The Issue The issue in this case is whether on April 19, 2010, and July 27, 2010, Respondent was in compliance with food safety requirements set forth in administrative rules of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Division), and if not, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Division is responsible for monitoring all licensed food service establishments in the state to ensure that they comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Julianne Browning has been employed as a senior inspector with the Division for six or seven years. It is part of her responsibility to inspect food service establishments for safety and sanitation. She conducts approximately 850 inspections each year. Respondent is licensed as a public food establishment operating as The Green Mango at 7625 West Newberry Road, Gainesville Florida. On April 19, 2010, Ms. Browning conducted a food service inspection on Respondent. Ms. Browning prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth the violations that she observed during the inspection. During her April inspection, Ms. Browning observed an employee engage in food preparation, handle clean equipment or utensils, or touch unwrapped single service items, without washing hands. Ms. Browning identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015, the Food Service Inspection Report. The failure of a food service employee to wash their hands constitutes a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. Inspector Browning also observed in April potentially hazardous cold food held at temperatures greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. Specifically, she observed potatoes at 68 degrees, batter at 70 degrees, rice at 85 degrees, soup at 55 degrees, turnovers at 90 degrees, and butter at 90 degrees. Ms. Browning made notes of these observations in her report. She identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015, the Food Service Inspection Report. Potatoes, batter, rice, soup, and turnovers are potentially hazardous foods and Respondent failed to maintain them at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less. This failure constituted a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. On July 27, 2010, Ms. Browning conducted another food service inspection on Respondent. Again she prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth the violations that she observed during the inspection. During the July inspection, Ms. Browning again observed an employee engage in food preparation, handle clean equipment or utensils, or touch unwrapped single service items, without washing hands. She observed that an employee did not wash his hands before putting on gloves to prepare food. Ms. Browning identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022- 015, the Food Service Inspection Report. It is necessary for employees preparing food to wash their hands even if they are going to be wearing gloves because the gloves could have a tear, or a pin hole, or be otherwise compromised. The failure to wash hands constituted a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. During the July inspection, Ms. Browning observed what she described as clarified butter, which here will be referred to as ghee, on the counter with a temperature of 80 degrees. Inspector Browning also again observed potentially hazardous cold food held at temperatures greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. In this instance she observed cream at 47 degrees, tofu at 45 degrees, milk at 45 degrees, potatoes at 45 degrees, yoghurt at 45 degrees, and cooked vegetables at 55 degrees. Ms. Browning identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015, the Food Service Inspection Report. Cream, tofu, milk, potatoes, yoghurt, and cooked vegetables are potentially hazardous foods and Respondent failed to maintain them at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Potentially hazardous food must be kept at 41 degrees Fahrenheit or below because when the temperature rises above that temperature, bacteria begin to grow at a much faster rate. A person consuming the food can then contract a food-borne illness. The failure to maintain these temperatures constituted a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. Ms. Pandey, witness for Respondent, is an experienced cook. She worked for many years at a Hare Krishna Temple in Alachua County. She is knowledgeable in the preparation and use of ghee. Ms. Pandey testified that ghee is a form of clarified butter that has been used for a great many years in India, and is still used in significant amounts there, precisely because of the widespread lack of refrigeration. Ghee does not spoil as fast as butter or milk or yoghurt. Ms. Pandey testified that ghee is not perishable and that it is therefore not dangerous when at room temperature. She further testified that refrigeration in fact makes it very difficult to use ghee, because it becomes hard and loses its flavor. It was not clear from the evidence presented that ghee is a potentially hazardous food or that failure to keep it at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less constituted a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. The testimony and admitted reports of Inspector Browning as to the failure of Respondent's employee to wash his hands were clear and the reports were recorded at the time of the observation. Ms. Pandey offered no evidence to the contrary. Her unsworn assertion during argument that her husband was not preparing food, but only put on protective gloves because he was aware of the inspection and was scared was not credible, even if it had been offered as testimony. The testimony and admitted reports of Inspector Browning as to the temperature of the foods was clear and was recorded at the time of the observation. Ms. Pandey offered no evidence to the contrary. Her unsworn assertion during argument that the refrigerator holding the food was not being used in the restaurant but was only for storage of personal items was not credible, even if it had been offered as testimony. Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent for the above violations on August 2, 2010. Respondent has had two previous disciplinary Final Orders entered within 24 months of the Administrative Complaint issued in this case. In the first Stipulation and Consent Order, signed by Anuradha Pandey on January 10, 2010, and entered on January 15, 2010, Respondent agreed to pay a fine of $1550.00, but did not admit nor deny the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint, which would have constituted critical violations. In the second Stipulation and Consent Order, signed by Anuradha Pandey on June 2, 2010, and entered on June 10, 2010, Respondent agreed to pay a fine of $2,000.00, but again did not admit or deny the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint, which would have constituted critical violations. The June 10, 2010 Stipulation and Consent Order was in settlement of an administrative complaint issued on May 10, 2010, alleging violations of the Food Code revealed in an April 19, 2010 inspection, one of the same inspections for which evidence was submitted in this case.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a Final Order imposing a total fine of $1500.00 against The Green Mango for the two critical violations occurring on July 27, 2010, to be paid within 30 calendar days of the filing of the Final Order with the Agency Clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2012.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 19, 2007, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Demills Family Restaurant (hereinafter referred to as "Demills Family Restaurant" or "establishment"), a public food establishment, is licensed and regulated by the Division. The establishment's license number is 2200535. Demills Family Restaurant is located at 6501 Park Boulevard, Pinellas Park, Florida 33781. Larry Burke is employed by the Department as a senior sanitation and safety specialist. Upon being employed with the Department, Mr. Burke was trained in laws and rules for both food service and public lodging establishments. Mr. Burke is certified as a food manager and attends continuing education on a monthly basis. As part of his job responsibilities, Mr. Burke conducts approximately 1000 inspections a year, many of which include inspections of public food establishments. On April 26, 2007, Mr. Burke conducted a routine unannounced inspection of the Demills Family Restaurant. During the inspection, Mr. Burke observed several violations at the establishment which were critical violations that were required to be corrected within 24 hours. Mr. Burke set forth his findings in a Food Service Inspection Report on the day of the inspection and provided a copy of the report to Debra Nunez, one of the owners of the establishment. A violation of the Food Code or other applicable law or rule, which is more likely than other violations to contribute to food contamination, illness, or environmental health hazards, is considered a critical violation. In the April 26, 2007, Food Service Inspection Report, Mr. Burke specified that certain critical violations had to be corrected within 24 hours. However, there were other critical violations observed on April 26, 2007, for which the owners of the establishment were given a warning and an additional 30 days to correct the violations. On April 27, 2007, Mr. Burke conducted a call-back inspection at the Demills Family Restaurant to determine if the critical violations he had observed the previous day had been corrected. During the "call back" inspection, Mr. Burke observed that all the critical violations found during the April 26, 2007, which were required to be corrected within 24 hours, had been corrected within that time period. Also, some of the non-critical violations observed on April 26, 2007, had been corrected when the "call-back" inspection was conducted. (The violations cited in the April 26, 2007, routine inspection and that were corrected during the call-back inspection the following day are not at issue in this proceeding.) During the April 27, 2007, call-back inspection, Mr. Burke prepared a Callback Inspection Report on which he noted violations first observed during the routine inspection conducted on April 26, 2007, but which had not been corrected on April 27, 2007. In accordance with applicable guidelines, Mr. Burke issued a warning to the establishment's owners and gave them 30 days or until May 27, 2007, to correct the uncorrected violations observed on April 27, 2007. This warning appeared on the April 27, 2007, Callback Inspection Report which was given to Mrs. Nunez. On May 31, 2007, Mr. Burke performed a second call-back inspection at Demills Family Restaurant. During this call-back inspection, Mr. Burke observed and cited the violations previously cited on the April 27, 2007, Call-Back Inspection Report that had not been corrected. These violations are discussed below. Violation No. 02-13, one of the uncorrected violations, involved the establishment's failure to provide a consumer advisory on raw/undercooked meat. This violation was based on information provided by personnel in the kitchen that hamburgers in the establishment are "cooked to order." In light of this policy, there are some customers who will likely order hamburgers that are undercooked. In those instances, pathogens may not be eliminated from the meat. Thus, establishments, such as Respondent, are required to inform customers of the significantly increased risk of eating such meat. After the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection and prior to this proceeding, the owners of the establishment posted signs throughout the dining room area which warned customers about the risks of consuming raw or undercooked foods (i.e., meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish or eggs). Violation No. 02-13 is a critical violation, but not one that is required to be corrected within 24 hours. Rather, this was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation after it was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Violation No. 32-15-1, one of the uncorrected violations, involved Respondent's failure to have hand-wash signs at the sinks designated for use by employees. The display of hand-washing signs at these sinks is important because it reminds employees to wash their hands, which helps prevent the transmission of food-borne disease by employees. This was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation and one which was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Mr. Nunez does not dispute that at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, there were no hand-wash signs. However, since that time, he has placed signs that notify employees to wash their hands. These signs are placed at all hand-wash sinks used by employees, including the one in the cooks' kitchen and in the waitresses' station, and are clearly visible to the employees. The establishment also has hand-wash signs at all sinks in the establishment, including those used by customers. Violation No. 37-14-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on part of the ceiling in the establishment being in disrepair. Specifically, the section of the ceiling that was in disrepair was above a food storage area which contained "open food product." This offense is not classified as a critical violation under the Food and Drug Administration or under Florida law. Mr. Nunez does not dispute that part of the ceiling in the establishment was in disrepair at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection and the previous April 2007 inspections. Although Mr. Nunez was aware of the problem, he had to rely on the landlord of the building in which the establishment was located to repair the roof. The problems with the roof contributed to the ceiling being in disrepair. Finally, after about four years of asking the landlord to repair the roof, after the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, the landlord had the roof repaired. The roof repairs are still not complete. However, based on the roof repairs that were completed by early to mid September 2007, Mr. Nunez was able to repair the section of the ceiling at issue in this proceeding. These ceiling repairs were completed by or near the middle of September 2007. Violation No. 37-14-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on Mr. Burke observing that the establishment's exit sign in the dining room was not properly illuminated. The requirement for exit signs to be illuminated is a safety issue. This was a critical violation because it was a repeat violation and one that was not corrected within the 30-day call-back period. Mr. and Mrs. Nunez do not dispute that at the time of the call-back inspection of May 31, 2007, the exit sign was not illuminated. The problem was caused by a problem with a wire in the sign. The person who does electrical work in the establishment had been out-of-town for several weeks and was unavailable to repair the exit sign. However, about three days after the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, after the repair person returned, he repaired the exit sign; since then, it is properly illuminated. Violation No. 47-16-1, an uncorrected violation, was based on Mr. Burke observing an uncovered electrical box. The box needed to be covered to protect the breaker and to protect the employees and anyone else who had access to the box. This uncorrected violation was a critical violation at the time of the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection. Mrs. Nunez does not dispute that there was an electrical box that was uncovered on May 31, 2007. However, Mrs. Nunez testified that during the initial walk-through in April 2007, Mr. Burke showed her the uncovered electrical box that was located above the walk-in freezer. At that time, the cover was off the electrical box and the wires were exposed. Mrs. Nunez thought that the electrical box above the walk-in freezer was the only electrical box that was cited as a violation after the April 27, 2007, call-back inspection. Based on that understanding, that violation was corrected. However, during the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, Mr. Burke showed Mrs. Nunez another electrical box in the establishment that was in violation of applicable provisions. Until that time Mrs. Nunez had not been told, and was not aware, that the second electrical box constituted a violation. This mistake on her part was likely caused by the fact that the structure of the second electrical box was completely different from that of the electrical box over the walk-in freezer. The electrical box over the walk-in freezer had wires which were exposed when the box was not covered. On the other hand, the second electrical box resembles a fuse box and did not have any exposed wires. Violation No. 28-02-1 involved the reuse of single- service articles. This violation is based on Mr. Burke observing Respondent's employees reusing plastic food containers, such as the ones sour cream and cottage cheese are in when delivered to the establishment. Such plastic containers should not be used once the food is exhausted. The reason is that the plastic in such containers is not "food service grade for sanitation purposes." Violation No. 28-02-1 is a non- critical violation. The owners of the establishment do not contest Violation No. 28-02-1, related to the reuse of single-service articles. Mrs. Nunez testified that she purchased containers that could be reused and instructed appropriate staff to use those containers. After being given those instructions, the employees told Mrs. Nunez that they were no longer reusing containers for single-service articles although they were doing so. However, as a result of the violation cited during the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection, Mrs. Nunez is committed to checking to ensure that employees are not reusing the plastic containers for single-service articles. Violation No. 61-13-1 is based on Mr. Burke observing that no Heimlich sign was posted in the establishment. The purpose of the Heimlich sign is to provide information in the event a customer in the restaurant is choking. This is a non- critical violation because it makes customers aware in the event of a choking situation. In July 2007, Mr. Nunez left his job as a project engineer to become involved in the day-to-day operations of the Demills Family Restaurant after he realized there were problems at the restaurant that required his attention. Among the issues Mr. Nunez had to initially deal with were the violations cited in the May 31, 2007, Call-Back Inspection Report. Throughout the initial inspection and the call-back inspections, the owners have cooperated with Mr. Burke and corrected most of the violations for which the establishment was cited. Mr. Burke has not conducted an inspection of the Demills Family Restaurant since the May 31, 2007, call-back inspection. However, since that time, all the violations which are the subject of this proceeding have been corrected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent, Demills Family Restaurant, violated Food Code Rules 3-603.11, 4-502.13(a) and 6-301.14; Florida Administrative Code Rules 61C-1.004(2)(C), 61C-1.004(6) and 61C-1.004(10); and NFPA Rule 70.300.31. Imposing a total administrative fine of $2,800 for the foregoing violations. Requiring Respondent (through its employees and/or owners) to attend, at personal expense, an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 2007.
The Issue The 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 Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated December 29, 2009, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is the state agency responsible for inspecting and regulating public food service establishments in Florida. See section 509.032(1), Florida Statutes. Carvel is a food service establishment licensed and regulated by the Department and located at 3148 Coral Way, Miami, Florida 33145. On July 22, 2009, Jorge Gandolff, a senior inspector of public food service establishments employed by the Division, inspected the premises of Carvel. As an inspector for the Division, Mr. Gandolff was required to complete a Food Service Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-016 and -015 ("Form HR 5022-016 and -15"), for each public food service establishment that he inspected. During the inspection of Carvel, Mr. Gandolff noted that Carvel was not in compliance with a number of the items listed on the Form HR 5022-016 and -15 inspection report. Mr. Gandolff noted that, among other things, he "observed soiled reach-in freezer gaskets"; "observed buildup of soiled material on mixer head"; "observed buildup of slime in the interior of ice machine"; observed that "covered waste receptacle not provided in women's bathroom"; "observed food stored on floor"; "observed food container not properly labeled." It was Mr. Gandolff's practice, and the usual practice of Division inspectors, to complete the Form HR 5022-016 and -15 inspection report and record the violations he observed at a public food service establishment on a personal digital computer. At the end of the inspection, it was his practice to obtain the signature of the person in charge on the Form HR 5022-016 and -15 inspection report, print a copy of the report, and review the violations that had been noted with the person in charge. Mr. Gandolff followed his usual practice in completing the inspection of Carvel on July 22, 2009. He prepared a Form HR 5022-016 and -15 Food Service Inspection Report setting forth his findings and noted on the report that Carvel "MET INSPECTION STANDARDS during this visit" and that "ANY VIOLATIONS noted herein must be corrected by the NEXT UNANNOUNCED INSPECTION." (Emphasis in original.) Zoila Fernandez, an employee of Carvel, signed the inspection form, and Mr. Gandolff went over the inspection findings with her. Mr. Gandolff inspected the premises of Carvel for the second time on November 24, 2009. In addition to several other violations, Mr. Gandolff noted on the Form HR 5022-016 and -15 inspection report that he again "observed soiled reach-in freezer gaskets"; "observed buildup of soiled material on mixer head"; "observed buildup of slime in the interior of ice machine"; observed that "covered waste receptacle not provided in women's bathroom"; "observed food stored on walk-in cooler floor Cardboard boxes of chocolate chip"; "observed food container not properly labeled ice cream containers not labeled stored inside self service freezer in customer area." These six items were considered repeat violations; that is, these items were found to be out of compliance with the Food Code at the July 22, 2009, inspection. In addition, these six items were marked with an asterisk on the Form HR 5022-016 and - 15 inspection report, which designated them as "critical" violations. Mr. Gandolff recommended that these items be included as violations in an Administrative Complaint. Mr. Gandolff also noted on the Form HR 5022-016 and -15 inspection report that the "Inspector determined violations require further review, but are not an immediate threat to the public." Zoila Reyes, an employee of Carvel who was on the premises during the November 24, 2009, inspection signed the inspection report. She was not able to accompany Mr. Gandolff during the entire inspection because the store was busy, but Mr. Gandolff went over the inspection report with her. Ms. Shah was not present during either of the inspections. It is her practice to come into the store early and prepare the store to open. Her preparations include cleaning the premises and the equipment. Mr. Gandolff found three items during both the July 22, 2009, and November 24, 2009, inspections that he wrote up as a single violation of the Food Code and that he considered the most serious violation of the Food Code. The first item was the build-up of food on the mixer head that was not just the normal amount of build-up that occurs during a workday but was old, dry, and crusted. Mr. Gandolff considered this a serious condition because this piece of equipment came in direct contact with food and could contaminate it. The second item was the slime build-up inside the interior of the ice machine, which Mr. Gandolff considered a serious condition because the ice came into direct contact with the interior of the ice machine and could be contaminated by the slime. The third item was the soiled gaskets on the reach-in freezer that was a black residue probably resulting from the buildup of old product. Mr. Gandolff considered this a serious condition because the freezer gaskets are very close to the product in the freezer, and the product could be contaminated if it came into contact with the gaskets. The violation Mr. Gandolff considered the next most serious violation of the Food Code found during both the July 22, 2009, and November 24, 2009, inspections was a cardboard box containing chocolate chips stored directly on the floor of the walk-in cooler because the food product inside the box could be contaminated by water or any other residue on the floor of the cooler, especially if, as here, the food product is stored in a cardboard box that could absorb water from the cooler floor. In addition, Mr. Gandolff considered the absence of labels on containers of ice cream stored in a freezer accessible to customers to be a serious violation of the Food Code because a customer must be able to look at the label on the food product and know the ingredients in the product and the date the product was prepared so the customer can make a determination if the product is safe for them to eat. Mr. Gandolff also considered the uncovered trash receptacle in the women's bathroom a serious violation of the Food Code because such receptacles must be covered to avoid exposure of women's sanitary napkins. These violations are all critical violations because they pose a significant danger to the public health and because they are identified as critical violations on the inspection report forms Mr. Gandolff completed on July 22, 2009, and November 24, 2009, recording his observations of the Carvel premises. Ms. Shah has owned the Carvel store for approximately 14 years, and, during that time, the store has not been cited for any violations as a result of inspections by the Division. The Carvel store owned by Ms. Shah is very small and, because of the poor economic conditions of recent years, Ms. Shah makes very little money at the store and is barely able to keep the business open. Summary The evidence presented by the Division is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that there were five repeat violations of the Food Code on the premises of Carvel during the November 24, 2009, inspection. Ms. Shah failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the violations observed by Mr. Gandolff were not present. First, her explanation of the missing cover on the waste receptacle in the women's bathroom, that the receptacle had just been emptied and that the cover was sitting on the floor beside the receptacle, could have explained the missing cover during the first inspection, but the same explanation would have presented too much of a coincidence to be a persuasive explanation for the missing cover at the second inspection. Second, Ms. Shah's categorical denial that any equipment on the store's premises was soiled or otherwise not perfectly clean, her testimony that she cleans everything in the store every morning; that the equipment is cleaned continually during the day; and that all supplies are stored properly in the walk-in cooler and her testimony is not sufficient to refute the specific observations noted by Mr. Gandolff on the inspection reports. Finally, Ms. Shah's testimony that all pre-packed ice cream available for purchase in the store's self-service freezer is packed in containers with labels provided by Carvel, Inc. In the absence of information regarding the content of the labels provided by Carvel, Inc., Ms. Shah's testimony does not refute the Mr. Gandolff's contention that the containers of ice cream did not have labels disclosing the date the ice cream was packed into the containers and the ingredients in the ice cream.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order. Finding Carvel Ice Cream Bakery guilty of having violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-4.010(1)(c) and Food Code Rules 3-305.11; 3-602.11(A); 4-602.11(C) and (D); and 5-501.17; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $525.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Patricia M. Hart Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2011.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint 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 (2006). At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a restaurant located at 7551 West Waters Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33615, holding Food Service license number 3903935. On July 11, 2006, Richard Decker, a senior inspector representing the Petitioner, performed a routine inspection of the Respondent that resulted in emergency closure of the restaurant due to a roach infestation problem. The inspection report stated that the deadline for correcting the roach problem was July 12, 2006, and the matter was apparently resolved in a timely manner. Mr. Decker found additional violations of applicable Food Code regulations on July 11, 2006, which were cited in a written Food Service Inspection Report, a copy of which was provided to restaurant owner Anthony Della Monica on the date of the inspection. Mr. Decker's inspection identified critical and non- critical violations. Critical Food Code violations pose serious public health risk due to potential transmission of food-borne illness. Critical life safety violations such as blocked exits increase the risk of public injury. Violations that do not pose a direct and imminent public health risk are identified as non- critical. Other than as set forth herein, the violations cited during the July inspections were to have been corrected by the time of Mr. Decker's August 15, 2006, re-inspection. Many of the previously cited violations had not been corrected at that time. The August 15, 2006, re-inspection report was received by Mr. Della Monica on the date of the inspection. Mr. Decker again re-inspected the restaurant on October 20, 2006. Several violations previously cited in July remained uncorrected at that time. The October 20, 2006, re- inspection report was received by Head Chef Kurt Clasen on the date of the inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for failing to have a certified food manager on the premises and for lacking of proof that employees had received food safety training. Such training was intended to reduce the potential for transmission of food-borne illness. These violations were deemed critical. Although Mr. Decker established an extended deadline of October 11, 2006, to correct the certified food manager and employee training violations, they remained uncorrected by the October 20, 2006, re-inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for lacking a hand sink in the dishwashing area and noted that a hand sink at the rear of the kitchen was being used for food preparation. The requirements related to hand sinks were intended to reduce the potential for transmission of food- borne illness. The violations of the requirements were deemed critical. The Respondent still lacked a hand sink in the dishwashing area at the time of both re-inspections. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for using extension cords on a non-temporary basis to power equipment in the kitchen. The Respondent's improper electrical cord use was a fire hazard and was deemed a critical violation. By law, extension cords can only be used on a temporary basis. The cited extension cords remained in use by the Respondent at the time of both re-inspections. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for removing food products from original packaging and storing them in unlabeled containers, a critical violation that increased the risk of confusing food products with non- edible products such as cleaning chemicals. The violation remained uncorrected at the time of both re-inspections. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for lacking a chemical testing kit used to ascertain that the dishwasher sanitization function was operating properly. Lack of proper sanitation increased the potential for transmission of food-borne illness. The violation, deemed critical, was not corrected by the time of either re-inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for failing to have a visible thermometer in a pizza- holding unit. The inability to monitor food-holding temperatures increased the potential for transmission of food- borne illness and was a critical violation. The violation was uncorrected at the time of the August re-inspection as it should have been, but it had been remedied by the October re- inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Decker cited the Respondent for the lack of light bulb shields in a food service area, which increased the risk that food could be contaminated by glass in the event of light bulb breakage. This was deemed a non-critical violation and remained uncorrected at the time of either re-inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order imposing a fine of $3,800 against the Respondent and requiring the Respondent to complete an appropriate educational program related to the violations identified herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2007, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Della Monica Mama D's Pasta & Grille 1819 Audubon Street Clearwater, Florida 33764 Jessica Leigh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 William Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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 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 for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated June 27, 2011, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Restaurant was licensed as a public food service establishment in the State of Florida by the Department, having been issued license type 2010 and license number 1620035. At all times material hereto, the Restaurant was located at 1145 South Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316. A critical violation in food service is considered to be a violation of the Food Code that, if not corrected, will most likely cause and is directly related to food-borne illness, food contamination, or environmental hazards. A non-critical violation in food service is considered to be a violation that is less likely to cause and will not directly contribute to food-borne illness or food contamination. On October 27, 2010, Lynden Lewis, an inspector with the Department, conducted a routine inspection of the Restaurant. During the inspection, Inspector Lewis found violations, which were considered to be critical and non- critical violations. Further, during the inspection, Inspector Lewis prepared a food inspection report, setting forth the alleged violations and that the violations were required to be corrected by the next unannounced inspection. The inspection report was signed by Inspector Lewis and a representative of the Restaurant. Inspector Lewis made the representative aware of the alleged violations and that the violations were required to be corrected by the next unannounced inspection, and he provided the representative with a copy of the inspection report. On June 16, 2011, Inspector Lewis and Begum Khatoon, an inspector with the Department, conducted an unannounced routine inspection of the Restaurant. Among other things, three critical violations were not corrected from the routine inspection of October 27, 2010. During the unannounced inspection, Inspector Khatoon prepared a food inspection report, setting forth, among other things, the alleged critical violations. The unannounced inspection report was signed by Inspector Khatoon and a representative of the Restaurant, and Inspector Khatoon provided the representative with a copy of the inspection report. Inspector Khatoon made the representative aware of the alleged violations and that an administrative complaint would be recommended. The most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on October 27, 2010, and was not corrected by June 16, 2011, was raw animal food was stored over ready-to-eat food--raw eggs were being stored over yogurt--in the reach-in cooler. This violation is critical because the ready-to-eat food (yogurt) has already been cooked and gone through the process of pathogenic destruction and will not go through that process again; whereas, the raw animal food (eggs) has not been cooked and not gone through the process of pathogenic destruction. Cross-contamination could occur from the raw animal food by dripping onto or touching of the ready-to-eat food, and any pathogens present on the ready-to-eat food, as a result of the cross-contamination, would pass-on to consumers when the ready-to-eat food is served. Mr. Rocchio's testimony that eggs are stored on the bottom of the refrigerator (reach-in cooler) is found to be credible; however, most importantly, the evidence fails to show that, on the day of the inspection, eggs were stored on the bottom of the refrigerator. The next most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on October 27, 2010, and was not corrected by June 16, 2011, was the hand wash sink in the kitchen was not accessible for employee use at all times. A garbage can was placed in front of the hand wash sink in the kitchen, making the sink inaccessible to employees at all times to wash their hands. Even though Mr. Rochhio testified, and his testimony is found to be credible, that the garbage can was "not a large garbage can," the evidence fails to show, most importantly, that the garbage can did not cause the hand wash sink to be inaccessible to the employees at all times. This violation is a critical violation because the hands of employees become contaminated as employees work and, if the handwash sink is not accessible, the employees will be discouraged from washing their hands. The next most serious alleged critical violation, which had been found on October 27, 2010, and was not corrected by June 16, 2011, was handwashing cleanser was lacking at the hand washing lavatory in the kitchen. This violation is a critical violation because hands are a vehicle of contamination, and the use of soap by employees, when washing their hands, removes bacteria and viruses that can contaminate the employees' hands.
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 that Valentinos Cucina Italiana violated section 509, Florida Statutes, through a violation of Food Code Rules 3-302.11(A)(1), 5-205.11(A), and 6-301.11; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $750.00 against Valentinos Cucina Italiana. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 25th day of July, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 25, 2008, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a public food service establishment in the State of Florida by the Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. Respondent's business address is "Szechuan Panda," 3830 Southwest 13th Street, Gainesville, Florida 32608. Critical violations are violations that, if not corrected, can have a direct impact on cross-contamination and food-borne illness. This, in turn, causes an immediate threat to public health. Non-critical violations are violations that, if not corrected, can have an impact on the creation of critical violations. On December 19, 2007, Inspector Daniel Fulton performed a Complaint Food Service Inspection at Szechuan Panda. During that inspection, Inspector Fulton prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth violations he encountered during the inspection. From the time it was prepared until the date of the hearing, the inspection report has not been altered. On December 19, 2007, Mr. Fulton observed live roaches in Szechuan Panda in both the food preparation and food service areas. Inspector Fulton cited this as a critical violation because live roaches carry many diseases. Those diseases can be spread when the roaches crawl over clean or unclean food preparation equipment in their search for food and accordingly contaminate food preparation surfaces. On December 19, 2007, food was being stored at Szechuan Panda directly on the floor. When the terminology "directly on the floor" is used, it includes any food that could be contaminated by ordinary mopping. That is, food stored in a container which is not impervious to water, such as a cardboard container, or a plastic container which does not have a top and the sides of which are so low that mopping might contaminate its contents. On December 19, 2007, improper utensils were being used to scoop out food from food containers. According to Mr. Fulton, this is a critical violation because without the usage of a proper utensil with a handle, cross-contamination can occur when the food product touches an employee’s hand. On December 19, 2007, the carbon dioxide/helium tanks in Szechuan Panda were not adequately secured. According to Mr. Fulton, this is a violation because if the tanks become unsecured all of the pressure inside can cause the tanks to shoot off uncontrollably in an elliptical or variable pattern so as to damage anyone or anything with which they come in contact. On December 19, 2007, grease was built-up on non-food contact surfaces. Mr. Fulton cited this as a violation because such debris is enticing for consumption by any present rodents and/or roaches. Rodents and roaches carry diseases that can lead to cross contamination. On March 5, 2008, Mr. Fulton prepared a Complaint Inspection Report at Szechuan Panda in which some of the previously noted violations had not been corrected. From the time it was prepared until the date of hearing the report was not altered. On March 5, 2008, Mr. Fulton again observed live roaches in Szechuan Panda, in both the food preparation and food service areas. He cited this as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 5, 2008, dead roaches were observed throughout the business. Mr. Fulton cited this as a critical violation because live roaches will eat the carcasses of dead roaches, causing further cross-contamination, and because the presence of dead roaches also shows a general lack of cleanliness and due care. On March 5, 2008, cold foods were held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. According to Mr. Fulton, this is a critical violation because bacteria grows quicker, the closer food is held to 98 degrees Fahrenheit. Also on March 5, 2008, hot foods were held at a temperature less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit. Mr. Fulton classified this as a critical violation because any bacteria present on the food will grow, once the temperature drops below 135 degrees Fahrenheit. On March 5, 2008, foods in both the dining area and food storage areas at Szechuan Panda were not properly covered. This was classified as a critical violation because cross- contamination can occur by way of any bacteria present being easily transferable to the exposed food. On March 5, 2008, food also was being stored directly on the floor as previously described. On March 5, 2008, improper utensils were again being used to scoop out food from food containers. Mr. Fulton considered this a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 5, 2008, food contact services were encrusted with grease, and soil deposits were present in food containers. Mr. Fulton listed this as a critical violation because an unidentified slime growing within a food container poses a health risk that can possibly cross-contaminate other foods. On March 5, 2008, in-use utensils for non-potentially hazardous foods were not being stored in a clean, protective place. Mr. Fulton considered this a violation because any harmful debris present on the unit being used for storage can become stuck on the utensil. On March 5, 2008, the carbon dioxide helium tanks still were not adequately secured. This was listed as a violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 5, 2008, grease was built up on non-food contact surfaces. This was listed as a violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 5, 2008, a black substance was present on the wall around the dish-washing area. This was listed as a violation because the substance observed appeared mold-like, thus showing a lack of cleanliness. On March 6, 2008, Inspector Fulton prepared a call- back inspection report at Szechuan Panda noting that some of the violations remained uncorrected. From the time it was prepared until the date of the hearing, the call-back report has not been altered. On March 6, 2008, cold foods were held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. This was noted as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 6, 2008, hot foods were held at a temperature less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit. This was noted as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 6, 2008, foods in both the dining area and food storage area of Szechuan Panda were not properly covered, and this was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 6, 2008, a black substance was present on the wall around the dish-washing area. This was listed as a violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, Mr. Fulton prepared a complaint inspection report at Szechuan Panda in which some of the violations still were not corrected. From the time it was prepared until the date of the hearing, the report has not been altered. On March 24, 2008, dead roaches were observed throughout the business. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. Although some dead roaches may be evidence of attempts to exterminate all of a roach infestation as testified-to by Respondent, the presence of dead roaches also shows a general lack of cleanliness and due care. On March 24, 2008, cold foods were held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, hot foods were held at a temperature less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, foods in both the dining area and food storage area of Szechuan Panda were not properly covered. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, food was still being stored directly on the floor. On March 24, 2008, improper utensils were being used to scoop out food from food containers, This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, food contact surfaces were encrusted with grease, and soil deposits were present in food containers. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 24, 2008, in-use utensils for non-potentially hazardous foods were not being stored in a clean, protective place. This was listed as a violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 30, 2008, Mr. Fulton prepared a call-back inspection report at Szechuan Panda in which some of the previous violations were not corrected. From the time it was prepared until the date of the hearing the call-back report has not been altered. On March 30, 2008, cold foods were held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 30, 2008, hot foods were held at a temperature less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 30, 2008, foods in both the dining area and food storage areas were not properly covered. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. On March 30, 2008, food contact surfaces were encrusted with grease, and soil deposits were present in food containers. This was listed as a critical violation for the reasons previously stated. As to most violations described by Mr. Fulton, Respondent Kang only protested that Chinese cooking was not conducive to meeting the regulations. He also apparently was not present when each of the foregoing inspections was made, so his testimony as to why certain foods were above or below the permissible temperatures; were stored on the floor; or otherwise met standards is not persuasive. Mr. Kang's testimony with regard to his quest for reputable and effective exterminators and his contracts with successive exterminators is credible. The area being largely clear of roaches after he hired a new exterminator is also noted. However, even giving Respondent all due credit for correcting certain inspection violations by call-back or subsequent inspection dates, his testimony as a whole does not evoke confidence in the cleanliness of the licensed establishment. Particularly, Mr. Kang’s defenses that "live roaches came with purchased goods or were quickly killed" by the pest control company, and that dead roaches are swept out at the end of each day but there are more roaches when the restaurant opens the following morning, do not help his situation much. Most troubling is that Mr. Kang described a procedure whereby, although the restaurant is cleaned at the conclusion of each serving day, dead roaches are not swept out the following morning but are allowed to remain where they lie until the restaurant is cleaned entirely at the end of the second work day. Likewise, Mr. Kang's testimony also indicates his lack of understanding of the Department's requirements for maintaining "safe" food temperatures. Mr. Fulton explained that most buffets use time and temperature for public health control, but he further testified that, per the regulations he goes by, a restaurateur may keep foods "out of temperature" only up to four hours, and to legitimately do so, pursuant to the Food Code, the restaurateur must write a statement explaining the precautions he has taken, and further state therein that if his food “out of temperature” is not sold within a four-hour period, it will be discarded. Then, with the foregoing statement displayed, that restaurateur must maintain a record with his foregoing posted declaration, on which he keeps track of each time food is taken "off temperature," and each time food is put "on temperature." Respondent posts no such declaration or record. Mr. Kang’s assertion that some of his prior inspection troubles were caused by disgruntled former employees has been considered, as has been his living in another city far from the location of his restaurant, so as to care for his disabled wife. However, his wife’s acute care situation occurred four or five years ago and none of his employee problems seem to be current. In any case, none of these concerns excuse a licensee from meeting the applicable statutory and rule requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent’s Hotels and Restaurant license, effective the first Monday, after 30 days from the date the final order is filed with the Agency Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 2008.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether on July 14, 2011, and October 13, 2011, Respondent was in compliance with 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. Ms. Jessica Gabbard has been employed as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Division for two years. She previously worked for the Department of Agriculture in the Bureau of Animal Disease Control for about eight years. She has had training, including monthly in-house training and field training in food inspection. She conducts between 600 and 800 inspections of food service establishments for safety and sanitation each year. Ms. Judy Hentges is a Senior Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Division, where she has been employed for 12 years. She also has had training in food inspection, and conducts between 800 and 1000 inspections of food service establishments each year. Respondent is licensed as a permanent public food- service establishment operating as the Hong Yip Chinese Restaurant at 905 Southwest Main Boulevard, Lake City, Florida. As the hearing began, it became apparent that the owner of Respondent, Mr. Dong Jia Qi, who speaks very little English, was not present. Representing the restaurant was Mr. He Dong, manager of the restaurant, and son of the owner. Mr. Dong was present during the inspections that are the subject of this proceeding, interacted with Petitioner's agents on those occasions, and signed the inspection reports. Under all of the circumstances, including the fact that Mr. Dong demonstrated both knowledge of the applicable statutes and rules and the ability to capably and responsibly represent Respondent, Mr. Dong was accepted as both a Qualified Representative and as a witness. On July 14, 2011, Inspector Hentges conducted a food service inspection on Respondent. Inspector Hentges prepared an inspection report on her Personal Data Assistant (PDA) setting forth the violations that she observed during the inspection. During her July inspection, Ms. Hentges observed that Respondent was using dry, powdered food products that had been removed from their original containers and that the products' substitute working containers were not labeled with their common names. Storage of dry, powdered food products in unmarked working containers can cause mistakes in preparation that can be serious to consumers due to product allergies. The Division has determined such storage in working containers poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and has identified this as a critical violation on the DBPR Form HR-5022-015, Food Service Inspection Report. Ms. Hentges observed during the July inspection that Respondent was storing rice and onions in uncovered containers in the walk-in cooler. DBPR Form HR-5022-015, Food Service Inspection Report, indicates that this is a critical violation. Uncovered containers can lead to food contamination by particles, by debris, and by microbes, and the Division of Hotels and Restaurants has determined that this constitutes a significant threat to the public health, safety and welfare. During the July inspection, Ms. Hentges observed a rice scoop on the buffet which was stored in standing water that was less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit, and noted this on the report. During the July inspection, Ms. Hentges also observed that a wet cloth used for wiping food spills from equipment surfaces was sitting on the counter and was not stored between uses in a chemical sanitizing solution, and noted this in her report. Wet wiping cloths can be breeding grounds for pathogens that can transfer to food. On October 13, 2011, Ms. Gabbard conducted a callback inspection on Respondent. She prepared a handwritten report on DBPR Form HR 5022-015 setting forth violations that she observed. Ms. Gabbard testified that she observed powdered food products at the cooking preparation line that had been removed from their original containers and placed in working containers not marked with their common names. She recorded this information in her report. Mr. Dong testified that he had corrected the labeling problem on the "big bucket" that stored the sugar, cornstarch, salt, and flours that had been written up in the July inspection. Mr. Dong testified that on the callback inspection the problem was written-up because of different products found in another area, on top of the reach-in cooler, in a see-through container containing peanuts, sesame seed, cashew nuts, and another Chinese product that is a dried root. Ms. Gabbard testified in cross-examination that she did not remember any nuts. Her report indicates "all powdered food products." The report further indicates this violation was "at cookline prepline." Ms. Gabbard's testimony is credited. The unlabeled products Ms. Gabbard observed and noted in her violations report were powdered products at the cookline that could easily be confused, not foods that could be easily and unmistakably recognized, such as peanuts, cashews, and sesame seeds on top of the reach-in cooler. Ms. Gabbard observed uncovered rice and onions in the walk-in cooler. She recorded this in her report. Mr. Dong provided no contradictory testimony at hearing. Respondent did testify that that the film he used to cover the rice and onions did not stick on the aluminum containers used to store the food. Ms. Gabbard observed a rice scoop at the buffet that was being kept in standing water which was less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit, noting this fact in her report. She took the temperature of the water and recorded that it was 45 degrees Fahrenheit. Mr. Dong testified that that they always keep ice in the water to keep it below 41 degrees Fahrenheit. He testified that the water had just been changed so that the ice may have just melted, though he thought ice was still present. He acknowledged that the water was 45 degrees Fahrenheit as measured with the thermometer. Mr. Dong's testimony that he recently put ice in the container is credible, and the temperature of the water would have been room temperature if this had not been done. The water in which the rice scoop at the buffet line was being stored was 45 degrees Fahrenheit. Ms. Gabbard also observed wet wiping cloths that were not being stored in sanitizing solution between uses, but were located in multiple locations on the counter. She recorded this in her report at the time of the inspection. Mr. Dong admitted the violation at the time of the July inspection. He testified that at the time of the callback inspection in October he was using one cloth and the rest were not in use, but had been cleaned and were hanging on the table to dry. In response, Ms. Gabbard testified that there were multiple cloths around the restaurant laying on the counter. Her testimony was corroborated by her inspection report, prepared at the time of the inspection, which noted, "[o]bserved wet wiping cloth not stored in sanitizing solution between uses. Repeat violation. Located in multiple locations on counter." Mr. Dong's testimony on this violation was less credible than Inspector Gabbard's, and her testimony is credited. The wet wiping cloths had not been cleaned, but had been used, and were not being stored between uses in a chemical sanitizer. Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent for the above violations on October 24, 2011. Additional evidence introduced at hearing showed that Respondent has had five previous disciplinary Final Orders entered within 24 months of the Administrative Complaint issued in this case. In the first Stipulation and Consent Order, signed by Mr. Dong on October 20, 2009, and filed on December 3, 2009, Respondent agreed to pay a fine of $500.00, but did not admit nor deny the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint, which would have constituted critical violations. In the second Stipulation and Consent Order, signed by Mr. Dong on January 8, 2010, and entered on March 2, 2010, Respondent agreed to pay a fine of $650.00, but again did not admit or deny the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint, some of which would have constituted critical violations. In the third Stipulation and Consent Order, signed by Mr. Dong on an unknown date, and entered on May 31, 2011, Respondent agreed to a suspension of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants license for one day. Respondent did not admit or deny the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint, which would have constituted critical violations. In the fourth Stipulation and Consent Order, signed by Mr. Dong on an unknown date, and entered on May 31, 2011, Respondent agreed to a suspension of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants license for one day. Respondent did not admit or deny the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint, which would have constituted a critical violation. In the fifth Stipulation and Consent Order, signed by Mr. Dong on an unknown date, and entered on May 31, 2011, Respondent agreed to a suspension of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants license for one day. Respondent did not admit or deny the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint, which would have constituted critical violations.
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: Dismissing Counts 2 and 6 of the Administrative Complaint and Finding the Hong Yip Chinese Restaurant in violation of two critical and two non-critical violations and suspending its license for three consecutive days beginning the first Monday after 40 days from the date the final order becomes effective. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 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 6th day of November, 2012.
