Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS vs THAI CAFE, 00-004321 (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Fort Myers, Florida Oct. 19, 2000 Number: 00-004321 Latest Update: Feb. 27, 2001

The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's public food establishment license should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.

Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Thai Café, operated a public food service establishment, located at 4200 Tamiami Trail, Unit 14, Port Charlotte, Florida 33952-9233. Respondent's license, number 18-01285-R, expired on December 1, 1999, and was not renewed until March 22, 2000. Lisa Marie Wofford was, at all times relevant to this proceeding, a sanitation and safety specialist for the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, acting primarily as a restaurant inspector. On January 10, 2000, Ms. Wofford inspected Respondent's restaurant, which was open and operating. She found several violations of food service rules that she enumerated on a food service inspection report. The report warned Respondent that it had 10 days, until January 20, 2000, to correct the violations. Ms. Wofford entered a question mark on the report beside the license expiration date, because she could not at that time confirm when Respondent's license would expire. On January 20, 2000, Ms. Wofford conducted a "call back" inspection of Respondent's restaurant, which was open and operating. She found violations of food service rules, which she enumerated on a call back/reinspection report. Ms. Wofford testified that she could not recall whether she looked for Respondent's license on this call back inspection. On March 7, 2000, Ms. Wofford conducted a routine food service inspection of Respondent's restaurant, which was open and operating. She found Respondent in violation of food service rules and found that Respondent failed to display a current license. She enumerated these violations on a food service inspection report. Ms. Wofford noted on this report that Respondent was operating its restaurant without a license. Ms. Wofford testified that during the inspection, the owner told her that he had "mailed the license fee already, yesterday." At all times relevant to this proceeding, Karlin Dorothy Kahl was a management review specialist and compliance coordinator for the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, District 6, and was a custodian of the records maintained at the district office in Fort Myers. Ms. Kahl testified that the Division's records reflected that Respondent's license expired on December 1, 1999. The records also reflected that the license fee was not received by the Department until March 22, 2000, well after Ms. Wofford's inspections of January 10, January 20, and March 7, 2000.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent shall pay an administrative fine of $1,000, to be reduced to $500 if paid within 10 days of the date the final order is entered in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Thai Café 3135 Cortez Road Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Herbert S. Fecker, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Florida Laws (5) 120.57509.013509.241509.261509.281 Florida Administrative Code (1) 61C-1.002
# 3
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS vs GOLDEN CORRAL CORP., 05-004058 (2005)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Miami, Florida Nov. 04, 2005 Number: 05-004058 Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2006

The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.

Findings Of Fact At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was licensed and regulated by Petitioner, having been issued license number 1618782. Respondent’s license authorizes Respondent to operate a public food service establishment known as Golden Corral at 7401 West Commercial Boulevard, Tamarac, Florida (the specified location). At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was operating a public food establishment at the specified location.2 At all times material hereto, Sean Grosvenor and Larry Torres were experienced and appropriately trained investigators employed by Petitioner as Sanitation and Safety Specialists. Their job responsibilities included the inspection of public food service establishments for compliance with pertinent rules and statutes. On July 7, 2005, Mr. Grosvenor led an inspection of the subject restaurant. Based on that inspection, Mr. Grosvenor prepared a report that noted multiple violations of pertinent rules. Prior to leaving the premises on July 7, Mr. Grosvenor discussed his findings with the associate manager of the restaurant. Mr. Grosvenor ordered that two of the violations be corrected immediately. He ordered the restaurant to correct the remaining violations by no later than August 7, 2005. On July 8, 2005, Mr. Grosvenor conducted a follow-up inspection of the subject restaurant for the purpose of determining whether the two violations he had ordered corrected immediately had been corrected. One of the two violations that were to be corrected immediately had been corrected and is not at issue in this proceeding. The other violation had not been corrected and is the subject of the Paragraph 1 violation. PARAGRAPH 1 The Food Code requires that food be maintained at a temperature of 41° F. or less. On July 8, 2005, Mr. Grosvenor found the following: cottage cheese located on the buffet table was at a temperature of 48° F., raw hamburger patties located in a cooler were at a temperature of 47° F., and potato salad located in a cooler was at a temperature of 47° F. Mr. Afsarmanesh, the restaurant’s manager, testified that the hamburger patties had been freshly ground and that the potato salad had been freshly made. He testified that these items were brought to a temperature above 41° F. during the preparation process, that they had been placed in coolers to cool down shortly before the inspection, and that they were above 41° F. when Mr. Grosvenor conducted his inspection because they had not had sufficient time to cool down. While his testimony explained Mr. Grosvenor’s findings as to the hamburger patties and the potato salad, Mr. Afsarmanesh had no explanation as to why the cottage cheese was above 41° F. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Section 3.501.16(B) of the Food Code as alleged in paragraph 1 by proving that Respondent failed to maintain cottage cheese on the buffet line at or below the required minimum temperature. The violations alleged in paragraphs 2-6 were based on Mr. Torres’s follow-up inspection on August 8, 2005. That follow-up inspection was conducted during a power failure which left the restaurant without electricity. Mr. Afsarmanesh requested that the follow-up inspection be rescheduled because of the power outage, but Mr. Torres decided to go forward with the inspection using flashlights. Mr. Torres testified that the absence of electricity had no bearing on his inspection. Based on the violations found, the undersigned finds that Respondent was not prejudiced by Mr. Torres proceeding with the inspection. PARAGRAPH 2 The initial inspection cited Respondent for storing uncovered lettuce, onions, and peppers in a cooler. On August 8, 2005, Mr. Torres observed that lettuce, onions, and peppers were stored uncovered in a cooler. That conduct violated Section 3-302.11(A)(4) of the Food Code. Mr. Afsarmanesh testified that his staff rushed to put these items in the cooler when the electricity went out and that they did not have sufficient time or light to cover them. The exigent circumstances created by the power outage do not excuse the violation observed by Mr. Torres, but those circumstances can be considered in mitigation when determining the penalty to be imposed. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Section 3-302.11(A)(4) of the Food Code as alleged in paragraph 2. PARAGRAPH 3 Paragraph 3 alleged that Respondent violated Section 3- 304.14(B) of the Food Code by failing to have chlorine sanitizer in a cleaning bucket at minimum strength. On August 8, 2005, Mr. Torres determined that the chlorine sanitizer in a cleaning bucket was below minimum strength. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Section 3-304.14(B) of the Food Code as alleged in paragraph 3. PARAGRAPH 4 Paragraph 4 alleged that Respondent violated Section 5- 205.11(B) of the Food Code by using a hand-washing sink for purposes other than washing hands. The inspection report does not detail what other use was being made of the hand-washing sink and Mr. Torres could not recall what he had observed to cause him to cite that as a violation. Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence the alleged violation of paragraph 4. PARAGRAPH 5 Paragraph 5 alleged that Respondent violated Section 6-202.15 of the Food Code by failing to properly seal an exterior door. On August 8, 2005, Mr. Torres observed that an exterior door to Respondent’s facility was not properly sealed and, consequently, would not prevent the intrusion of pests. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Section 6-202.15 of the Food Code as alleged in paragraph 5. PARAGRAPH 6 Paragraph 6 alleged that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(7), by failing to keep an electrical room clean and free of debris by storing items in the electric room. On August 8, 2005, Mr. Torres observed that Respondent had stored items in an electric room. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(7), as alleged in paragraph 6. A violation of applicable rules by a public food service establishment is either a critical or non-critical violation. A critical violation is one that poses a significant threat to the health, safety, and welfare of people. A non- critical violation is one that does not rise to the level of a critical violation. The paragraph 3 violation is a non-critical violation. The remaining violations found are critical violations.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order that finds that Respondent committed the violations alleged in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 and imposes administrative fines against Respondent as follows: $1,000.00 for the paragraph 1 violation; $100.00 for the paragraph 2 violation; $100.00 for the paragraph 3 violation; $500.00 for the paragraph 5 violation; and $500.00 for the paragraph 6 violation. In addition, the final order should require a manager responsible for the subject restaurant to attend, at Respondent’s expense, an educational program sponsored by Petitioner’s Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 2nd day of February, 2006.

Florida Laws (7) 120.569120.57509.013509.032509.241509.261509.302
# 5
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS vs NATURES TABLE CAFE, 07-003138 (2007)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Orlando, Florida Jul. 12, 2007 Number: 07-003138 Latest Update: Mar. 17, 2008

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. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a restaurant holding Food Service license number 5807127 and operating at 1900 Summit Tower Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32810. On June 5, 2006, Gayle Braska, a sanitation and safety inspector employed by the Petitioner, performed a routine inspection of the Respondent at which time there were at least four employees engaged in food preparation. Ms. Braska determined that there was no certified food manager present on the premises at the time of the inspection and cited the deficiency in an inspection report. The report was provided to the Respondent at the time of the inspection as acknowledged by the signature of Restaurant Manager Brigitte Graffuis. The report indicated that correction of the cited deficiency, as well as others not relevant to this proceeding, was required by the time of the "next unannounced inspection" of the establishment. On October 5, 2006, another inspection of the establishment was conducted, this time by Petitioner's Inspector Cecilia Chiu, at which time there were at least four employees engaged in food preparation. According to Ms. Chiu's inspection report, the Respondent had no certified food manager present on the premises. The deficiency was again cited in an inspection report, which was provided to the Respondent at the time of the inspection as acknowledged by the signature of Ms. Graffuis. The report indicated that a callback inspection would occur on November 5, 2006, by which time the Respondent was required to correct the cited deficiency, as well as others not relevant to this proceeding. On November 7, 2006, a callback inspection of the establishment was conducted by Ms. Chiu, at which time there were at least four employees engaged in food preparation. According to Ms. Chiu's inspection report, the Respondent still had no certified food manager present on the premises. The deficiency was cited in the callback inspection report which was provided to the Respondent at the time of the inspection as acknowledged again by Ms. Graffuis. The report stated that correction of various deficiencies was required by the time of the "next unannounced inspection" of the establishment, but specifically stated that correction of the food manager certification deficiency was required by January 5, 2007, and that documentation of certification could be faxed to the Petitioner's offices before that date. The Petitioner received no documentation of compliance with the food certification requirements by fax or by any other means of delivery. On April 9, 2007, Ms. Chiu conducted another inspection of the establishment, at which time there were at least four employees engaged in food preparation. According to Ms. Chiu's inspection report, the Respondent still had no certified food manager present on the premises. The deficiency was cited in the inspection report, which was provided to the Respondent at the time of the inspection as acknowledged by Restaurant Manager Anne Boughey. On May 2, 2007, the Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent for noncompliance with the certification requirement. Respondent's Exhibit A is a certificate stating that Ms. Graffuis had passed the "Food Protection Manager Certification Examination" on June 13, 2001, and was certified for a five-year period, expiring on June 13, 2006. The first inspection at which the Petitioner cited the Respondent for noncompliance with the certification requirement occurred on June 5, 2006, approximately one week before Ms. Graffuis' certification expired. The evidence establishes that the Respondent failed to provide evidence of certification to any of the Petitioner's inspectors at the time of the inspections. No documentation of food manager certification was provided by the Respondent to the Petitioner until the hearing conducted on September 6, 2007. There is no evidence that Ms. Graffuis advised Ms. Braska that she was apparently certified at the time of the June 5 inspection. There is no evidence that there was any certified food manager present in the restaurant at the time of any inspection occurring after June 13, 2006.

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 $500 against the Respondent and requiring the Respondent to complete an appropriate educational program related to the violation identified herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Jose A. Blanco, Certified Legal Intern Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 David J. Hasselberger Natures Table Cafe 1900 Summit Tower Boulevard, Suite 190 Orlando, Florida 32810 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Florida Laws (1) 120.57
# 8

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer