The Issue The issues in this matter are whether Respondent was out of compliance with the food safety requirements of chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2016),1/ and the implementing administrative rules of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants; and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for regulating the operation of public food service establishments in Florida pursuant to chapter 509. Respondent is a licensed public food service establishment in Florida and holds License No. 3915849. Respondent operates a restaurant under the name of Los Gorditos No. 2 located at 6110 Causeway Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Respondent is a family-owned and operated business. The restaurant opened in November 2014. As a licensed public food service establishment, Respondent is subject to the Division's regulatory jurisdiction. Respondent must comply with the requirements of chapter 509 and its implementing rules. Respondent is subject to inspection by the Division. Ashley Herrmann (“Inspector Herrmann”) is employed by the Division as a Sanitation Safety Specialist. Inspector Herrmann has worked for the Division for approximately two and a half years as an inspector. Upon gaining employment in the Division, Inspector Herrmann was standardized on the federal Food Code and trained on the laws and rules pertaining to public food service establishments and public lodging establishments. She is also a certified food manager and receives continuing education training on a monthly basis. Inspector Herrmann performs approximately 1,000 inspections each year. On November 5, 2015, Inspector Herrmann performed a routine, unannounced food service inspection on Respondent’s restaurant. During the inspection, Inspector Herrmann prepared a Food Service Inspection Report. In her report, Inspector Herrmann recorded her observations of potential violations. Inspector Herrmann noted approximately 39 conditions for which Respondent had failed to comply with applicable rules or statutes. Jaharia Perez signed the Food Service Inspection Report acknowledging receipt on Respondent’s behalf. Inspector Herrmann informed Respondent that it needed to correct the violations by November 12, 2015. On November 13, 2015, Inspector Herrmann performed a callback inspection on Respondent to follow up on her initial inspection. During this inspection, Inspector Herrmann prepared a Callback Report. Inspector Herrmann found that Respondent had corrected 14 of the violations she identified during her November 5, 2015, inspection. However, Respondent had not addressed the 25 other violations. Inspector Herrmann informed Respondent that the remaining violations needed to be fixed by December 5, 2015. Mariella Mendoza signed the Callback Report acknowledging receipt on behalf of Respondent. On December 8, 2015, Inspector Herrmann performed a second callback inspection on Respondent to follow up on the November 13, 2015, inspection. During this inspection, Inspector Herrmann prepared a second Callback Report. She noted that Respondent had corrected five more violations recorded in her November 5, 2015, and November 13, 2015, inspections. However, 20 violations still existed. Inspector Herrmann informed Respondent that the remaining violations needed to be fixed by January 5, 2016. Jaharia Perez signed the Callback Report acknowledging receipt on Respondent’s behalf. On January 5, 2016, Inspector Herrmann performed a third callback inspection on Respondent. During this inspection, Inspector Herrmann prepared a third Callback Report. On this report, Inspector Herrmann noted that Respondent had fixed at least one more violation identified during her November 5, 2015, November 13, 2015, and December 8, 2015, inspections. However, a number of violations remained uncorrected. Based on Inspector Hermann’s January 5, 2016, Callback Report, the Division cited Respondent with thirteen violations. These violations included: First Violation: Inspector Hermann observed a cutting board with cut marks which made the cutting board no longer cleanable in violation of rule 4-501.12, Food Code (2009).3/ Cutting boards that have cut marks collect food debris which enables bacteria to accumulate leading to food borne illness. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a “core item.” The Division designated violations of core items as “basic violations.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). Respondent, at the final hearing, expressed that it has obtained a new cutting board. Second Violation: Inspector Herrmann observed non-food grade containers being used for food storage in violation of rule 4-101.11, Food Code. Non-food grade containers can contain chemicals that can leak into food products. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a priority item.4/ The Division has designated violations of priority items as “high priority violations.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(a). Respondent claimed that it ordered and now uses approved food grade containers. Third Violation: Inspector Herrmann observed a build-up of dust, food debris, and grease on hood filters in violation of rule 4- 601.11(C), Food Code. Debris can potentially fall from hood filters or shelving into food items or accumulate on non-food contact surfaces and transfer to clean containers placing the public’s health at risk. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a “core item.” The Division has designated violations of core items as “basic violations.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). Respondent explained that in December 2015, it hired a custodial company to clean grease, debris, and soil in its facility every three months. Fourth Violation: Inspector Herrmann observed that Respondent seated more patrons than its septic system permit authorized in violation of rule 5-403.11, Food Code. Respondent’s establishment was approved for 19 seats, but Inspector Herrmann observed the establishment operating with approximately 48 seats on November 5, 2015, November 13, 2015, and December 8, 2015. On January 5, 2016, Respondent operated with approximately 25 seats. Serving more patrons than the septic system can accommodate can result in a failed septic system that can create a sanitary nuisance. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a priority item. The Division has designated violations of priority items as “high priority violations. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(a). Respondent testified that, following the January inspection, it has reduced its seating to approximately 20 seats. Respondent has also initiated a plan to connect to the city water and sewer. This arrangement will allow the restaurant to expand its seating without violating its septic system capacity. Respondent hopes to connect to city water by Christmas 2016. Fifth Violation: a. Inspector Herrmann observed the presence of standing water around the floor drain, which was draining slowly near the cook line and fryers, in violation of rule 5-205.15, Food Code. Standing water in floor drains can potentially back up into the establishment and create a sanitary nuisance or potentially attract vermin. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a “core item.” The Division has designated violations of core items as “basic violations.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). Sixth Violation: Inspector Herrmann observed an outside dumpster sitting directly on the ground without a barrier or non-absorbent surface between the dumpster and the ground in violation of rule 5- 501.11, Food Code. Dumpsters without proper pads allow food waste and chemicals to leak into the ground and attract vermin. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a “core item.” The Division has designated violations of core items as “basic violations.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). Respondent explained that it is working with Hillsborough County to redesign the area where the dumpster is located to include a concrete space for the dumpster that complies with regulations. The permits have not yet been approved, but Respondent is working towards them. Seventh Violation: Inspector Hermann observed several broken wall tiles under the three compartment sink and damaged cove molding on the front cook line in violation of rule 6-501.11, Food Code. Damage to wall or cove molding can lead to the accumulation of food debris and the growth of bacteria, putting the public’s health at risk. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a “core item.” The Division has designated violations of core items as “basic violations.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). Respondent asserted that it repaired all the wall tiles in December 2015. Eighth Violation: Inspector Herrmann observed soil on Respondent’s floor near or along the baseboards in violation of rule 6-501.12(A), Food Code. Bacteria and dirt on the floor can come into contact with food contact surfaces placing the public’s health at risk. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a “core item.” The Division has designated violations of core items as “basic violations.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). Similar to its reaction to the Fourth Violation, Respondent hired a custodial company to clean grease, debris, and soil in its facility every three months. Ninth Violation: a. Inspector Hermann observed that lights above a food preparation table were missing a proper light shield or cover in violation of rule 6-202.11, Food Code. Light covers and shields protect food items and preparation surfaces from shattered glass. The Food Code defines the governing requirement for this violation as a “core item.” The Division designates violations of core items as “basic violations.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). Tenth Violation: Inspector Herrmann observed carbon dioxide/helium tanks that were not adequately secured in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(7)(a). Unsecured tanks might topple over and, if breached, can become a missile-like object and a danger to the public’s safety. The Division designated this violation as a “basic violation.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(c). Respondent explained that the tanks are owned by the owner of the building where the restaurant is located and were present when Respondent opened its business. Further, Respondent understands that the tanks are empty. Therefore, the tanks do not pose a danger if the top valve gets knocked off. Eleventh Violation: Inspector Herrmann observed that Respondent had recently constructed a bar inside the restaurant. Respondent did not submit a plan for the bar to the Division for approval in violation of rule 61C-1.002(5)(c)1. Inspector Herrmann contacted the Division’s Plan Review Office and confirmed that Respondent had not submitted a properly prepared facility plan and specification for review. The Division must approve remodeled or newly constructed public food service establishments to ensure compliance with sanitation and safety requirements. The Division designated this violation as an “intermediate violation.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(b). Respondent explained that it requested and received approval from the Hillsborough County Fire Department to construct the bar. However, Respondent was not aware that it also needed to submit a plan review to the Division. Consequently, it did not seek approval from the Division. Twelfth Violation: Inspector Herrmann observed Respondent operating with four or more employees engaging in food preparation and/or handling without a certified food protection manager on duty in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-4.023(1). At least one certified food protection manager must be present at all times when four or more employees are engaged in the storage, preparation, or serving of food to ensure the establishment is operating with acceptable sanitary practices. The Division designated this violation an “intermediate violation.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(b). Respondent expressed that it always operates under the supervision of certified food protection managers and believes that a food manager was present during the times of the inspections. Respondent offered that the inspections were accomplished in a short timespan (20 minutes). This short time period, combined with the fact that Spanish is the primary language of many of Respondent’s employees, may have led to a misunderstanding over whether a certified food manager was present during the inspections. At the final hearing, Respondent testified and produced evidence that Respondent currently employs approximately nine certified food managers. Respondent further represented that the two individuals who signed the inspection reports on Respondent’s behalf were also certified food protection managers. Thirteenth Violation: a. Respondent failed to provide Inspector Herrmann with proof of its employees' required state-approved employee training upon request in violation of section 509.049(5). Employees of public food service establishments are required to have basic food safety training which imparts knowledge of basic food handling skills. Lack of this knowledge can result in a breakdown of the food handling process, possibly leading to food borne illness or unsanitary conditions. The Division designated this violation as an “intermediate violation.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61C-1.005(5)(b). Respondent has one prior disciplinary Final Order filed with the Agency Clerk for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation within the 24 months preceding the administrative complaint in this matter. The Final Order in Case No. 2015-014633 was filed on October 6, 2015. Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the final hearing, the Division demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent was out of compliance with applicable food safety requirements of the Food Code, Florida Statutes, and the implementing administrative rules of the Division. The Division established that on or about November 5, 2015, November 13, 2015, December 8, 2015, and January 5, 2016, Respondent committed the following violations listed above: the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, eleventh, and thirteenth violations. The Division did not establish, by clear and convincing evidence, the tenth and twelfth violations.
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 Respondent, Benitel Eddie Joel Perez, d/b/a Los Gorditos No. 2, in violation of chapter 509 and its implementing rules. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent should pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $3,500 for the violations identified above, due and payable to the Division within thirty (30) calendar days of the date the final order is filed with the Agency Clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 29th day of June, 2016.
The Issue The issues in this case concern whether challenged portions of Proposed Rule 61C-4.023(4)(b) either separately or together constitute an “invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority” on the grounds that the agency has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority; the proposed rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented; or both.
Findings Of Fact The parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation and the evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Division is the state agency charged with inspecting and regulating licensed “public food service establishments” (which are commonly known as restaurants). See generally Section 509.032, Florida Statutes. In the early 1990s, the legislature enacted Section 509.039, Florida Statutes, which directed the Division to adopt, by rule, food safety protection standards for the training and certification of all food service managers responsible for the storage, preparation, display, or serving of foods to the public in licensed establishments. This legislation required the Division to establish a testing and certification program, to be administered by private or public entities. Id. In 1996, the Legislature went a step further, instructing the Division to adopt minimum food safety protection standards for the training of all food service employees: 509.049 Food service employee training.– The division shall adopt, by rule, minimum food safety protection standards for the training of all food service employees who are responsible for the storage, preparation, display, or serving of foods to the public in establishments regulated under this chapter. These standards shall not include an examination. It shall be the duty of the licensee of the public food service establishment to provide training in accordance with the described rule to all employees under the licensee's supervision or control. The licensee may designate a certified food service manager to perform this function as an agent of the licensee. See Chapter 96-384, Section 4, Laws of Florida. In 2000, the legislature substantially revised Section 509.049, Florida Statutes, mandating that the Division establish, by rule, a food safety training certification program for food service employees, to be administered by a private provider under a public contract that the Division was directed to let pursuant to competitive proposals. See Chapter 2000-191, Section 1, Laws of Florida. At the same time, the revised law provided that licensed establishments could apply to the Division for approval of their existing food safety training programs——approval which, if granted, would allow such programs to be used in place of the program administered by the Division’s contracted provider. Id. Pursuant to a competitive procurement, the Division selected the Intervenor Association to be its contracted provider for the “official” employee food safety training certification program. Petitioner Food Safety is a provider that offers a food safety training program that the Division has approved for use. Food Safety distributes its training program both by directly administering the program to restaurant employees through on- site, personal instruction, and by selling its program for others to administer.1 In 2001, the legislature again revised Section 509.049, Florida Statutes, adding provisions that pertained to the approval of food safety training programs, allowed some regulation of providers of such programs, and authorized the Division to adopt certain rules. See Chapter 2001-257, Section 1, Laws of Florida. In particular, two new subsections, (4) and (6), were added to Section 509.049, as follows: (4) Approval of a program is subject to the provider's continued compliance with the division's minimum program standards. The division may conduct random audits of approved programs to determine compliance and may audit any program if it has reason to believe a program is not in compliance with this section. The division may revoke a program's approval if it finds a program is not in compliance with this section or the rules adopted under this section. * * * The division may adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 necessary to administer this section. The rules may require: The use of application forms, which may require, but need not be limited to, the identification of training components of the program and an applicant affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the information provided in the application; Providers to maintain information concerning establishments where they provide training pursuant to this section; Specific subject matter related to food safety for use in training program components; and The licensee to be responsible for providing proof of employee training, and the division may request production of such proof upon inspection of the establishment. Initiating the rulemaking process that led to this challenge, the Division caused a Notice of Proposed Rule Development to be published in the March 23, 2001, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. This Notice included the preliminary text of Proposed Rule 61C-4.023(4), which stated in relevant part: Approved program providers must maintain a record of each food service employee certified, including the following: the name of the certified food service employee, the employing food service establishment, the name of the training administrator, the training date, and the certification expiration date. These records shall be transmitted to the division on a monthly basis, either in hard copy or in an electronic format approved by the division. After conducting a workshop on the draft rule on May 24, 2001, the Division caused a Notice of Proposed Rule to be published in the August 17, 2001 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. The August 17, 2001, version of the proposed rule stated, in pertinent part: (b) Approved program providers must maintain training information for a period of at least three years from the date training is provided. If the program provider directly administers training to a food service employee, this information must include the name of the trained food service employee, the name of establishments where training has been provided, the date of training, and the specific course that was used for the training. If the program provider furnishes program materials but does not directly administer training to a food service employee, this information must include the name of establishments where program materials have been provided, the date these materials were provided, and the specific course which was provided. The division shall revoke its approval of any program which, upon examination, is found to have failed to keep this required information or to have knowingly participated in falsifying any training record. On September 20, 2001, Food Safety filed its Petition, objecting to provisions in the proposed rule which would impose record-keeping requirements on providers that do “not directly administer training” and which would require the Division to revoke its approval of an authorized program in certain circumstances. After this rule challenge commenced, the Division amended the final sentence of Proposed Rule 61C-4.023(4)(b). The proposed rule assumed its current form in the October 26, 2001, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. Proposed Rule 61C-4.023(4)(b) (the “Proposed Rule”), as challenged, provides as follows: Approved program providers must maintain training information for a period of at least three years from the date training is provided. If the program provider directly administers training to a food service employee, this information must include the name of the trained food service employee, the name of establishments where training has been provided, the date of training, and the specific course that was used for the training. If the program provider furnishes program materials but does not directly administer training to a food service employee, this information must include the name of establishments where program materials have been provided, the date these materials were provided, and the specific course which was provided. The division shall revoke its approval of any program where, upon examination, the program provider is found to have failed to keep this required information or to have knowingly participated in falsifying any training record. Petitioner protests the third and fourth sentences of the Proposed Rule, which are underlined above, alleging that the subject provisions either exceed the Division’s rulemaking authority; enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented; or both.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 500.147(1), Florida Statutes (2020),1 when it refused entry to Petitioner's inspectors unless the inspectors agreed 1 Unless stated otherwise, all references to statutes and administrative rules are to the 2020 versions that were in effect during the conduct at issue. Childers v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 696 So. 2d 962, 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). to Respondent's "no camera" policy; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating food establishments pursuant to chapter 500, Florida Statutes (the Food Safety Act), and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 5K-4. At all times relevant, Tampa Maid was permitted as a food establishment (Food Permit No. 28143) by the Department.4 Tampa Maid operates a shrimp and shellfish processing plant at 1600 Kathleen Road in Lakeland, Florida (Facility). As a seafood processor, Tampa Maid is subject to the jurisdiction of the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and specifically to seafood Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) inspections. The Department contracts with the FDA to perform various types of inspections including HACCP inspections. The Department's FDA contract contemplates that (1) Department inspectors will collect information and 3 An official word index to the Transcript was submitted on March 31, 2021. 4 Section 500.03(p) defines "Food establishment" as "factory, food outlet, or other facility manufacturing, processing, packing, holding, or preparing food or selling food at wholesale or retail." evidence, (2) evidence can be in the form of photographs, and (3) evidence collected is not subject to public records requests, but rather must be kept confidential. 5 It states: All information collected during the performance of this contract shall be considered as confidential commercial information, including the Establishment Inspection Report (EIR), FDA 483, or equivalent forms, evidence collected, and all other supporting documentation. Evidence and supporting documentation may include supplier, receiving, and distribution records, photographs, complaint records, laboratory results, and other documents collected during the performance of the contract. The Contractor shall notify the Division Technical Advisor within three (3) business days after receipt of a public records request for information obtained during the performance of the contract is received. The Contractor is not authorized to release confidential commercial information. (emphasis added). The Department trains staff to conduct various types of inspections of food establishments. The Department also issues inspectors equipment to be used to perform their duties. This includes tools such as a flashlight, probe thermometer, test strips for sanitizers, and mobile phones. The Department- issued phones have a camera to take photographs during an inspection. The Department has developed the Manufactured Food Inspection Protocol (Protocol) which contains the following instructions for inspectors: 6.5 Refusal of Inspection Notify a manager immediately if you are denied entry to any part of the establishment including being restricted from taking photographs of violative conditions, collecting samples, or if the 5 Chapter 500 is to be interpreted to be consistent with the FDA's rules and regulations. See § 500.09(3), Fla. Stat. Additionally, the Department has adopted federal regulations and other standards. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5K-4.002. Article 5.3.4 of the FDA's Investigation Operations Manual (2021) provides further instructions and guidance to inspectors of documenting conditions using photographs during inspections. See FDA website at: https://www.fda.gov/media/113432/download (last visited April 6, 2021). establishment management or person in charge refuses to provide access to required food records; this may constitute a refusal of inspection. * * * 7.1 FIMS Review [Before an inspection] review recent inspection reports … for attached files, documents, photographs, etc. * * * 8.1.1. Signing of Non-FDACS Documents Circumstances may arise in which a food establishment requests the [inspector] to sign documents during the inspection. Listed below are specific guidelines for these circumstances. Contact a manager f you encounter a situation not listed. 8.1.2 Proprietary Documents Florida Statute Chapter 500.147 authorizes the Department to have access to any food establishment … for the purposes of inspecting such establishment … to determine whether this chapter or any rule adopted under this chapter is being violated. Documents including, but not limited to, waivers, nondisclosure, confidentiality agreements may include language that inhibits our authority to conduct the inspection. If you are asked to sign these types of documents inform the person in charge that you are not authorized to sign the documents. If they persist and /or deny you entry, contact a manager as this may constitute a refusal of inspection. * * * 8.1.4 Sign-In and Sign-Out Rosters All FADCS employees are authorized to sign-in and sign-out at food establishments, so far as they sign- in document does not include language that would impede the inspection. * * * 13. Inspection Techniques and Evidence Development Collect adequate evidence and documentation in accordance with FDACS procedures to support inspectional observations such as those listed below: * * * 13.2 Photographs Photographs serve as supporting evidence when documenting violative practices or conditions. Photographs should be related to conditions contributing to adulteration of the finished product. Excessive amounts of photographs are not necessary to support your documentation. Ensure photographs clearly represent the conditions observed. These photographs must be uploaded to the FIMS inspection visit. As explained by Inspectors Frank Kilgore and Bhisham Ojha it is "not uncommon" for inspectors to take photographs during an inspection for various reasons. The most obvious reason is to document violative conditions. An example given at the hearing was of an inspector using a camera to take photographs of rodent droppings (which are presumably a health and safety violation in a food establishment) to show they existed inside a particular facility. Another reason an inspector would take photographs would be to establish whether the product is interstate commerce. An inspector could take a photograph of the packing materials on the box in a food establishment to later determine whether it had been shipped from out of state. Inspectors can also document through photographs whether a facility is operating beyond the scope of its permit or license. For example, an entity may be permitted to operate as a warehouse, but during the inspection it may be discovered that the entity is also repacking seafood or spices. A photograph of the unlicensed activity can be included in the inspection report to establish the improper activity. Finally, photographs are helpful for follow-up inspections to establish whether a violation still exists. For example, a piece of equipment may be broken or dirty in violation of safety regulations during an inspection. On the follow-up inspection, a comparison can be made to a photograph taken during the original visit to establish if it has been repaired or cleaned. Inspectors are trained to take photographs during an inspection and how they can be used. As stated in the Protocol and supported by the testimony of the inspectors, an inspector must have a need for taking a picture, such as a suspected violation, and cannot take pictures for no reason. In addition to instructing inspectors on how to use photographs, the Protocol advises inspectors on what types of documents they can sign as long as there are no restrictions on their ability to conduct the inspection. Although they are allowed to sign a "Sign-In/Sign-Out" sheet, they are not to sign "waivers, nondisclosure, confidentiality agreements may include language that inhibits our authority to conduct the inspection." If faced with these documents, they are to refuse to sign them; if denied entry by the entity being inspected, the inspector is instructed to contact the Department. March 9, 2020 On March 9, 2020, Mr. Kilgore and Mr. Ojha visited Tampa Maid's facility to conduct an HAACP and FDA contract inspection. Mr. Kilgore was the lead inspector and was training Mr. Ojha. Upon arrival, the inspectors were asked to sign a COVID protocol acknowledgment or questionnaire. When the inspectors refused to sign the document, Tampa Maid accepted their verbal answers to the COVID questions. Then, as a prerequisite to entering the part of the Facility the inspectors were to inspect, Rod Stokes, Tampa Maid's Director of Food Safety and Quality Assurance, asked the inspectors to sign a ledger titled "Visitors Register," located at a desk in the office of the Facility. The Visitors Register was located on a desk next to a large placard which stated, "FOOD DEFENSE. PLEASE SIGN IN." Next to the Visitors Register and underneath the placard was a document titled, "Visitor's Information" and is copied below: The "Visitor Information" sheet included a list of 14 items typed in "ALL CAPS" including instructions (such as "sign in," "be careful of moving equipment," "do not touch the equipment," and "report any intestinal illness") and prohibitions (for jewelry, gum, food, tobacco, open-toed shoes, and weapons). The item at issue is located in the middle of the list: "8. No Cameras Allowed." At the very bottom of this document, after being instructed to "enjoy your visit," in a smaller font and not capitalized, was a conclusion that, by signing the visitor's log (presumably the same as the "Visitor's Register") a visitor was agreeing to follow the 14 listed statements. Both inspectors had visited the Facility on previous occasions and both had signed the Visitors Register. Mr. Ojha claimed he did not recall the "no camera" instruction listed as number eight on the Visitor Information sheet and did not agree to it, nor did he follow the instructions. Rather, he kept the Department-issued phone, which had the camera, in his back pocket during the inspection. Mr. Kilgore remembered previously signing the Visitors Register, but he did not notice the Visitor Information language. He explained that the Visitor Information sheet was not attached to the Visitors Register. If he had noticed the language, he would not have signed the ledger. He also claimed that he always kept the Department issued phone with him during inspections. When the Department inspectors refused to perform the inspection without their cameras on March 9, 2020, Mr. Stokes would not allow them to proceed. Mr. Stokes did not believe the inspectors had the authority to use a camera during the inspection, and he demanded that the inspectors or the Department give him the legal basis for the Department's authority to bring cameras into a facility. Although there was a discussion between Mr. Stokes and Department staff, nothing was provided to Mr. Stokes to change his mind. Ultimately, Mr. Kilgore informed Mr. Stokes that they would not conduct the inspection without their phones and that prohibiting them from entering the Facility with cameras could result in a refusal of inspection. Mr. Stokes continued to refuse to let the inspectors proceed into the Facility with their Department-issued phones. No inspection took place on March 9, 2020, and there is no evidence the Tampa Maid Facility has been inspected since that time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered as follows: Finding that Tampa Maid denied the Department free access to its facility in violation of section 500.147, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, when it refused to let inspectors enter with cameras. Requiring Tampa Maid to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. Suspending Tampa Maid's Food Permit (Food Permit No. 28143) until such time that access to the food establishment is freely given to the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Allan J. Charles, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Magdalena Ozarowski, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Nicole "Nikki" Fried Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Daniel J. Fleming, Esquire Johnson Pope Bokor Ruppel & Burns, LLP Suite 3100 401 East Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Steven Hall, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
