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 are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated October 20, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a public food establishment, licensed and regulated by the Division. Respondent's license number is 5810388. Respondent's address is 2595 South Hiawassee Road, Orlando, Florida 32835. Norma Gordon is employed by the Division as a sanitation and safety specialist and has worked in that position for four years. Ms. Gordon's job responsibilities include inspecting public food establishments that are regulated by the Division. To effectively carry out job responsibilities, Ms. Gordon had been trained in the areas of Food and Drug standardization, as well as the laws and rules related to the Food Code. Moreover, Ms. Gordon has successfully completed certified manager training. As part of her job, Ms. Gordon participates in monthly continuing education. During her employment with the Division, Ms. Gordon conducts about 1,000 inspections annually. On July 22, 2008, Ms. Gordon conducted a routine inspection of the premises of China No. 1. During the inspection, Ms. Gordon observed about 15 violations, eight of which were deemed to be critical violations. Ms. Gordon set forth her findings and listed all the violations on a Food Service Inspection Report on the day of the inspection. That same day, Ms. Gordon provided a copy of the report to Frank Liu, food manager for Respondent. The Food Service Inspection Report notified Mr. Liu that a call back inspection would be conducted on September 22, 2008, to determine if the violations had been corrected. Mr. Liu signed the Food Service Inspection Report on July 22, 2008, acknowledging that he received a copy of the Inspection Report. On September 23, 2008, Ms. Gordon conducted a call back inspection of China No. 1. During that call back inspection, Ms. Gordon observed several violations that were reported on the Food Service Inspection Report issued on July 22, 2008, but that had not yet been corrected. Ms. Gordon recorded the uncorrected violations that she observed and verified during the September 23, 2008, callback inspection on a Call Back Inspection Report form. That Call Back Inspection Report was completed on September 23, 2008, and signed by Mr. Liu. The uncorrected violations observed and verified on September 23, 2008, are set forth below in paragraphs 9 through 13. The first uncorrected violation was that raw animal foods were not properly separated from each other in the holding unit. Ms. Gordon observed raw chicken stored above the raw beef and vegetables in the upright reach-in freezer. This was a critical violation because food must be protected from cross-contamination. For example, the raw chicken has salmonella, which requires that it be cooked at a certain temperature. Cross-contamination may occur when raw meat products are not separated from each other and/or are stored next to vegetables, because the meats and vegetables have different cooking temperatures. The second uncorrected violation was that Respondent did not have a thermometer available to measure the temperature of the food products. This is a critical violation because such a device is necessary to ensure that foods are prepared and maintained at appropriate temperatures. The third uncorrected violation was that the bathroom door in the establishment was being left open at times other than during the cleaning or maintenance of the facility. This is deemed to be a critical violation. The fourth uncorrected violation was that the restroom was in disrepair. Respondent's establishment had only one toilet. That one toilet had no handle or mechanical device that could be used to flush the toilet. Instead, there was a string tied to the toilet and the handicap bar in the stall. Somehow this mechanism was "rigged" so that in order to flush the toilet, a person had to pull the string that was tied to the handicap bar in the stall. The fifth uncorrected violation was based on the medium build-up of grease on the hood filters above the cooking area. This is a non-critical violation, but can become a critical violation if the equipment is not maintained and cleaned. If the equipment in the cooking area is not kept clean, dust, debris and other residue will accumulate and may fall in the cooking area and/or in the food being cooked. Respondent presented no evidence to establish that the violations described above were corrected on September 23, 2008. Moreover, Mr. Liu did not dispute the evidence presented. His testimony was that most of the violations were corrected in December 2008, which was after the call back inspection. Critical violations are violations that can contribute to food contamination, illness, environmental degradation and/or environmental hazard. Non-critical violations are those which, initially, do not pose an immediate threat. However, if such violations remain uncorrected, they may turn into critical violations. On or about March 21, 2008, the Division issued an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner alleging violations of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and/or rules promulgated thereto. The charges set out in that Administrative Complaint were based on inspections conducted on September 27, 2007, and February 27, 2008. No hearing was held in the matter. Rather, the matter was resolved in April 2008, pursuant to a Stipulation and Consent Order executed by the Division and Respondent. Pursuant to that Stipulation, Respondent agreed to pay a $2,300.00 fine and have its manager and employee attend the Hospitality Education Program.
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, China No. 1, violated Food Code Rules 3-302.11(A)(2), 4-302.12, 4-601.11(C) and 6-202.14; and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(2)(a) and (b); Imposing a total administrative fine of $5,000.00 against Respondent. The total administrative fine shall be paid to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 days of the agency entering its final order in this case; and Requiring Respondent (through its employees, owners, and/or managers) to attend, at personal expense, an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2009.
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 3100 Northwest 17th Avenue, Miami, Florida, and holding food service license number 2328990. On May 19, 2010, and July 23, 2010, Respondent was inspected by Reginald Garcia, a sanitation and safety specialist employed by the Division. During both visits, Mr. Garcia noticed multiple items that were not in compliance with the laws which govern the facilities and operations of licensed restaurants. Through the testimony of Mr. Garcia and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, the Division presented clear and convincing evidence that as of July 23, 2010, the following deficiencies subsisted at Respondent Alma Caribe Café Restaurant: (1) potentially hazardous food held at a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit, contrary to Food Code Rule 3-501.16(A); (2) potentially hazardous food not cooled from 135 to 41 degrees Fahrenheit within six hours, in violation of Food Code Rule 3-501.14(A); (3) holding equipment incapable of maintaining potentially hazardous food at proper temperatures, in violation of Food Code Rule 4-301.11; (4) raw food stored over cooked food, contrary to Food Code Rule 3- 302.11(A)(1); and (5) no proof of required employee training, in violation of section 509.049, Florida Statutes. Each of the foregoing deficiencies is considered a critical violation by the Division. Critical food code violations are those that, if uncorrected, present an immediate threat to public safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order: (a) finding Respondent guilty in accordance with the foregoing Recommended Order; and (b) ordering Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $1250, to be paid within 30 days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2011, 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 20th day of December, 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 (2003). The Respondent is a restaurant located at 7924 Ulmerton Road in Largo, Florida, holding Permanent Food Service License No. 6213580. Fadil Rexhepi owns and operates the restaurant. On April 25, 2003, an employee representing the Petitioner performed a routine inspection of the Respondent and found violations of applicable Food Code regulations. The violations were noted in a written report. The inspector provided a copy of the report identifying the violations to the person in charge of the restaurant on the date of the inspection, and scheduled a re-inspection for May 30, 2003. On May 30, 2003, the Petitioner’s employee re-inspected the Respondent and determined that some of the violations remained uncorrected. The violations were noted in a written report, a copy of which was provided to the person in charge of the restaurant on the date of the re-inspection. The owner of the restaurant was not present during either inspection. On August 28, 2003, the Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, alleging various continuing and uncorrected violations identified during the inspections. During the inspections on April 25, 2003, and May 30, 2003, food stored in reach-in units was not being maintained at an appropriate temperature of 41 degrees or below. The required storage temperature is intended to prevent development of toxic microorganisms that can result in food safety issues for persons consuming improperly stored food. On April 25, 2003, the inspector found that the temperature of meats, fish, poultry, meatloaf, and milk stored in the units ranged from 46 to 49 degrees. On May 30, 2003, the inspector found that the food temperatures in the same units ranged from 43 to 56 degrees. During the inspections on April 25, 2003, and May 30, 2003, two refrigeration units were not maintaining a proper temperature of 41 degrees or below. During the inspections on April 25, 2003, and May 30, 2003, the inspector noted that the thermal glass in a reach-in unit door was broken. The broken thermal glass results in inability to maintain proper temperatures. During the inspections on April 25, 2003, and May 30, 2003, the Respondent was unable to provide, at the request of the Petitioner's inspector, documentation that employees had completed food safety training. The purpose of food safety training is to permit employees to perform their duties in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Food Code. The Food Code regulation violations identified herein pose a direct threat to public safety.
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 $2,000 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2004, 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 16th day of July, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. McCalister, Qualified Representative Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Fadil Rexhepi 7924 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 33771 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue in this case is whether on April 5 and October 18, 2011, and on February 28, 2012, Respondent was in compliance with the food safety requirements of section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and implementing administrative rules of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and if not, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division) is responsible for monitoring all licensed food-service establishments in the state to ensure that they comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Mr. Douglas Peterson has been employed as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Division for five and one-half years. He previously worked in the restaurant industry for over 21 years, including eight years as a kitchen manager and five years as a restaurant assistant manager. He has had training, including monthly in-house training and field training, in food inspection. On average, he conducts about five safety and sanitation inspections of food-service establishments per day, and about 1000 inspections per year. China King is a licensed permanent public food-service establishment operating at 4941 East Busch Boulevard, Suite 120, in Tampa, Florida. The owner of China King, Mr. Chi Kin Chan, speaks very little English. Representing the restaurant was Mr. Chan’s daughter, Ms. Man Chan, who assists her father with the restaurant. Under all of the circumstances, including the facts that Ms. Chan helps operate the restaurant, demonstrated basic knowledge of applicable statutes and rules, and demonstrated her ability to capably and responsibly represent Respondent, Ms. Chan was accepted as a Qualified Representative. China King was inspected by Mr. Peterson on August 25, 2010, and October 26, 2010. The Administrative Complaint alleged violations based upon these inspections, and testimony and exhibits as to these violations were offered at hearing. However, an earlier Administrative Complaint relating to these inspections has already been settled, as discussed below. The Stipulation and Consent Order in the earlier case settled any violations based upon these inspections, and no purpose is served by delineating the details of those inspections here. On April 5, 2011, Inspector Peterson conducted another food service inspection on China King. Inspector Peterson prepared a Food Service Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022- 015, using his Personal Data Assistant (PDA) to record the violations that he observed during the inspection. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the report on behalf of China King. During the April inspection, Mr. Peterson observed that China King had ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on-site and held more than 24 hours that had not been properly date-marked in the walk-in cooler, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that lack of proper date marking poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. Mr. Peterson also observed during the April inspection that China King was storing food on the floor in the cooks’ line and in the preparation area, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that storing food on the floor poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. During the April inspection, Mr. Peterson observed the improper use of a plastic food container or other container with no handle being used to scoop or dispense food that was not ready-to-eat, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that using containers without handles to scoop or dispense food fails to minimize food contact with bare hands, and poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Division has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. On October 18, 2011, Mr. Peterson conducted another inspection of China King. Inspector Peterson again prepared an inspection report on DBPR Form HR 5022-015 using his PDA to record the violations that he observed. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the report on behalf of China King. During the October inspection, Mr. Peterson again observed ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on- site and held more than 24 hours that had not been properly date-marked in the walk-in cooler, including egg rolls, cooked chicken, pork, and shrimp. He recorded this information in his report, along with a notation that it was a repeat violation. Mr. Peterson also observed food stored on the floor in the walk-in during his October inspection. He recorded this, noting that it was a repeat violation. During the October inspection, Mr. Peterson observed the improper use of a bowl or plastic food container without a handle as a scoop to dispense non ready-to-eat foods such as flour and starch, as well as ready-to-eat foods such as salt and sugar. He noted this in his report, along with a notation that this was corrected on-site. Mr. Peterson also observed an employee with no hair restraint during the October inspection. He noted this in his report along with the fact that it was corrected while he was on-site. On February 28, 2012, Mr. Peterson conducted a stipulation call-back inspection, as well as a full inspection of the China King. A stipulation call-back inspection is an inspection that is required as part of a stipulation which is conducted for the limited purpose of determining whether specific violations noted earlier have been corrected. Inspector Peterson prepared a Call Back Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-005, as well as DBPR Form HR 5022-015 on February 28, 2012, using his PDA to record the violations that he observed. An operator of the restaurant acknowledged receipt of the reports on behalf of China King. On February 28, 2012, Mr. Peterson again observed that ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food that had been prepared on-site and held more than 24 hours had not been date-marked. He noted this in his reports. Mr. Peterson again observed food stored on the floor in the walk-in and cooks’ line during his February inspection and made note of this in his reports. Mr. Peterson again observed a can without a handle being used to scoop rice on February, 28, 2012, as was noted in his reports. Mr. Peterson also observed an employee without a hair restraint during his February inspection, noting this in his reports. In response to questioning from Respondent at hearing, Inspector Peterson stated that he was familiar with the description of the inspection process set out on the Division of Hotels and Restaurants’ website. Inspector Peterson was aware that these procedures state that an inspector will invite the manager to accompany him on the inspection walk-through, and that the inspector will go over each item on the inspection report. Mr. Peterson testified that at each inspection he advised persons at the restaurant of the violations and the need to correct them. Mr. Chi Kin Chan, owner of China King, testified that Mr. Peterson did show his badge when he conducted the inspection on February 28, 2012, although he did not announce who he was. Mr. Chan testified that Mr. Peterson just went through the restaurant on his own and did not invite Mr. Chan or anyone else from the restaurant to accompany him on his inspection. Mr. Chan testified that Mr. Peterson then just went to the front of the restaurant and prepared his report without discussing any of the alleged violations with Mr. Chan or operators of the restaurant. Mr. Taoso Tevega is engaged to be married to Ms. Man Chan, and so is the prospective son-in-law of Mr. Chan. Mr. Tevega occasionally assists the Chan family with the restaurant, but does not receive any paycheck from China King. He works in the receiving department of Advance Auto Parts. Mr. Tevega was present at China King during the February 28, 2012, inspection. Mr. Tevega testified that on February 28, 2012, Inspector Peterson just showed up in the back of China King without identifying himself and that he did not ask anyone to accompany him as he went about the restaurant conducting his inspection. Mr. Tevega testified that Mr. Peterson did not discuss or explain the violations to anyone, but just had Ms. Chan sign the report. Mr. Peterson testified that he was in business casual attire, with his employee identification tag secured from a lanyard worn around his neck, and that he presented identification before beginning each inspection. Mr. Peterson identified himself by displaying his badge before and during the February 28, 2012, inspection, as testified to by Mr. Chan and Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson did not invite anyone to accompany him as he conducted the inspection on February 28, 2012, as Mr. Chan and Mr. Tevega testified. Mr. Peterson advised operators at the restaurant of the violations and the need to correct them, as he testified. The Division issued an Administrative Complaint against China King for the above violations on or about March 7, 2012. Additional evidence introduced at hearing showed that China King had a previous disciplinary Final Order entered within 24 months of the Administrative Complaint issued in this case. That Stipulation and Consent Order was signed by China King Manager Ko Chan on January 13, 2012, and was filed on January 24, 2012. In the Order, China King agreed to pay a fine of $900.00, but neither admitted nor denied the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint. Some of those allegations would have constituted critical violations. The January 24, 2012, Stipulation and Consent Order was in settlement of an Administrative Complaint issued on November 8, 2010. That Administrative Complaint alleged violations of the Food Code based upon inspections conducted on August 25, 2010, and October 26, 2010, two of the inspections for which testimony and documentary evidence was submitted in this case, but which are discussed here only for penalty purposes.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a Final Order finding China King in violation of three critical violations and one non-critical violation and imposing a fine of $2,625, to be paid within 30 calendar days of the filing of the Final Order with the Agency Clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint 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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner 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 16850 Collins Avenue, Golden Beach, Florida, and holding food service license number 2326334. On February 26, 2008, and April 29, 2008, Respondent was inspected by Ricardo Unold, a Senior Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Division. During both visits, Mr. Unold 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. Unold and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, Petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence that as of April 29, 2008, the following deficiencies subsisted at Respondent New San Telmo: (1) In-use utensils stored in standing water less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit, in violation of Food Code2 Rule 3- 304.12(F); (2) The public bathroom was not equipped with a tight-fitting, self-closing door, in violation of Food Code Rule 6-202.14 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(2)(b); (3) An unlabeled spray bottle, in violation of Food Code Rule 7- 102.11; and (4) No proof of required employee training, in violation of Section 509.049, Florida Statutes. The deficiencies relating to the lack of proof of employee training, the unlabeled spray bottle, and the bathroom door are all considered critical violations by the Division. Critical food code violations are those that, if uncorrected, present an immediate threat to public safety. The final deficiency (storing in-use utensils in water less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit), while not categorized as a critical violation, is serious nonetheless because it directly relates to food preparation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order: (a) finding Respondent guilty in accordance with the foregoing Recommended Order; and (b) ordering Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $1400, to be paid within 30 days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2010, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated food safety standards established by section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and the implementing rules as charged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate sanctions.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Dominos Pizza was owned and operated by Narverud Restaurant Systems, Inc., as a licensed permanent public food service establishment located at 13081 Spring Hill Drive, Spring Hill, Florida. Elizabeth Narverud is its vice president. Narverud Restaurant Systems, Inc., holds License No. 3700896.2/ The Division is responsible for monitoring and inspecting licensed food service establishments to ensure that they comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules, and the Food Code. On March 26, 2013, Nick Roff, Sanitation and Safety Specialist for the Division, conducted a food service inspection of Dominos Pizza. On the date of the inspection, Mr. Roff had been employed by the Division for approximately three months and was still under probation. Mr. Roff had no experience in the food service industry prior to his employment with the Division. Mr. Roff received training from the Division in the laws relating to food service, and has become certified as a food manager. The Division additionally provides monthly in-house training which Mr. Roff has attended. During his probationary period, Mr. Roff accompanied his senior inspector on food service establishment inspections, observing how the inspector conducted inspections, identified violations, and provided corrective actions. As part of his training, Mr. Roff was also “shadowed” by his senior inspector as Mr. Roff conducted inspections. On the date of the final hearing, Mr. Roff had conducted approximately 600 restaurant inspections. Cited Violations On March 26, 2013, Mr. Roff prepared an Inspection Report noting a total of 13 alleged violations of the standards set forth in applicable statutes, administrative rules, and the Food Code. Among the violations Mr. Roff noted was the absence of a backflow preventer on the mop sink faucet. Mr. Roff observed that the mop sink faucet was threaded but no backflow preventer was installed. Food Code Rule 5-203.14 provides as follows: A PLUMBING SYSTEM shall be installed to preclude backflow of a solid, liquid, or gas contaminant into the water supply system at each point of use at the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, including on a hose bibb if a hose is attached or on a hose bibb if a hose is not attached and backflow prevention is required by LAW, by: (A) Providing an air gap as specified under § 5-202.13; or (B) Installing an approved backflow prevention device as specified under § 5-202.14. Food Code Rule 5-202.13, entitled “Backflow Prevention, Air Gap,” provides as follows: An air gap between the water supply inlet and the flood level rim of the PLUMBING FIXTURE, EQUIPMENT, or nonFOOD EQUIPMENT shall be at least twice the diameter of the water supply inlet and may not be less than 25 mm (1 inch). A vacuum breaker or other backflow preventer prohibits backflow of water from the mop bucket, when being filled in the mop sink (or by hose attached to the mop sink faucet), into the water supply system in the event of a loss of water pressure, which creates a siphoning action. The Food Code provides an exception when the distance between the end of the faucet and the top of the rim of the sink is twice the diameter of the faucet but not less than one inch. Violation of rule 5-203.14 is designated by the Division as a high priority violation. Among other violations, Mr. Roff noted on the Inspection Report that the reach-in cooler gasket was torn or in disrepair. Mr. Roff did not testify specifically whether the gasket was torn, or otherwise in disrepair. He testified that he typically reaches in and spreads the gasket apart to inspect for tears. Food Code Rule 4-501.11(B) provides, “Equipment components such as doors, seals, hinges, fasteners, and kick plates shall be kept intact, tight, and adjusted in accordance with manufacturer?s specifications.” A torn or otherwise damaged cooler gasket can cause cross-contamination and prevent the storage of foods at the required temperature. Mr. Roff did measure the temperature of the food in the reach-in cooler, but did not testify with certainty whether the temperature met the standard of 41 degrees or less. Mr. Roff did not note temperature of food stored in the reach-in cooler as a violation. Given the totality of the evidence, the undersigned finds that the food stored in the reach-in cooler met the temperature standard. Violation of rule 4-501.11(B) is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Among the other violations observed by Mr. Roff was that the utensil used to scoop corn meal from its bulk container was resting flat on top of the corn meal, where the handle came into contact with the corn meal. Food Code Rule 3-304.12 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: During pauses in food preparation or dispensing, food preparation and dispensing utensils shall be stored: * * * (B) in food that is not potentially hazardous (time/temperature control for safety food) with their handles above the top of the food within containers or equipment that can be closed, such as bins of sugar, flour, or cinnamon. At Dominos Pizza, corn meal is used in stretching the pizza dough. The corn meal is scooped from a bulk container onto the food preparation surface and spread by hand on the surface before stretching the dough. Violation of rule 3-304.12 is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Mr. Roff met with Ms. Narverud during the inspection on March 26, 2013, walked through each of the alleged violations with her, and gave her a copy of the Inspection Report, which she signed. The Inspection Report notes a callback inspection date of May 27, 2013. On May 30, 2013, Mr. Roff performed a callback inspection at Respondent?s food service establishment. Ms. Narverud was not present. Mr. Roff observed that eight of the violations noted in the March 26, 2013, Inspection Report had been corrected. However, the three violations detailed above –- no backflow preventer at the mop sink, gasket on reach-in cooler torn or in disrepair, and corn meal scoop not stored with handle above food –- were not corrected. Mr. Roff prepared a Callback Inspection Report, which was signed by Julio Diaz as Manager. The Callback Inspection Report recommended filing an Administrative Complaint. Petitioner introduced no evidence of prior violations by Respondent of the applicable statutes, administrative rules, or the Food Code. Owner?s Response Ms. Narverud has worked as a food service manager for 25 years, has a food manager certification from the Division, and is a certified trainer for Dominos where she trains employees in sanitation requirements. Ms. Narverud is an advocate for food safety and training in order to protect the Dominos brand and reputation. Ms. Narverud testified that the gasket on the reach-in cooler was replaced approximately one year prior to the inspection. Ms. Narverud testified credibly that a gasket generally lasts three to five years. Ms. Narverud admitted that the gasket was stained with tomato sauce, but maintained it was not torn, soiled, or mildewed. Respondent introduced a photograph of the gasket in question, which appeared to be in good repair. However, the picture was taken two weeks before the hearing, so it is not accepted as evidence of the condition of the gasket at the time of inspection. Ms. Narverud contacted her plumber following the March inspection to request that a backflow preventer be installed at the mop sink faucet. The plumber informed her there was no backflow preventer device which would fit that particular faucet.3/ Further, Ms. Narverud maintained that the particular mop sink is exempt from the backflow preventer requirement because the air gap between the end of the faucet and the top of the mop sink was two inches or more, and no hose was attached to the faucet. Mr. Roff could not recall whether a hose was located within the vicinity of the sink during either the initial or callback inspection. There was no evidence of the distance between the end of the faucet and the flood level rim of the mop sink, other than Respondent?s testimony. Ms. Narverud planned to discuss the issue of the mop sink with Mr. Roff when he returned for the callback inspection. However, Mr. Roff returned on May 30, rather than May 27, the date noted in the March Inspection Report. Ms. Narverud was not present when the callback inspection was conducted. Having been cited in the Administrative Complaint for the lack of a backflow preventer, despite her plumber?s advice and her belief that no backflow preventer was required for the type of faucet installed, Ms. Narverud has subsequently had the entire faucet replaced and a backflow preventer installed. As to the issue of the scoop handle in the corn meal bin, Ms. Narverud disagrees that a violation occurred. Because the corn meal is spread by hand onto the food preparation surface after scooping, Ms. Narverud argues that it should be irrelevant whether the scoop handle touches the corn meal in the bin. Mr. Narverud?s argument, while understandable, is not compelling. But for the handle, employees might as well be scooping the corn meal directly from the bin with their hands. The handle is the carrier by which corn meal in the bin may become contaminated by any number of germs and viruses present on employees? hands. The citation may be picky, but it is nevertheless a violation.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent, Dominos Pizza, violated section 509.032(2)(d), and Food Code Rules 5-203.14. and 3- 304.12, adopted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C- 1.001(13), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; Finding that Respondent, Dominos Pizza, did not violate section 509.032(2)(d), and Food Code Rule 4-501.11(B), as alleged in Administrative Complaint; Applying a mitigating factor based on the 12-year length of time that Respondent has been in operation without incident, her good-faith belief that a backflow preventer was not required for the mop sink, and her extraordinary efforts in correcting the violations; and Imposing an administrative penalty against Respondent, Dominos Pizza, in the amount of $200, payable to the Division within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2013.
The Issue 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 issues in DOAH Case No. 10-1704 are whether Respondent, Stacked Subs (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated November 5, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. Similarly, the issues in DOAH Case No. 10-2445 are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 24, 2009, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating hotels and restaurants within the State of Florida regarding health and safety codes. See § 509.032, Fla. Stat. (2009). At all times material to the allegations of these cases, Respondent operated as a public food service establishment subject to Petitioner’s jurisdiction. In his capacity as an inspector for Petitioner, Alfonso Rullan visited Respondent’s place of business (2054 State Road 436, Winter Park, Florida) on December 19, 2007. During the inspection, Mr. Rullan noted several food service violations that he memorialized in an inspection report provided to, and signed by, Mr. Nevarez. The violations, more fully described in Petitioner's Exhibit 2, required correction. It was contemplated that Respondent would correct the violations of the Food Code such that on second inspection the violations would no longer be found. Since the inspection revealed “critical” violations, it was incumbent on Respondent to timely correct the violations noted in the inspection report. “Critical” violations are violations that, if left uncorrected, can contribute to food contamination, food-borne illness, or adversely affect public health. Thus, “critical violations” must be timely corrected, as they are a present concern. Violations that could lead to critical violations are denoted as “non-critical.” These “non- critical” violations must also be corrected, but they do not constitute a present threat to the public On March 12, 2008, Inspector Will Goris returned to Respondent’s place of business and completed a second inspection report, denoting critical violations uncorrected from the prior inspection and itemizing the concerns that required correction. Mr. Nevarez signed the report. This report, Petitioner’s Exhibit 3, chronicled ten violations of the Food Code. Subsequently, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint (DOAH Case No. 10-1704), outlining the uncorrected and critical violations Respondent had failed to timely address. Respondent timely contested the complaint and sought an administrative hearing in connection with the allegations. Between December 2007 and March 12, 2008, Respondent failed to correct the following violations: Cheese in the reach-in cooler at the front counter was 51 degrees; Employees reported to work and handled food without first washing hands; The prep table was adjacent to the fryers and under the hood was encrusted and greasy; and Single service cups were stored on the floor by the register. Of the foregoing violations, the failure of employees to wash their hands prior to handling food was the most critical violation. This violation was noted by both inspectors. On January 26, 2009, Inspector Goris conducted a routine inspection of Respondent’s premises. On this date, minor violations of the Food Code were again noted, but Mr. Nevarez was given a “met inspection standards” review for this visit. Nevertheless, Petitioner expected Respondent to correct the non-critical violations in a timely manner. On June 17, 2009, when Inspector Goris presented at the restaurant, violations were discovered that led to the second Administrative Complaint, DOAH Case No. 10-2445. Two of the violations were deemed repeat violations, and two were critical violations directly related to public safety; to wit: the soda disperser had slime on it, and proof of employee food- handler training was not available. Respondent timely challenged the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 10-2445. As to all alleged violations, Respondent was provided adequate notice of the allegations and was provided sufficient time to correct deficiencies. Respondent maintains that inspectors should be trained in abuse of power as their inspections can be discretionary and arbitrary. For example, Respondent claimed that the sleeve of cups on the floor by the cash register had merely fallen there when the inspector cited the violation. Respondent’s claim of abuse of power was unsupported by factual evidence. Moreover, the inspections performed by both inspectors documented objective criteria unrelated to opinion or subjective review. For example, dirty, greasy, or encrusted food surfaces were documented. The failure of employees to wash their hands was documented. The inadequate or incorrect temperature of containers of food was documented. These are not subjective items, but were disclosed to Respondent during and at the time of inspection. It is determined that the inspectors’ testimony was credible and persuasive as to the violations cited. The "Food Code," as it is used in this record, refers to paragraph 1-201.10(B), Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 of the Food Code, 2001 Recommendations of the United States Public Health Service/Food and Drug Administration including Annex 3: Public Health Reasons/Administrative Guidelines; Annex 5: HACCP Guidelines of the Food Code; the 2001 Food Code Errata Sheet (August 23, 2002); and Supplement to the 2001 FDA Food Code (August 29, 2003). The Food Code has been adopted by the Department by rule. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.001. The Food Code is also available through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Internet website.
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 Respondent in the amount of $1,750.00 for the violations listed in DOAH Case No. 10-1704 and $1,000.00 for the violations identified in DOAH Case No. 10-2445. The Respondent should also be required to attend training for a better understanding of the requirements of the Food Code to assure that proper guidelines are adopted and implemented at the restaurant. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida Carlos Nevarez Stacked Subs 32399 2054 State Road 436 Winter Park, Florida 32792 Reginald Dixon, 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
