The Issue After the hearing had concluded, the Petitioner filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in DOAH Case No. 12-2627. Accordingly, the remaining issues for consideration are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 12-2748 are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2012). At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a restaurant operating at 288 Windward Passage, Clearwater, Florida 33767. The Food Code identifies proper food storage temperatures for potentially-hazardous food products. The storage of such products at improper temperatures can result in bacterial contamination of the product and can cause serious illness in humans who consume contaminated products. Violations of food temperature regulations that present an immediate threat to public safety are deemed to be "critical" violations of the Food Code. At the hearing, Mr. Suarez acknowledged that the Respondent had been disciplined by the Petitioner for food temperatures in excess of those permitted by relevant Food Code regulations and that he had paid an administrative fine pursuant to a previous Final Order. On May 9, 2012, Christine Craig, a trained sanitation safety specialist employed by the Petitioner, performed a "callback" inspection at the Respondent. The violations referenced herein were identified by Ms. Craig as critical. The relevant portion of the Food Code requires that certain products be stored at temperatures of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Previous inspections at the Respondent revealed that holding temperatures of some food products stored in a reach-in cooler and in a two-door glass upright cooler did not comply with the Food Code requirements. The purpose of the May 9, 2012, callback inspection was to determine whether food temperature violations indentified in the previous routine inspections had been resolved. During the callback inspection, Ms. Craig found that ham, chicken broth, and cream cheese were being held in the referenced coolers at temperatures in excess of 41 degrees Fahrenheit, which were critical violations of the Food Code. The Respondent did not dispute Ms. Craig's testimony or the results of her inspection.
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 $750 against the Respondent and requiring that the Respondent complete an appropriate educational program related to the violation identified herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 2012, 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 27th day of November, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Anthony Suarez Island Way Cafe 288 Windward Passage Clearwater, Florida 33767 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 42 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Harrison’s is licensed by the Division as a permanent food service establishment. Harrison’s license number is 6213138. Laura Kennedy, a sanitation and safety inspector for the Division, conducted a routine inspection of Harrison’s on March 16, 2005. Based upon her inspection, Ms. Kennedy documented 28 areas in which Harrison’s was in violation of the statutes and rules governing restaurant operations. One of the violations, No. 35A-01, was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation of ten dead roaches in Harrison’s dry storage area. She required Harrison’s to correct that violation within 24 hours. Ms. Kennedy conducted a “call-back” inspection of Harrison’s on March 17, 2005, to determine whether the roaches had been cleaned up, which they had been. Ms. Kennedy gave Harrison’s 30 days to correct the remainder of the violations that she documented during her inspection on March 16, 2005. Ms. Kennedy conducted a “call-back” inspection of Harrison’s on April 19, 2005, to determine whether the other violations had been corrected. During the inspection, Ms. Kennedy noted that some of the violations had been corrected, but that others had not been corrected. Five of the uncorrected violations were “critical” violations because, according to Ms. Kennedy, they posed an immediate threat to the public health. Three of the uncorrected violations were “non-critical” because, according to Ms. Kennedy, they posed a risk to the public health but not an immediate threat. The critical violations that had not been corrected at the time of Ms. Kennedy’s “call-back” inspection on April 19, 2005, were Nos. 45-17, 45-10, 45-30, 46-11, and 8A-04. Violation No. 45-17 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation that the tag on the fire suppression system on the hood over the cooking area was out of date. The tag is supposed to be updated every six months, but the tag observed by Ms. Kennedy at Harrison’s was dated July 2003. Violation No. 45-10 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation that the portable fire extinguishers were out of date. Fire extinguisher tags are supposed to be updated every year, but the tags on the extinguishers at Harrison’s reflected that two of them had not been inspected since December 2002 and another had not been inspected since July 2003. Violation No. 45-30 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation that Harrison’s did not have the required inspection report for the fire suppression system for the hood over the cooking area. The purpose of requiring a current tag and inspection report on the hood fire suppression system and current tags on the portable fire extinguishers is to ensure that those devices are in good working order in the event of a fire. As a result, the out-of-date tags are considered to be critical violations. Violation No. 46-11 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation that the emergency exit signs over Harrison’s side doors and the back door were not illuminated. This is a critical violation because the purpose of the illuminated signs is to guide restaurant patrons to an exit in the event of an emergency. Violation No. 8A-04 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation of uncovered food in the walk-in cooler. This is a critical violation because uncovered food is subject to contamination. The non-critical violations that had not been corrected at the time of Ms. Kennedy’s “call-back” inspection on April 19, 2005, were Nos. 32-14, 22-02, and 23-01. Violation No. 32-14 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation that there was no hand-washing soap at a sink in the kitchen. The absence of soap did not pose an immediate threat to the public health, but it is required so that employees involved in the preparation of food can wash their hands for their own hygiene and for the protection of the restaurant’s patrons. Violation No. 22-02 was based upon Ms. Kennedy’s observation of built-up of grease in the oven. Violation No. 23-01 was based on Ms. Kennedy's observation of built-up of grease on the sides of equipment in the cooking area. The built-up grease did not pose an immediate threat to the public safety, but cleanliness in the cooking area is important so as not to attract vermin and to prevent contamination of the food being cooked. Ms. Kennedy documented the violations described above on the Food Service Inspection Reports that she prepared at the time of her inspections. Copies of the reports were provided to Harrison’s at the end of each inspection, as reflected by the signature of Rafma Balla on each report. Mr. Balla is identified on the reports as Harrison’s manager/owner. The record does not reflect whether the violations described above have been corrected by Harrison’s since Ms. Kennedy’s last inspection on April 19, 2005. Harrison’s was provided due notice of the date, time, and location of the final hearing, but no appearance was made on its behalf at the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division issue a final order that: Imposes an administrative fine of $2,600 on Harrison’s for Violation Nos. 45-17, 45-10, 45-30, 46-11, 8A-04, and 32-14, payable on terms prescribed by the Division in the final order; and Requires Harrison’s to correct the critical violations related to the portable fire extinguishers, hood fire suppression system, and exit signs within 15 days of the date of the final order, and to provide proof thereof to the Division; and Requires Harrison's owner and/or manager to attend an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program within 60 days of the date of the final order, and to provide proof thereof to the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 28th day of October, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent’s restaurant license should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a public food establishment in the State of Florida by the Department. The restaurant is located at 2510 Miccosukee Road, Suite C, Tallahassee, Florida. Janie Smith is employed by the Department as a Senior Sanitation Safety Specialist. Inspector Smith has worked for the Department for approximately four years. Prior to working for the Department, Inspector Smith served as a restaurant manager at Kentucky Fried Chicken for fifteen years. Inspector Smith is a Certified Food Manager and continues to receive continuing education training on a monthly basis. She performs approximately one thousand inspections a year and, in this case, had a vague memory of the first inspection involved in this matter. Cindy Ross is also employed by the Department as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist. Inspector Ross has worked for the Department for approximately a year and a half. Prior to working for the Department, Inspector Ross served as a general manager at Ruby Tuesday for 15 years, a fine-dining general manager at Cosmo’s Brick Oven in Tallahassee for two years, and the owner/operator of Shenanigans Irish Pub in Tallahassee for seven years. Inspector Ross is a Certified Food Manager and continues to receive continuing education training on a monthly basis. Inspector Ross also performs approximately one thousand inspections a year. Similarly, she had a vague memory of the multiple inspections she conducted in this matter. On November 25, 2009, Inspectors Smith and Ross performed a routine food service inspection of Soup Swift. During the inspection, Inspectors Smith and Ross prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth the violations they encountered during the inspection. These reports are electronically prepared on a Personal Data Assistant by the inspectors. During the November inspection, Respondent's owner accompanied the inspectors around the restaurant as they completed their inspection. The inspector's observed a liquid substance described, in testimony as a "sauce" that was stored inside one of Respondent's cold storage units. The sauce had a temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit, allegedly nine degrees over its proper storage temperature of 41 degrees. In general, the temperature of food must be maintained according to the type of food and whether it is in the process of being prepared, including cooling down. Temperature maintenance is considered important since food that is not held at the proper temperature can grow bacteria. Such bacterial growth can cause illness and is a public health threat. For that reason, food which is out of temperature is considered a critical violation of the Food Code which is incorporated in Florida Law. However, during the November inspection the inspectors did not ascertain and the evidence did not show the nature of the food/sauce that they had observed at 50 degrees. Without such evidence no determination can be made whether a temperature of 50 degrees constituted a violation of the Food Code since, under the code, cooked foods are allotted a certain amount of time in which to cool down. Given this omission the evidence did not demonstrate that Respondent violated the Food Code in regards to the temperature of the "sauce." Additionally, during the November inspection, the inspectors observed that one of Respondent's cold storage units was not working and was incapable of maintaining food at the proper temperature. As a consequence, the food in that unit was transferred to another cold storage unit with the capacity and functionality to hold the food at the proper temperature. As with food temperature, properly working cold storage units are important in order to maintain food at the proper temperature. Given the fact that Respondent had another working cold storage unit, the evidence did not demonstrate that Respondent violated the Food Code since she had a sufficient number of working cold storage units with the capacity to hold food at the proper temperature. The inspectors also observed one of Respondent's employees using a bowl or plastic food container with no handle to dispense ready-to-eat food. Under the Food Code, use of the proper utensils for dispensing food is required to prevent touching the food with an item that has been contaminated by bare hands, thereby transferring germs and bacteria from the hands to the food. Such contamination can cause illness and is a threat to public health. For that reason, not using proper dispensing tools on food is a critical violation of the Florida Food Code. The evidence demonstrated that Respondent is guilty of not using proper dispensing tools during the November inspection. Finally, during the November inspection, the inspectors observed working containers of food such as flour or sugar that were not in their original containers and were not labeled or otherwise identified by their common name. Such labeling is required in order to prevent a mistake in the use of ingredients in prepared food. However, the evidence did not establish that failing to label such working containers constituted a serious risk to health. Therefore, the evidence did not demonstrate that that this was a critical violation of the Food Code. At the end of the inspection, Inspectors Smith and Ross notified Respondent about the alleged violations. Respondent’s owner signed the inspection report. Also, at this time, Inspectors Smith and Ross made the Respondent aware that all alleged violations noted during the inspection must be corrected before re-inspection. On February 9, 2010, Inspector Ross performed a callback inspection of Soup Swift. During the inspection, Inspector Ross prepared and signed an inspection report indicating that all of the violations noted on the November 25, 2009, report had been corrected, including the labeling of working food containers. No other material violations were noted. On March 9, 2010, Inspector Ross again performed a routine food service inspection of Soup Swift. Respondent's owner was not present for the inspection. As with the other inspections, she prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth alleged violations she encountered during the inspection. During the inspection, food storage and holding temperature was again investigated. The inspector observed cheese, sausage, and ham being stored at a temperature of 44 degrees Fahrenheit, three degrees over the required temperature for these types of food. However, the better evidence demonstrated that, during the March inspection, the inspector indicated her thermometer had been malfunctioning earlier in the day and may not have been recording the correct temperature. Indeed, no food was transferred or required to be transferred to another cold storage unit. Given the problem with her thermometer, the evidence did not demonstrate that Respondent violated the Food Code regarding the temperature of the cheese, ham, and sausage. Likewise, the evidence did not demonstrate that this cold-storage unit was not working properly or that Respondent did not have adequate capacity to maintain stored food at the proper temperature. Given these facts, no violations of the Food Code were demonstrated by the evidence. Additionally, the inspector again observed one of Respondent's employees using a bowl or plastic food container with no handle to dispense ready-to-eat food. Such activity is a critical violation of Florida's Food Code. Finally, during the March inspection, the inspector again observed working containers of food such as flour or sugar that were not in their original containers and were not labeled or otherwise identified by their common name. However, the evidence did not establish that failing to label such working containers constituted a serious risk to health. Therefore, the evidence demonstrated a violation of the Food Code, but did not demonstrate that this was a critical violation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Recommended Order be entered: Dismissing the portions of the Administrative Complaint related to rule 3-501.16(A) and 4-301.11 of the Food Code, and Finding Respondent, Soup Swift, guilty of violating rules 3-301.11(B) and 3-302.12 of the Food Code and imposing an administrative penalty in the amount of $400.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 1st day of August, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Meagan Lagasse Soup Swift 2510 Miccosukee Road Box 5 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
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 issue in this case is whether on March 23, 2012, July 31, 2012, and October 10, 2012, 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 Administrative Complaint, and if so, 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. LOLAQ is a limited liability company (LLC) which was licensed to operate a permanent public food service establishment in the State of Florida at all times relevant to this proceeding. It does business as Maggie Qi at 28 West Bayshore Drive on St. George Island, Florida. Mr. James Kourkoulis, sole owner and managing member of LOLAQ, operates the restaurant. Mr. Paul Smith has been employed by the Division for about five years. He is a sanitation and safety specialist with the Division. Prior to his employment with the Division he was employed in the restaurant industry for approximately 30 years. He has had training in sanitation and inspection, including formal initial training, on-the-job training, and monthly in- house training. He is also a certified food manager. He performs between 600 and 1000 inspections each year. On March 23, 2012, Mr. Smith conducted a food service inspection on Maggie Qi. Mr. Smith 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. Ms. Kathyrn McPherson signed the report to acknowledge receipt on behalf of Maggie Qi. When Mr. Smith completed the report, he printed a copy for the restaurant and discussed each violation with Ms. McPherson. He advised Ms. McPherson that all violations needed to be corrected by the next unannounced inspection. During the March inspection, Mr. Smith observed that Maggie Qi had potentially hazardous cold food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. He noted that beef had a temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit in the large cooling unit on the cooks’ line, and recorded this on his report. The Division has determined that failure to maintain cold food at proper temperatures poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare because of the potential for growth of harmful bacteria, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022-015. During the March inspection, Mr. Smith also observed a buildup of slime in the interior of the ice machine, and noted this on his report. The Division has determined that failure to keep food contact surfaces of equipment and utensils clean 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. Smith also made note in his March report that there was no conspicuously located thermometer in the large cooling unit on the cooks’ line. At hearing he explained that there was a thermometer in the unit, but that it was in a difficult place to access in the back of one of the drawers, and so was not properly located. The Division has determined that failure to have thermometers conspicuously placed poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare because of the relationship between temperature and bacteria growth, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022- 015. On July 31, 2012, Mr. Smith conducted another routine inspection of Maggie Qi. Mr. Smith again prepared an inspection report on DBPR Form HR 5022-015, using his PDA to record the violations that he observed. During the July inspection, Mr. Smith observed that Maggie Qi again had potentially hazardous cold food held at greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. He noted that shrimp, beef, and fish had a temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit in the large cooling unit on the cooks’ line. Mr. Smith noted that there was gumbo, a ready–to-eat food, which had been prepared for more than 24 hours and was improperly date-marked. The Division has determined that failure to properly label and date-mark potentially hazardous food prepared on-site and held more than 24 hours poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare because of the potential for growth of harmful bacteria, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022- 015. Mr. Smith also observed that the thermometer in the large cooling unit on the cooks’ line was still located in the back of the drawer and had not been placed in a conspicuous location since the March inspection. During the July inspection, Mr. Smith also noted that the large cooling unit at the cooks’ line was incapable of maintaining potentially hazardous food at prescribed temperatures. All of the food, including beef, shrimp, and fish, was at a temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit. At hearing, Mr. Smith testified that he touched the compressor and found it too hot to keep his hand on it, which, in his experience, indicated that the unit was not working properly. The Division has determined that failure to have adequate facilities to maintain food at proper temperatures poses a significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare because of the potential for growth of harmful bacteria, and has identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR-5022- 015. As Mr. Smith noted, Maggie Qi had another walk-in cooler which would have had enough room to hold the food, but it was not near to the cooks’ line. He testified that attempting to use the walk-in cooler in lieu of the malfunctioning unit would have been “extremely inconvenient” and “next to impossible.” This testimony was unrefuted. With the large cooling unit not working properly, Maggie Qi lacked adequate cold-holding capacity at the cooks’ line, and did not have cooling equipment sufficient in number or capacity to meet the cooling demands of its operations. Mr. Smith noted that the buildup of slime in the interior of the ice machine was still there. He further noted that the interior of the oyster reach-in cooler was soiled with an accumulation of food residue, and that there was encrusted material on the can opener. Finally, Mr. Smith observed that a hose bibb located on the wall near the sink (not the sink faucet) was missing a vacuum breaker. He testified that a hose was connected to the hose bibb, and that water from this connection was used to spray down the floor. Mr. Kourkoulis stated at hearing that the vacuum breaker had been removed and was sitting on the sink in the immediate vicinity of the hose bibb. He did not know who took it off. The Division has determined that a plumbing system not designed to prevent backflow of solid, liquid, or gas contaminants into the water supply system 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. Smith recorded all of these violations in his July inspection report. His report advised Maggie Qi of a call back date of October 1, 2012. Mr. Kourkoulis signed this report to acknowledge receipt on behalf of the restaurant. On October 10, 2012, Mr. Smith returned to perform a call back inspection of Maggie Qi. He prepared a Call Back Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-005, using his PDA to record the violations that he observed. The name Tanya Shiver appears on this October report acknowledging receipt on behalf of Maggie Qi. During the October inspection, Mr. Smith observed that the vacuum breaker was still missing from the hose bibb; the buildup of slime in the interior of the ice machine and the encrusted material on the can opener were still there; the interior of the oyster reach-in cooler was still soiled with an accumulation of food residue; the large cooling unit at the cook line still did not have its thermometer conspicuously placed and was still not maintaining proper temperatures for potentially hazardous food; shrimp, fish, and beef were again at a temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit; and gumbo that had been prepared more than 24 hours was again without proper date marking. These violations were recorded on the report. Mr. Smith is a trained professional and his testimony is credited. He testified that on the morning of each inspection he checked the accuracy of his thermometer in ice water, as he had been trained, and that his thermometer was accurate. Reports prepared at the time of the inspections corroborate Mr. Smith’s testimony as to all charged violations. The Division served an Administrative Complaint against Maggie Qi for the above violations on or about October 28, 2012. On March 23, 2012, July 31, 2012, and October 10, 2012, Maggie Qi had potentially hazardous food that was not being maintained at or below a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit. On July 31, 2012, and October 10, 2012, Maggie Qi had refrigerated gumbo, a ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food, which had been prepared and held for more than 24 hours and was not marked to indicate the date by which it needed to be consumed, sold, or discarded. On March 23, 2012, July 31, 2012, and October 10, 2012, the large cooling unit at the cooks’ line in Maggie Qi did not have its thermometer permanently affixed in a location that would allow easy viewing of its temperature display. On July 31, 2012, and October 10, 2012, the equipment for cooling food at Maggie Qi was not sufficient in number or capacity to maintain all food at proper temperatures. On March 23, 2012, July 31, 2012, and October 10, 2012, equipment food-contact surfaces and utensils at Maggie Qi were not clean to sight and touch. On all three dates there was a buildup of slime on the interior of the ice machine. On July 31, 2012, and October 10, 2012, the interior of the oyster reach-in cooler had an accumulation of food residue and there was crusted material on the can opener. On July 31, 2012, and October 10, 2012, Maggie Qi’s plumbing system had not been installed to preclude backflow of contaminants into the water supply system from a hose bibb near the sink. The hose bibb had a hose attached, but did not have a vacuum breaker. No evidence was introduced to indicate that Respondent had any previous 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 finding LOLAQ, LLC, doing business as Maggie Qi, in violation of six critical violations, and imposing a fine of $2,250, to be paid within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2013, 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 May, 2013.
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 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 The issues in the case are whether the alleged violations set forth in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint occurred, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and witness testimony presented and the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Petitioner is a state agency charged with the regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2004). The Respondent, Amici's Pizza, is a restaurant located at 1718 North Goldenrod Road in Orlando, Florida. The records of the Division indicate that the restaurant is also known as Amici's Italian Kitchen and Pizzeria. The Respondent holds License No. NOS5808584. James Thomason is a Senior Sanitary and Safety Specialist employed by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. His duties include inspecting food service establishments and lodging facilities for compliance with applicable law. He conducts approximately 4000 inspections per year for the Division. On August 27, 2004, Mr. Thomason conducted a routine inspection of Amici's Pizza and issued an inspection report. In his report, Mr. Thomason noted several violations, among which are the two violations that are charged in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint: cheese and sausage in the preparation area were above the maximum allowable temperature, and the pizza cooler was not maintaining food at sufficiently low temperatures. The August 27, 2004, inspection report indicated that the two violations were "critical violations," meaning they posed an immediate threat to the public. The public threat associated with food not being kept at a low temperature is the possible consumption of bacteria-contaminated food. Because Mr. Thomason found what he believed to be critical violations at Amici's Pizza, he indicated in his inspection report that the violations had to be corrected by August 30, 2004. A copy of the inspection report was given to the owner of Amici's Pizza, Dion Nunez, on August 27, 2004, at the conclusion of the inspection. Mr. Thomason discussed the violations that he had noted in the report with Mr. Nunez, and Mr. Nunez signed the report. Mr. Thomason conducted a "call back" inspection of Amici's Pizza on August 30, 2004, and noted in his inspection report for that date that the two critical violations identified above had not been corrected. The non-critical violations had been corrected. Mr. Thomason determined on his August 27, 2004, inspection that the temperature of cheese and sausage on the "make line" was 51 degrees Fahrenheit ("F") and 58 degrees F, respectively. As set forth more fully, below, the maximum temperature allowed for these foods was 41 degrees F. Mr. Nunez did not dispute Mr. Thomason's determination on August 27, 2004, that the temperature of the cheese and sausage on the make line exceeded allowable temperatures. In fact, Mr. Nunez responded by immediately disposing of the cheese and sausage. When Mr. Thomason made his call back inspection of Amici's Pizza on August 30, 2004, he found the temperature of the cheese and sausage on the make line was 50 degrees F and 62 degrees F, respectively. Mr. Nunez did not dispute Mr. Thomason's August 30, 2004, findings regarding food temperature. Mr. Nunez did not dispute Mr. Thomason's findings on August 27 and August 30, 2004, that the cooler at Amici's Pizza was not keeping the foods in the cooler at or below 41 degrees F. Mr. Nunez' stated that he tried to get an electrician to fix his cooler before the August 30, 2004, call back inspection, but was unable to get an electrician who could respond that soon. Mr. Nunez attributed this problem to the fact that August 27, 2004, was a Friday, giving him only the weekend to find an electrician, and also to the recent passage of a hurricane through the area. Amici's Pizza continued to serve customers during the time that the cooler remained un-repaired, but Mr. Nunez used ice in an attempt to lower the temperature.
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 that finds the Respondent violated Food Code Rules 3-501.16(A)(2) and 4-302.11, and imposes an administrative fine of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 22nd day of September, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Dion Nunez Amici's Pizza 525 South Ronald Reagan Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32750 Dion Nunez 1718 North Goldenrod Road Orlando, Florida 32818 Tonya S. Chavis, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 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 32399-0792
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 At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints dated August 31, 2009, and April 19, 2010, and, if so, what penalty is warranted.
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 Tatu was a restaurant located at 1702 West University Avenue, Suite J, Gainesville, Florida 32603, holding Permanent Food Service license number 1102115. Tatu consists of a sushi bar and a restaurant serving Asian food, on the second floor of the UF Plaza directly across the street from the University of Florida campus. It is owned and operated by Chang Bahn. A critical violation is a violation that poses an immediate danger to the public. A non-critical violation is a violation that does not pose an immediate danger to the public, but needs to be addressed because if left uncorrected, it can become a critical violation. On July 8, 2009, Daniel Fulton, a senior inspector with the Division, performed a food service inspection of the Respondent. During the inspection, Mr. Fulton observed that cold foods were not being held at their proper temperature. This is a critical violation because foods held out of their proper temperatures for any length of time can grow bacteria that could cause food borne illnesses in persons who eat the food. Mr. Fulton also observed that Respondent’s cold holding equipment was not capable of maintaining potentially hazardous foods at their proper temperature. This is a critical violation because refrigeration equipment must be capable of holding foods below 41 degrees Fahrenheit for the safety of the consuming public. At the conclusion of his inspection, Mr. Fulton prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth the violations he encountered during the inspection. He notified Mr. Bahn’s wife, Suy Bahn, of the nature of the violations and she signed the inspection report. (Mr. Bahn was not present in the restaurant during the July 8, 2009, inspection.) Mr. Fulton informed Ms. Bahn that all of the violations noted in the inspection report would have to be corrected by the following day, July 9, 2009. Mr. Fulton performed a callback inspection at Tatu on July 14, 2009. Mr. Fulton’s callback inspection report noted that the critical violations found on July 8, 2009, had not been corrected. Uncooked fish was found held at temperatures of 45 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit, and the cold holding equipment was still incapable of maintaining food at the proper temperature. Mr. Fulton further observed that Respondent was misrepresenting a food product. In this case, imitation crab was being served in a dish labeled "Crab Delight," rather than under the name "krab" to indicate its ersatz nature. This is a critical violation, not just because of the misrepresentation involved, but because restaurant customers may have allergies to certain foods and therefore need to know exactly what they are eating. Mr. Bahn signed the July 14, 2009, callback inspection report. After the July 14, 2009, callback inspection, Mr. Fulton recommended that an Administrative Complaint be issued because Respondent had not corrected the critical violations found in the July 8, 2009, inspection. This Administrative Complaint was the basis for DOAH Case No. 10-2675. On April 5, 2010, Mr. Fulton performed a food service inspection at Tatu. During this inspection, Mr. Fulton found two critical violations. The first critical violation was that the restaurant was keeping potentially hazardous cold foods at temperatures greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. On the cooking line, Mr. Fulton found breading mix held at 66 degrees Fahrenheit and liquid eggs at 77 degrees Fahrenheit. At the front counter, seafood was held at 70 degrees Fahrenheit, and Mr. Fulton found seafood at 68 degrees Fahrenheit in the reach- in cooler. Mr. Fulton had noted the same critical violation during his inspection of July 8, 2009, and during his callback inspection of July 14, 2009. The second critical violation noted by Mr. Fulton during his April 5, 2010, inspection was that the hand sinks were not accessible for employees’ use at all times. The hand- washing sink was blocked by a waste bucket and a wiping cloth bucket. This is a critical violation because employees are less likely to wash their hands if it is difficult for them to do so. The employees’ failure to wash their hands can lead to contamination of the food and consequently food-borne illnesses in the restaurant’s customers. Mr. Fulton had noted the same critical violation during his inspection of July 8, 2009.4/ Mr. Fulton prepared an inspection report. He notified Mr. Bahn of the violations. Mr. Bahn signed the report. Mr. Fulton recommended that an Administrative Complaint be issued in this case because Respondent had not corrected a violation for which it had already been cited within a one-year period. This Administrative Complaint was the basis for DOAH Case No. 10-3295. The Division presented evidence of prior disciplinary action against Respondent. Administrative complaints were filed against Respondent based on inspections conducted on September 26, 2008 and on February 18, 2009. Each of these cases was resolved by a Stipulation and Consent Order in which Respondent neither admitted nor denied the facts alleged in the respective administrative complaint. See Endnote 2, supra.
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 of $2,500.00, payable under terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 September, 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 penalty.
Findings Of Fact Parties At all times material hereto, Richie Cheesesteak was owned and operated by Richard Fascenda, as a licensed permanent public food-service establishment located at 6191 Deltona Boulevard, Spring Hill, Florida. Mr. Fascenda holds License No. 3700896 to operate Richie Cheesesteak.1/ Mr. Fascenda is the owner/operator of Richie Cheesesteak, as well as the only cook. 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. Initial Inspection On April 16, 2013, Nick Roff, Sanitation and Safety Specialist for the Division, conducted a food-service inspection of Richie Cheesesteak. 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 License and Certification On April 16, 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. Respondent was cited for an expired license, a high priority violation which was remedied on-site during the inspection. Among the other violations Mr. Roff noted in his Inspection Report was Respondent?s failure to produce proof of a food manager certificate. Section 509.039 provides for a Food Manager Certification Program to ensure all managers of food-service establishments have a demonstrated knowledge of basic food protection practices. The statute further requires that “[a]ll public food-service establishments must provide the division with proof of food-service manager certification upon request, including, but not limited to, at the time of any division inspection of the establishment.” Id. In 2008, Respondent was an assistant manager for Boyz- N-Burgers, operated by McClain Sonic?s, and was certified as a food manager at that time. On the date of inspection, Respondent could not produce a copy of his certificate and explained that the certificate would be on file with his former corporate employer. A food manager certificate expires five years after certification. A violation of section 509.039 is designated by the Division as an intermediate priority violation. Reach-in Cooler Gasket Among the violations Mr. Roff noted was that the gasket on the reach-in cooler was both torn and soiled. 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 of food and prevent the storage of foods at the required temperature. Respondent?s reach-in cooler is at least 30 years old. Respondent did not testify that the gasket had ever been replaced, although he did state that it has been “siliconed over” on several occasions. Respondent admitted at final hearing that the reach-in cooler gasket was torn in one place. Respondent denied that the gasket was soiled, explaining that there might have been some food spilled on it during lunch and the inspection was conducted right after lunch. Respondent insisted that he wipes down the gasket every day. Violation of rule 4-501.11(B) is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Storage of Utensils Among the other violations observed by Mr. Roff was a knife stored between two pieces of kitchen equipment. 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: * * * (C) On a clean portion of the FOOD preparation table or cooking EQUIPMENT only if the in-use UTENSIL and the FOOD-CONTACT surface of the FOOD preparation table or cooking EQUIPMENT are cleaned and SANITIZED at a frequency specified under subsections 4-602.11 and 4-702.11. * * * (F) In a container of water if the water is maintained at a temperature of at least 57 degrees Celsius (135 degrees Fahrenheit) and the container is cleaned at a frequency specified under subparagraph 4-602.11(D)(7). Respondent admitted that a knife was stored in the crack between two pieces of kitchen equipment when Mr. Roff made his initial inspection. Violation of rule 3-304.12 is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Improperly Marked Containers Mr. Roff also observed “cookline bottles” stored in squeeze bottles which were not labeled as to their contents. Food Code Rule 3-302.12 reads as follows: Except for containers holding FOOD that can be readily and unmistakably recognized such as dry pasta, working containers holding FOOD or FOOD ingredients that are removed from their original packages for use in the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, such as cooking oils, flour, herbs, potato flakes, salt, spices, and sugar shall be identified with the common name of the FOOD. Respondent keeps two bottles on the cookline, one for oil and one for vinegar. Respondent is the only cook. Respondent testified that he has the bottles marked “oil” and “vinegar” with black marker. He introduced a photograph of the bottles marked as such, but the photograph was taken subsequent to the callback inspection and is not accepted as evidence of the condition of the bottles on the day in question. Mr. Fascenda testified that during the inspection, he showed the bottles to Mr. Roff and pointed out the hand-labeling, but admitted that Mr. Roff could not see the wording because it rubs off easily. Mr. Roff testified he did not recall seeing any labeling on the bottles. Violation of rule 3-302.12 is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Mr. Roff walked through the violations with Respondent, who signed the Inspection Report on April 16, 2013. The Inspection Report noted that a follow-up inspection was required and that the violations must be corrected by June 16, 2013. Callback Inspection On June 17, 2013, Mr. Roff performed a callback inspection at Richie Cheesesteak. Mr. Roff observed that seven of the violations noted in the April 16, 2013, Inspection Report had been corrected. However, the violations detailed above –- gasket on reach-in cooler torn and soiled; knife stored between kitchen equipment; cookline bottles unlabeled; and no proof of food manager training –- were not corrected. Mr. Roff prepared a Callback Inspection Report, which was signed by Respondent. 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 Certification Respondent maintained it would be impossible to produce his food manager certificate because it was retained by his employer in 2008. Respondent was clearly frustrated with Mr. Roff?s unwillingness to accept the explanation given at the first inspection and was indignant at being fined for lack of food manager certification following the callback inspection. Respondent?s explanation that he was previously certified but that the certificate was retained by his former employer is not a defense. The statute clearly requires production of the food manager certificate when the Division inspects the manager?s food-service establishment. Following the callback inspection, Respondent obtained a Food Manager Certificate, which was introduced at final hearing. Reach-in Cooler Gasket Respondent argued that if the gasket was not functioning, the reach-in cooler would not be maintaining the appropriate temperature, which it was when tested upon inspection. Respondent?s argument is not a defense. Keeping food at the proper temperature is only one of the aims of the rule. The other is to prevent cross-contamination of food in the cooler with substances on the gasket, whether they are foods spilled thereon or bacteria growing in a torn gasket. Respondent further argues that cross-contamination is not an issue since he is the sole operator and cook. Cross- contamination of foods in the reach-in cooler is not a function of how many different employees use the cooler, but rather the condition in which it is kept. Respondent testified that, since the callback inspection, he “siliconed over” the gasket to seal it and improve its appearance. He produced before and after photographs of the gasket at final hearing. Neither picture is evidence of the condition of the gasket upon inspection,since they were taken approximately two weeks before the hearing. If anything, the “before” picture tends to support the Division?s case that the gasket was torn and soiled upon inspection. Storage of Utensils Respondent admitted that a knife was stored between two pieces of kitchen equipment on the date of the first inspection. But, he maintained that was an accident and he does not regularly store knives that way. Improperly Marked Containers Respondent first argued that his oil and vinegar bottles were labeled, although in marker, and he should not be held in violation. The evidence shows that the labels were unrecognizable when the inspections occurred. Respondent next argued that the following facts should be taken into consideration when determining whether he violated the rule. First, there are only two bottles –- oil and vinegar. Accidental mixing of their contents would not create a health hazard or threat. Second, Respondent is the only cook, so mixing the contents is unlikely. Third, the cookline is separated from the cleaning area. Thus the likelihood of mixing the contents of the cookline bottles with bleach or another cleaning product is minimal. While Respondent?s arguments are no defense, they may be considered mitigating factors.
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 Richie Cheesesteak violated section 509.039 and Food Code Rules 3-302.12, 3-304.12, 4- 501.11, and 4-601.11, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing an administrative penalty against Respondent Richie Cheesesteak in the amount of $800, payable to the Division within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th 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 16th day of December, 2013.
