Code Rule 4-302.14; (6) There was a missing vacuum breaker on the hose bibb at the cookline, in violation of Food Code Rule 5-203.14; (7) Walls in the dishwashing area were soiled with accumulated debris, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(6); (8) Lights in the rear area of the kitchen lacked the proper shields, sleeve coatings, or covers in violation of Food Code Rule 6-202.11; and (9) Although four or more employees were engaged in food preparation, there was no currently certified food service manager on duty, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-4.023(1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order: (a) finding Cafeteria guilty in accordance with the foregoing Recommended Order; (b) ordering Cafeteria to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $3,000, due and payable to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 calendar days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk; and (c) directing Cafeteria to send an appropriate principal to an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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.stae.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2005.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 19, 2007, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Demills Family Restaurant (hereinafter referred to as "Demills Family Restaurant" or "establishment"), a public food establishment, is licensed and regulated by the Division. The establishment's license number is 2200535. Demills Family Restaurant is located at 6501 Park Boulevard, Pinellas Park, Florida 33781. Larry Burke is employed by the Department as a senior sanitation and safety specialist. Upon being employed with the Department, Mr. Burke was trained in laws and rules for both food service and public lodging establishments. Mr. Burke is certified as a food manager and attends continuing education on a monthly basis. As part of his job responsibilities, Mr. Burke conducts approximately 1000 inspections a year, many of which include inspections of public food establishments. On April 26, 2007, Mr. Burke conducted a routine unannounced inspection of the Demills Family Restaurant. During the inspection, Mr. Burke observed several violations at the establishment which were critical violations that were required to be corrected within 24 hours. Mr. Burke set forth his findings in a Food Service Inspection Report on the day of the inspection and provided a copy of the report to Debra Nunez, one of the owners of the establishment. A violation of the Food Code or other applicable law or rule, which is more likely than other violations to contribute to food contamination, illness, or environmental health hazards, is considered a critical violation. In the April 26, 2007, Food Service Inspection Report, Mr. Burke specified that certain critical violations had to be corrected within 24 hours. However, there were other critical violations observed on April 26, 2007, for which the owners of the establishment were given a warning and an additional 30 days to correct the violations. On April 27, 2007, Mr. Burke conducted a call-back inspection at the Demills Family Restaurant to determine if the critical violations he had observed the previous day had been corrected. During the "call back" inspection, Mr. Burke observed that all the critical violations found during the April 26, 2007, which were required to be corrected within 24 hours, had been corrected within that time period. Also, some of the non-critical violations observed on April 26, 2007, had been corrected when the "call-back" inspection was conducted. (The violations cited in the April 26, 2007, routine inspection and that were corrected during the call-back inspection the following day are not at issue in this proceeding.) During the April 27, 2007, call-back inspection, Mr. Burke prepared a Callback Inspection Report on which he noted violations first observed during the routine inspection conducted on April 26, 2007, but which had not been corrected on April 27, 2007. In accordance with applicable guidelines, Mr. Burke issued a warning to the establishment's owners and gave them 30 days or until May 27, 2007, to correct the uncorrected violations observed on April 27, 2007. This warning appeared on the April 27, 2007, Callback Inspection Report which was given to Mrs. Nunez. On May 31, 2007, Mr. Burke performed a second call-back inspection at Demills Family Restaurant. During this call-back inspection, Mr. Burke observed and cited the violations previously cited on the April 27, 2007, Call-Back Inspection Report that had not been corrected. These violations are discussed below. Violation No. 02-13, one of the uncorrected violations, involved the establishment's failure to provide a consumer advisory on raw/undercooked meat. This violation was based on information provided by personnel in the kitchen that hamburgers in the establishment are "cooked to order." In light of this policy, there are some customers who will likely order hamburgers that are undercooked. In those instances, pathogens may not be eliminated from the meat. Thus, establishments, such as Respondent, are required to inform customers of the significantly increased risk of eating such meat. After the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection and prior to this proceeding, the owners of the establishment posted signs throughout the dining room area which warned customers about the risks of consuming raw or undercooked foods (i.e., meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish or eggs). Violation No. 02-13 is a critical violation, but not one that is required to be corrected within 24 hours. Rather, this was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation after it was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Violation No. 32-15-1, one of the uncorrected violations, involved Respondent's failure to have hand-wash signs at the sinks designated for use by employees. The display of hand-washing signs at these sinks is important because it reminds employees to wash their hands, which helps prevent the transmission of food-borne disease by employees. This was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation and one which was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Mr. Nunez does not dispute that at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, there were no hand-wash signs. However, since that time, he has placed signs that notify employees to wash their hands. These signs are placed at all hand-wash sinks used by employees, including the one in the cooks' kitchen and in the waitresses' station, and are clearly visible to the employees. The establishment also has hand-wash signs at all sinks in the establishment, including those used by customers. Violation No. 37-14-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on part of the ceiling in the establishment being in disrepair. Specifically, the section of the ceiling that was in disrepair was above a food storage area which contained "open food product." This offense is not classified as a critical violation under the Food and Drug Administration or under Florida law. Mr. Nunez does not dispute that part of the ceiling in the establishment was in disrepair at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection and the previous April 2007 inspections. Although Mr. Nunez was aware of the problem, he had to rely on the landlord of the building in which the establishment was located to repair the roof. The problems with the roof contributed to the ceiling being in disrepair. Finally, after about four years of asking the landlord to repair the roof, after the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, the landlord had the roof repaired. The roof repairs are still not complete. However, based on the roof repairs that were completed by early to mid September 2007, Mr. Nunez was able to repair the section of the ceiling at issue in this proceeding. These ceiling repairs were completed by or near the middle of September 2007. Violation No. 37-14-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on Mr. Burke observing that the establishment's exit sign in the dining room was not properly illuminated. The requirement for exit signs to be illuminated is a safety issue. This was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation and one that was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Mr. and Mrs. Nunez do not dispute that at the time of the call-back inspection of May 31, 2007, the exit sign was not illuminated. The problem was caused by a problem with a wire in the sign. The person who does electrical work in the establishment had been out-of-town for several weeks and was unavailable to repair the exit sign. However, about three days after the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, after the repair person returned, he repaired the exit sign; since then, it is properly illuminated. Violation No. 47-16-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on Mr. Burke observing an uncovered electrical box. The box needed to be covered to protect the breaker and to protect the employees and anyone else who had access to the box. This uncorrected violation was a critical violation at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection. Mrs. Nunez does not dispute that there was an electrical box that was uncovered on May 31, 2007. However, Mrs. Nunez testified that during the initial walk-through in April 2007, Mr. Burke showed her the uncovered electrical box that was located above the walk-in freezer. At that time, the cover was off the electrical box and the wires were exposed. Mrs. Nunez thought that the electrical box above the walk-in freezer was the only electrical box that was cited as a violation after the April 27, 2007, call-back inspection. Based on that understanding, that violation was corrected. However, during the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, Mr. Burke showed Mrs. Nunez another electrical box in the establishment that was in violation of applicable provisions. Until that time Mrs. Nunez had not been told, and was not aware, that the second electrical box constituted a violation. This mistake on her part was likely caused by the fact that the structure of the second electrical box was completely different from that of the electrical box over the walk-in freezer. The electrical box over the walk-in freezer had wires which were exposed when the box was not covered. On the other hand, the second electrical box resembles a fuse box and did not have any exposed wires. Violation No. 28-02-1 involved the reuse of single- service articles. This violation is based on Mr. Burke observing Respondent's employees reusing plastic food containers, such as the ones sour cream and cottage cheese are in when delivered to the establishment. Such plastic containers should not be used once the food is exhausted. The reason is that the plastic in such containers is not "food service grade for sanitation purposes." Violation No. 28-02-1 is a non- critical violation. The owners of the establishment do not contest Violation No. 28-02-1, related to the reuse of single-service articles. Mrs. Nunez testified that she purchased containers that could be reused and instructed appropriate staff to use those containers. After being given those instructions, the employees told Mrs. Nunez that they were no longer reusing containers for single-service articles although they were doing so. However, as a result of the violation cited during the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, Mrs. Nunez is committed to checking to ensure that employees are not reusing the plastic containers for single-service articles. Violation No. 61-13-1 is based on Mr. Burke observing that no Heimlich sign was posted in the establishment. The purpose of the Heimlich sign is to provide information in the event a customer in the restaurant is choking. This is a non- critical violation because it makes customers aware in the event of a choking situation. In July 2007, Mr. Nunez left his job as a project engineer to become involved in the day-to-day operations of the Demills Family Restaurant after he realized there were problems at the restaurant that required his attention. Among the issues Mr. Nunez had to initially deal with were the violations cited in the May 31, 2007, Call-Back Inspection Report. Throughout the initial inspection and the call-back inspections, the owners have cooperated with Mr. Burke and corrected most of the violations for which the establishment was cited. Mr. Burke has not conducted an inspection of the Demills Family Restaurant since the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection. However, since that time, all the violations which are the subject of this proceeding have been corrected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent, Demills Family Restaurant, violated Food Code Rules 3-603.11, 4-502.13(a) and 6-301.14; Florida Administrative Code Rules 61C-1.004(2)(C), 61C-1.004(6) and 61C-1.004(10); and NFPA Rule 70.300.31. Imposing a total administrative fine of $2,800 for the foregoing violations. Requiring Respondent (through its employees and/or owners) to attend, at personal expense, an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 25, 2008, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a public food service establishment in the State of Florida by the Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. Respondent's business address is "Szechuan Panda," 3830 Southwest 13th Street, Gainesville, Florida 32608. Critical violations are violations that, if not corrected, can have a direct impact on cross-contamination and food-borne illness. This, in turn, causes an immediate threat to public health. Non-critical violations are violations that, if not corrected, can have an impact on the creation of critical violations. On December 19, 2007, Inspector Daniel Fulton performed a Complaint Food Service Inspection at Szechuan Panda. During that inspection, Inspector Fulton prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth violations he encountered during the inspection. From the time it was prepared until the date of the hearing, the inspection report has not been altered. On December 19, 2007, Mr. Fulton observed live roaches in Szechuan Panda in both the food preparation and food service areas. Inspector Fulton cited this as a critical violation because live roaches carry many diseases. Those diseases can be spread when the roaches crawl over clean or unclean food preparation equipment in their search for food and accordingly contaminate food preparation surfaces. On December 19, 2007, food was being stored at Szechuan Panda directly on the floor. When the terminology "directly on the floor" is used, it includes any food that could be contaminated by ordinary mopping. That is, food stored in a container which is not impervious to water, such as a cardboard container, or a plastic container which does not have a top and the sides of which are so low that mopping might contaminate its contents. On December 19, 2007, improper utensils were being used to scoop out food from food containers. According to Mr. Fulton, this is a critical violation because without the usage of a proper utensil with a handle, cross-contamination can occur when the food product touches an employee’s hand. On December 19, 2007, the carbon dioxide/helium tanks in Szechuan Panda were not adequately secured. According to Mr. Fulton, this is a violation because if the tanks become unsecured all of the pressure inside can cause the tanks to shoot off uncontrollably in an elliptical or variable pattern so as to damage anyone or anything with which they come in contact. On December 19, 2007, grease was built-up on non-food contact surfaces. Mr. Fulton cited this as a violation because such debris is enticing for consumption by any present rodents and/or roaches. Rodents and roaches carry diseases that can lead to cross contamination. On March 5, 2008, Mr. Fulton prepared a Complaint Inspection Report at Szechuan Panda in which some of the previously noted violations had not been corrected. From the time it was prepared until the date of hearing the report was not altered. On March 5, 2008, Mr. Fulton again observed live roaches in Szechuan Panda, in both the food preparation and food service areas. He cited this as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 5, 2008, dead roaches were observed throughout the business. Mr. Fulton cited this as a critical violation because live roaches will eat the carcasses of dead roaches, causing further cross-contamination, and because the presence of dead roaches also shows a general lack of cleanliness and due care. On March 5, 2008, cold foods were held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. According to Mr. Fulton, this is a critical violation because bacteria grows quicker, the closer food is held to 98 degrees Fahrenheit. Also on March 5, 2008, hot foods were held at a temperature less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit. Mr. Fulton classified this as a critical violation because any bacteria present on the food will grow, once the temperature drops below 135 degrees Fahrenheit. On March 5, 2008, foods in both the dining area and food storage areas at Szechuan Panda were not properly covered. This was classified as a critical violation because cross- contamination can occur by way of any bacteria present being easily transferable to the exposed food. On March 5, 2008, food also was being stored directly on the floor as previously described. On March 5, 2008, improper utensils were again being used to scoop out food from food containers. Mr. Fulton considered this a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 5, 2008, food contact services were encrusted with grease, and soil deposits were present in food containers. Mr. Fulton listed this as a critical violation because an unidentified slime growing within a food container poses a health risk that can possibly cross-contaminate other foods. On March 5, 2008, in-use utensils for non-potentially hazardous foods were not being stored in a clean, protective place. Mr. Fulton considered this a violation because any harmful debris present on the unit being used for storage can become stuck on the utensil. On March 5, 2008, the carbon dioxide helium tanks still were not adequately secured. This was listed as a violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 5, 2008, grease was built up on non-food contact surfaces. This was listed as a violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 5, 2008, a black substance was present on the wall around the dish-washing area. This was listed as a violation because the substance observed appeared mold-like, thus showing a lack of cleanliness. On March 6, 2008, Inspector Fulton prepared a call- back inspection report at Szechuan Panda noting that some of the violations remained uncorrected. From the time it was prepared until the date of the hearing, the call-back report has not been altered. On March 6, 2008, cold foods were held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. This was noted as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 6, 2008, hot foods were held at a temperature less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit. This was noted as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 6, 2008, foods in both the dining area and food storage area of Szechuan Panda were not properly covered, and this was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 6, 2008, a black substance was present on the wall around the dish-washing area. This was listed as a violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, Mr. Fulton prepared a complaint inspection report at Szechuan Panda in which some of the violations still were not corrected. From the time it was prepared until the date of the hearing, the report has not been altered. On March 24, 2008, dead roaches were observed throughout the business. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. Although some dead roaches may be evidence of attempts to exterminate all of a roach infestation as testified-to by Respondent, the presence of dead roaches also shows a general lack of cleanliness and due care. On March 24, 2008, cold foods were held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, hot foods were held at a temperature less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, foods in both the dining area and food storage area of Szechuan Panda were not properly covered. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, food was still being stored directly on the floor. On March 24, 2008, improper utensils were being used to scoop out food from food containers, This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, food contact surfaces were encrusted with grease, and soil deposits were present in food containers. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, in-use utensils for non-potentially hazardous foods were not being stored in a clean, protective place. This was listed as a violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 30, 2008, Mr. Fulton prepared a call-back inspection report at Szechuan Panda in which some of the previous violations were not corrected. From the time it was prepared until the date of the hearing the call-back report has not been altered. On March 30, 2008, cold foods were held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 30, 2008, hot foods were held at a temperature less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 30, 2008, foods in both the dining area and food storage areas were not properly covered. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 30, 2008, food contact surfaces were encrusted with grease, and soil deposits were present in food containers. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. As to most violations described by Mr. Fulton, Respondent Kang only protested that Chinese cooking was not conducive to meeting the regulations. He also apparently was not present when each of the foregoing inspections was made, so his testimony as to why certain foods were above or below the permissible temperatures; were stored on the floor; or otherwise met standards is not persuasive. Mr. Kang's testimony with regard to his quest for reputable and effective exterminators and his contracts with successive exterminators is credible. The area being largely clear of roaches after he hired a new exterminator is also noted. However, even giving Respondent all due credit for correcting certain inspection violations by call-back or subsequent inspection dates, his testimony as a whole does not evoke confidence in the cleanliness of the licensed establishment. Particularly, Mr. Kang’s defenses that "live roaches came with purchased goods or were quickly killed" by the pest control company, and that dead roaches are swept out at the end of each day but there are more roaches when the restaurant opens the following morning, do not help his situation much. Most troubling is that Mr. Kang described a procedure whereby, although the restaurant is cleaned at the conclusion of each serving day, dead roaches are not swept out the following morning but are allowed to remain where they lie until the restaurant is cleaned entirely at the end of the second work day. Likewise, Mr. Kang's testimony also indicates his lack of understanding of the Department's requirements for maintaining "safe" food temperatures. Mr. Fulton explained that most buffets use time and temperature for public health control, but he further testified that, per the regulations he goes by, a restaurateur may keep foods "out of temperature" only up to four hours, and to legitimately do so, pursuant to the Food Code, the restaurateur must write a statement explaining the precautions he has taken, and further state therein that if his food “out of temperature” is not sold within a four-hour period, it will be discarded. Then, with the foregoing statement displayed, that restaurateur must maintain a record with his foregoing posted declaration, on which he keeps track of each time food is taken "off temperature," and each time food is put "on temperature." Respondent posts no such declaration or record. Mr. Kang’s assertion that some of his prior inspection troubles were caused by disgruntled former employees has been considered, as has been his living in another city far from the location of his restaurant, so as to care for his disabled wife. However, his wife’s acute care situation occurred four or five years ago and none of his employee problems seem to be current. In any case, none of these concerns excuse a licensee from meeting the applicable statutory and rule requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent’s Hotels and Restaurant license, effective the first Monday, after 30 days from the date the final order is filed with the Agency Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 2008.
The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are stated in the counts set forth in the Administrative Complaint for each case: Whether Falcon Catering Service No. 7 (hereinafter "Falcon 7") and Falcon Catering Service No. 8 (hereinafter "Falcon 8") failed to maintain the proper protection and temperature requirements for food sold from their mobile site in violation of the federal Food and Drug Administration Food Code ("Food Code"). In the Prehearing Stipulation filed in this matter, each Respondent generally admitted to the violations in the Administrative Complaints, but suggested that mitigating factors should absolve them of the charges or greatly reduce any administrative fine imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is responsible for monitoring all licensed food establishments in the state. It is the Division's duty to ensure that all such establishments comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Respondents Falcon 7 and Falcon 8 are licensed mobile food dispensing vehicles. Falcon 7 has license No. MFD5852560, which was initially issued on April 23, 2005; Falcon 8 has license No. MFD5852642, which was issued on October 19, 2005. Each of the Respondents serves meals and snacks to, inter alia, laborers at construction sites. On or about March 13, 2009, the Division conducted a food service inspection on Falcon 7. At that time, the food truck was located at 4880 Distribution Court, Orlando, Florida. One of the Food Code violations found by the inspector was Item 53b. That citation meant there was no validation of employee training on the truck. A follow-up inspection was deemed to be required. On April 10, 2009, a follow-up inspection was conducted by the Division. At that time, Item 53b was cited as a repeat offense. Also, Item 8a was cited. Item 8a refers to protection of food from contaminants and keeping food at an acceptable temperature. Notes by the inspector indicate that a further violation of Item 8a occurred because customers were allowed to serve themselves directly from food containers, and there was no fan in operation during the serving of food. On May 28, 2009, another inspection of Falcon 7 was conducted. At that time, the food truck was located at 12720 South Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando, Florida. Item 8a was again cited as a deficiency. The inspector's notes indicate that food was not properly protected from contamination and that customers were being served "buffet style" from the back of the truck. The inspector noted that this was a repeat violation. A follow-up or "call-back" inspection was conducted on December 3, 2009, at which time the temperature in Orlando was unusually cold. The food truck was at the same address on Orange Blossom Trail as noted in the prior inspection. Falcon 7 was again found to have been serving food buffet style from the back of the food truck. An Item 8a violation was again noted by the inspector. Another inspection of Falcon 7 was conducted on January 19, 2010, another very cold day in Orlando. At that time, the food truck was located at the same site as the last two inspections. The inspector cited the food truck for an Item 8a violation again, stating that the food was not being protected from contaminants. Dust was flying up on the back of the truck to exposed food items. An inspection of Falcon 8 was conducted on August 25, 2009, while the truck was located at 4880 Distribution Court, Orlando, Florida. An Item 8a violation was noted by the inspector, who found that displayed food was not properly protected from contaminants. The food truck was located under an Interstate 4 overpass and was open to flying debris. The inspector noted that customers were being served buffet style and that there was no protection of food from contamination by the customers. A follow-up inspection for Falcon 8 was conducted on August 27, 2009, at 9:12 a.m., while the food truck was located at the same site. Another Item 8a violation was cited at that time. The violation notes indicate essentially the same situation that had been cited in the initial inspection two days earlier. Less than one hour after the follow-up inspection, another inspection was conducted on Falcon 8 at the same location as the prior two inspections. There were no Item 8a citations issued during this inspection, but the food truck was found to have no water available for hand washing. The food truck employee was using a hand sanitizer to clean her hands. Respondents do not dispute the facts set forth above. However, Respondents provided mitigating facts for consideration in the assessment of any penalty that might be imposed. Those mitigating factors are as follows: The food trucks were serving an inordinately large number of workers during the dates of the inspections. The City of Orlando was constructing its new basketball arena, and there were numerous laborers involved in the project. In order to serve the workers, it was necessary for the food trucks to put their food out on tables, rather than ladle the food directly from the food warmers in the food truck. In fact, the shelves in the food trucks are so narrow that dipping food out of the warmers would be impossible. Due to the cold weather in Orlando during this time, it was impossible to keep the food at acceptable temperature levels for very long. The large number of workers washing their hands at the food trucks caused the trucks to run out of water much more quickly than normal. When the water ran out, the employees took care to sanitize their hands as well as possible. Ms. Falcon testified that the inspector's testimony concerning use of tables to serve food was erroneous. However, Sabrina Falcon was not present during the inspections, and her contradictory testimony is not reliable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, imposing a fine of $500.00 against Falcon Catering Service, No. 7, in DOAH Case No. 10-10925; and a fine of $750.00 against Falcon Catering Service, No. 8, in DOAH Case No. 10-10930. All fines should be paid within 30 days of the entry of the Final Order by the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 10th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Sabrina Falcon Falcon Catering Service 642 Mendoza Drive Orlando, Florida 32825 Megan Demartini, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated provisions of the Food Code, and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was licensed as a public food establishment in the State of Florida by the Division. Respondent held license no. 1505960 in the name of China No. 1 (the "Restaurant"), located at 3014 West New Haven Avenue, Melbourne, Florida 32904. The Division is the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of public food service establishments pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2011).1/ Ms. Schoenly is employed by the Division as a sanitation and safety inspector. In that capacity, she conducts inspections of food service and lodging establishments for compliance with the provisions of chapter 509 and the Food Code. Prior to becoming an inspector for the Division, Ms. Schoenly worked for 17 years with McDonald's restaurants, including two years as a crew person and 15 years in management. Upon taking a position with the Division, Ms. Schoenly received training in the laws and rules utilized for food and lodging inspections. She continues to receive education in this area on a monthly basis. When Ms. Schoenly conducts an inspection of a restaurant, she looks for both critical and non-critical violations. Critical violations are those that will likely lead to food-borne contamination and food-borne illness. A non-critical violation is less likely to lead to food-borne illness or contamination. Ms. Schoenly performs in excess of 700 inspections per year as part of her job. On April 18, 2011, Ms. Schoenly performed a routine inspection of the Restaurant. Routine inspections are performed on a regular basis by the Division. Routine inspections are done without prior notice to the operator or owner of the restaurant to be inspected. During the routine inspection, which commenced at approximately 1:45 p.m., Ms. Schoenly found a number of violations, including two critical violations and several non-critical violations. The Restaurant was provided notice of the violations and was allowed to correct some of them while Mr. Schoenly was still present. Upon completion of the inspection, Mr. Schoenly gave Mr. Ni a copy of the Food Inspection Report she had filled out. The report specified all areas of non-compliance and indicated that a follow-up or call-back inspection would be performed on June 15, 2011, at 8:00 a.m. Unlike the routine inspections, restaurants are given prior notice concerning call-back inspections. On June 15, 2012, Ms. Schoenly, accompanied by Edwin Weimer, another inspector, returned for the call-back inspection. They arrived during the lunch hour, at 12:31 p.m., rather than 8:00 a.m., as set forth on the initial Food Inspection Report. The Restaurant was not open at 8:00 a.m., thus, necessitating a later visit than originally scheduled. During the call-back inspection, Ms. Schoenly found that a number of the violations from the prior visit had been corrected. However, there were still three critical and three non-critical violations extant. The critical violations were: 03A-07-1 A corn starch and water mixture was stored at a temperature of 81º (it had been at 68º during the initial inspection). 08A-28-1 Noodles were stored on the floor in boxes in a dry storage area. 08A-29-1 Egg rolls and broccoli were stored in uncovered containers. 22-22-1 A can opener was badly soiled. The non-critical violations found during the call-back inspection were: 23-07-1 Soiled gaskets in the reach-in cooler; food debris on and under the shelving; and, a heavy grease build-up under the refrigeration unit. 14-47-1 Cutting boards were grooved and pitted. 15-35-1 Heavily soiled cardboard on shelves. As a result of Ms. Schoenly's findings, an Administrative Complaint was issued against the Restaurant. Mr. Ni, owner of the Restaurant, disputes the findings made by Ms. Schoenly and Mr. Weimer. 03A-07-1 (Food Code Rule 3-501.16(A)) Ms. Schoenly found the corn starch mixture to be at unacceptable temperatures. Food should be stored at 41º or lower or 135º or higher. Once food is removed from its controlled temperature environment, it can be stored at room temperature for up to four hours. However, in order for a restaurant to keep food outside its storage area, there must be a written time record posted on the wall clearly delineating how long the food had been outside the temperature-controlled environment. During the initial inspection by Ms. Schoenly, there was no time/temperature control form on the wall at the Restaurant. Ms. Schoenly explained the form to Mr. Ni so he could use it in the future. The Restaurant did have a time/temperature control form posted during the call-back inspection. Mr. Weimer testified that the form was not complete because there was no signature on it. However, Mr. Ni said his signature was on the second page of the report. Mr. Weimer said he did not take the form down off the wall to see if there was a signature on the second page. Ms. Schoenly and Mr. Weimer testified they could not tell how long the food had been out of its protected environment. However, inasmuch as the Restaurant opens at 11:00 a.m., and the inspection was conducted at 12:45 p.m., it is doubtful the corn starch mixture had been out for more than four hours. The Division did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Restaurant had violated this standard. 08A-28-1 (Food Code Rule 3-305.11) Ms. Schoenly found dry noodles being stored on the floor of a dry storage area in the Restaurant. The noodles were stored in what Ms. Schoenly described as "a box." The box was not open to the best of her recollection, but she could not specifically remember.2/ Mr. Ni said the noodles were stored in five-gallon buckets that had originally held Kikkoman soy sauce. The soy sauce buckets are waterproof and had lids on them. The buckets were sitting on the floor of the dry storage area, but they were protected from cross-contamination. It is impossible to ascertain from the contradictory evidence whether the noodles were stored in such a fashion as to allow for cross-contamination from other sources. Thus, the Division did not meet its evidentiary burden as to this critical standard. 08A-29-1 (Food Code Rule 3-305.11) Ms. Schoenly found egg rolls and washed broccoli stored in the walk-in cooler without being covered. The egg rolls were in wire baskets, and the broccoli was in a plastic food container called a Cambro, a plastic box. She saw that as a possible means of cross-contamination with other foods or items stored nearby, because "anything can drip on the food." Mr. Ni said the egg rolls were stored in wire baskets on the top shelf in the walk-in cooler so that nothing else would drip on them. The egg rolls were available to re-stock the buffet line during the lunch rush. The broccoli was stored in the case in which it had been delivered to the Restaurant. It is not clear from the evidence exactly where in the walk-in cooler the broccoli was being stored at the time of the inspection. The Division met its burden of proof as to the existence of uncovered egg rolls. However, any potential violation is mitigated by the fact the egg rolls were stored on the top shelf and were being actively removed from the cooler as part of the lunch-time operations. The evidence is not conclusive as to how the broccoli was stored, but Ms. Schoenly's recollection, supported by her notes, indicates it was not stored properly. Mr. Ni did not provide substantive rebuttal to that fact. 22-22-1 (Food Code Rule 4-101.11) The can opener being used by the Restaurant was heavily soiled, thus, creating a hazard for possible food contamination. Mr. Ni said the can opener is old, but that even after he cleaned it, the can opener still looked dirty. The Division met its burden of proof as to this critical standard. 23-07-1 (Food Code Rule 4-101.111) Ms. Schoenly found three potential violations under this portion of the Food Code: Soiled gaskets in the reach-in cooler; food debris on or under the shelving; and heavy grease buildup under the refrigeration unit. She could not remember at what part of the inspection process she saw these violations. Mr. Ni said the gaskets had been cleaned with soapy water and bleach, but because they are old, they do not appear clean. The Division met its burden of proof as to the non-critical standards concerning food debris and heavy grease, but not as to the soiled gaskets. 14-37-1 (Food Code Rule 4-501.12) There was a cutting board used in the Restaurant that was heavily pitted with long, deep grooves in it. Ms. Schoenly found the cutting board to be unacceptable, because it could not be cleaned or sanitized adequately after each use due to the depth of the grooves. Mr. Ni sanded the cutting board between the initial inspection and the call-back inspection to alleviate the problem. At the time of the call-back, Ms. Schoenly found the cutting board to still be in an unacceptable condition. The Division met its burden of proof as to this non-critical standard. 15-35-1 (Food Code Rule 4-101.111) During the initial inspection and again at the call-back, Ms. Schoenly found heavily soiled cardboard on the shelving used for storing items in the Restaurant. The cardboard was an allowable means of covering the shelves, but it would need to be discarded once it became soiled. Mr. Ni said the cardboard was soiled because it had been used that day, but that it was to be discarded that very day. His testimony in that regard is not credible. The Division met its burden of proof as to this non-critical standard.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, finding Respondent, No. 1 China, guilty of violating one critical and four non-critical Food Code standards. A fine of $650.00 shall be paid by No. 1 China within 30 days of entry of the final order in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 17th day of July, 2012.
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 Town and Country Skate World (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 (2011). At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a restaurant operating at 7510 Paula Drive, Tampa, Florida, 33615, and holding food service license number 3203942. On May 6, 2010, Rich Decker (Mr. Decker), employed by the Petitioner as a senior sanitation and safety specialist, performed a routine inspection (May 6 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 May 6 inspection, Mr. Decker noted the observed violations in an inspection report. A manager for the Respondent was present during the inspection. The manager signed the inspection report and received a copy of the report at that time. According to the inspection report, a follow-up "callback" inspection was scheduled to occur on July 6, 2010, prior to which critical violations were to have been corrected. On July 21, 2010, Kathy Dorsey (Ms. Dorsey), employed by the Petitioner as a senior sanitation and safety specialist, performed the callback inspection (July 21 callback inspection) and observed some of the same Food Code violations noted on the May 6 inspection report. At the conclusion of the July 21 callback inspection, Ms. Dorsey noted the observed violations in an inspection report. An employee of the Respondent present at the time of the inspection signed and received a copy of the callback inspection report. The Petitioner subsequently filed the Administrative Complaint at issue in this proceeding. Pursuant to state regulations, the Respondent was required to have designated a certified food protection manager responsible for the operation of food service. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the designated food protection manager's certification had expired and that the Respondent was operating without a properly-certified food protection manager. This was a critical violation of the Food Code, because the lack of a properly-certified food protection manager presents a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare through the transmission of food-borne illness by improper food preparation. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that no thermometer to ascertain the temperature of food products was present, a critical violation. Foods held at improper temperatures are susceptible to development of bacterial contamination and are a risk factor for transmission of food-borne illness. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the Respondent, which utilized a chemical system for sanitation of dishes and utensils, had no chemical test kit provided at the location of the sanitation sink. The test kit is required to ascertain whether the composition of the disinfection liquid is appropriate and capable of sanitizing the items. This was a critical violation because improperly sanitized dishes and utensils pose a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare through the transmission of food-borne illness. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the gaskets located at the reach-in food refrigeration unit were soiled, a critical violation because the situation presents an opportunity for bacterial contamination of food products and transmission of food-borne illness. Sinks used for preparation of food products are not to be used for hand washing, and, accordingly, the Food Code prohibits having hand-washing aids at a food prep sink. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the Respondent had hand-washing materials located at a food-prep sink. This was a critical violation because dual use of sinks provides an opportunity for bacterial contamination of food or utensils and transmission of food-borne illness. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that the Respondent's gas tanks (helium and/or carbon dioxide) were not properly secured, which was a non-critical violation of state regulations cited herein. During the May 6 inspection and again during the July 21 callback inspection, the Petitioner's inspectors noted that ceiling tiles in the kitchen were water-stained, indicating the presence of an unidentified leak above the ceiling tiles, and other tiles were missing. These were non-critical violations of state regulations cited herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order imposing an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $1,550. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 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 28th day of November, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Alan Blizard Town and Country Skate World 7510 Paula Drive Tampa, Florida 33615 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue 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 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 presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed against it, and, if so, the appropriate penalty to be imposed, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Perpulys Sport Bar and Restaurant, has been licensed as a public food service establishment by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. Respondent is located in Homestead, Florida. Michael Brown, one of Petitioner's inspectors, has extensive experience and education in the food service industry. On July 19, 2006, he inspected Respondent's premises and found a number of violations of public food service establishment rules. He noted these on his inspection report and gave a copy of the report to Respondent. The report noted that the violations must be corrected by August 20, 2006. On August 21, 2006, Brown returned to Respondent's premises to conduct his "callback" inspection. Four critical item violations remained uncorrected, and he noted them in his report. After he had completed his report, one of Respondent's employees placed a thermometer in the cold holding unit which had lacked one during Brown's inspection. However, the exit signs were still not properly illuminated. Exit signs in a food service establishment are required to be clearly illuminated so that patrons will know where to exit the premises if a fire or other emergency should occur. Improperly illuminated exit signs are a critical item violation. Respondent's employees were still touching ready-to-eat food with their bare hands even though the establishment did not have in place an alternative operating procedure approved by Petitioner. Since touching ready-to-eat food with bare hands can lead to serious illness of the business' patrons, this is also a critical item violation. During that same call-back inspection, raw animal food was stored over ready-to-eat food, specifically, raw steak was stored over cooked shrimp. Since such storage can lead to cross-contamination, which can lead to serious illness of the business' patrons, this is also a critical item violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of three critical item violations, imposing a fine of $1,500 to be paid within 30 days, and requiring Respondent to attend an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 17th day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: William Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Soco Salgado Perpulys Sports Bar & Restaurant 113 South Homestead Boulevard Homestead, Florida 33030
The Issue Whether Respondent has committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with the licensing and regulation of public food service establishments, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a restaurant holding food service license number 6500911. Respondent is owned by Barbque Ventures, Inc. Daniel Fulton is employed by the Department as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist. In that capacity, he conducts inspections of food service and lodging establishments for compliance with Chapter 509, Florida Statutes; the Food Code; and the relevant Florida Administrative Code Rules. Mr. Fulton is a certified food manager. Critical violations are violations of the relevant rules and statutes that are more likely to contribute to a food-borne illness, an environmental hazard, or to food contamination. Non-critical violations are those violations that are less likely to contribute to a food-borne illness, an environmental hazard, or to food contamination. On March 21, 2007, Mr. Fulton inspected the premises of Bono's Barbeque Sports Bar at 1001 A1A Beach Boulevard, in St. Augustine, Florida. During the inspection, Mr. Fulton prepared a Food Service Inspection Report setting forth the findings from his inspection. The Food Service Inspection Report was provided to and signed for by Debra Barnes, who was listed as manager for the restaurant. During the March 21, 2007, inspection, Mr. Fulton recorded a number of violations of the Food Code. Only four of them are relevant to the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Mr. Fulton observed that foods in the walk-in cooler were not labeled and dated. This is considered a critical violation because food that has been cooked is allowed only a certain number of hours to cool to 41 degrees. If previously prepared food is not marked, it cannot be determined whether it has met the schedule for cooling. Failure to mark and date previously-prepared food is considered a critical violation. The failure to label and date food was noted in the March 21 inspection report at the top of the third page, stating: 02-06-1: Observed combined ready-to-eat potentially hazardous food held more than 24 hours not date marked according to earliest date of opening/preparation. However, Mr. Fulton did not testify that the meat in question had been held over 24 hours. He testified only that it was placed in the walk-in cooler 18 hours before. Mr. Fulton also observed that the food in the walk-in cooler was between 44 and 46 degrees. According to Mr. Fulton, this is considered a critical violation because bacteria will grow above 41 degrees, and the longer the food is above 41 degrees, the more the bacteria will grow. The violation was noted on page three of the March 21 inspection report as "03A-07-1: Observed potentially hazardous food cold held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit." The walk-in cooler was replaced after the call-back inspection and three repairs. Mr. Fulton observed uncovered food in the walk-in cooler. Walk-in coolers are not considered to be food-contact surfaces, and in order to protect the food, it needs to be off the floor and covered at all times. Failure to cover the food in the walk-in cooler is considered a critical violation. This violation was recorded in the inspection report as "08A-29-1: Observed uncovered food in holding unit/dry storage area. TEA Corrected on Site." Finally, Mr. Fulton observed two sinks that had no hand towels available for handwashing. Without proper handwashing, employees' hands are "virtually bacteria spreaders." Failure to provide hand towels at hand sinks hampers the employees' hand washing efforts, and is considered a critical violation. The violation was listed on the inspection report as "32-16-1: Hand wash sink lacking proper hand drying provisions. TWO SINKS." On May 1, 2007, Mr. Fulton returned to Bono's Barbeque for a call-back inspection. At that time he completed a Call Back Inspection Report, which was signed by Debra Barnes as the manager. The Call Back Inspection Report contains the following: The following items(s) have been recommended for Administrative Complaint: Violation 32-16-1 Hand wash sink lacking proper hand drying provisions. TWO SINKS. Violation 08A-29-1 Observation uncovered food in holding unit/dry storage area. WIC Violation 03A-07-1 Observed potentially hazardous food cold held at greater than 41 degrees /Fahrenheit. EVERYTHING IN WIC IS AT 44 TO 46 F. Violation 02-06-1 Observed combined ready-to-eat potentially hazardous food held more than 24 hours not date marked according to earliest date of opening/preparation. BBQ COOKED AND COOLED ON 04/30/07 IN WIC. The Food Inspection Report, the Call-Back Inspection Report, the Administrative Complaint and the copies of relevant rules provided at hearing all reference provisions of the Food Code. However, none of these documents indicate what version of the Food Code is being referenced.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 2007.
