11-003987 Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Division Of Hotels And Restaurants vs. The Green Mango Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, January 23, 2012.

Summary: Petitioner proved that Respondent violated provisions of the Food Code by clear and convincing evidence, but not the allegation as to ghee.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

DIVISION OF HOTELS AND )

RESTAURANTS, )

) Case No. 11 - 3987

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

THE GREEN MANGO , )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On October 31 , 2011, a duly - noticed hearing was held in

Tallahassee and Gainesville, Florida, via video teleconference,

before F. Sc ott Boyd, an Administrative Law Judge assigned by

the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Sara Strickland, Qualified Representative

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Stree t, Suite 42

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2202

Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2202

For Respondent: Nalini Pandey, pro se

6839 Sou thwest 82 nd Terrace

Gainesville, Florida 32608

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in th is case is whether on April 19, 2010 , and

July 27, 2010, Respondent was in compliance with food safety

requirements set forth in administrative rules of the Divis ion

of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business and

Professional Regulation (Division) , and if not , what penalty is

appropriate .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On August 2, 2010 , Petitioner filed a n A dministrative

C omplaint against Respondent alleging violations of rules

implementing chapter 509, Florida Statutes , relating to food

safety . Respondent requested an administrative hearing and the

matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings

for assignment of an administrative law judge o n August 9, 2011.

The case was noticed for video teleconference hearing on

October 31 , 2011, in Tallahassee and Gainesville , Florida,

locations . On October 28, 2011 , Petitioner requested approval

of a Qualified Representative, which was subsequently grant ed.

At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of one witness

and offered five exhibits. Petitioner ' s Exhibits P - 1 and P - 2

were admitted without objection. Petitioner ' s Exhibit s P - 3 and

P - 4 w ere objected to by Respondent on the basis that they were

irrelevant. The objections were overruled, with Petitioner ' s

Exhibit 4 being admitted only on the issue of appropriate

penalty, should violations be proven. Petitioner ' s Exhibit P - 5

was offered as rebuttal evidence to show, contrary to

Respondent ' s testi mony, that Petitioner had notif ied Respondent

that the Federal Food and Drug Administration would have to

approve a lab test challenge for ghee to be classified as a

" non - potentially hazardous food. " Petitioner ' s Exhibit P - 5 was

admitted for that limited purpose, but not as evidence that such

procedures are or are not required. Petitioner also requested

official recognition of provisions of the Florida Statutes, the

Florida Administrative Code, and incorporated provisions of the

Federal Food Code, which w as granted. M s. P andey testified on

behalf of Respondent. Ms. Pandey also sought to conduct a

c ourtroom demonstration of differences between butter and ghee ,

which was objected to by Petitioner because Petitioner had not

been given prior notice. Ruling was reserved and Respondent was

permitted to proffer the demonstration. As discussed below, the

evidentiary demonstration is not admitted as evidence because

Respondent failed to establish its relevance to the issues in

this case .

At Respondent ' s reques t, the parties were given until

December 29, 2011, to submit p roposed r ecommended o rders. The

T ranscript was filed with the Division on November 17, 2011.

Bo th parties timely submitted Proposed Recommended O rders , which

were considered .

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. 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.

2 . Julianne Browning has been employed as a senior

inspector with the Division for six or seven years. It is part

of her responsibility to inspect food service establishments for

safety and sanitation. She conducts approximately 850

inspections each year.

3 . Respondent is licensed as a public food establishment

oper ating as The Green Mango at 7625 West Newberry Road,

Gainesville Florida.

4 . On April 19, 2010, Ms. Browning conducted a food

service inspection on Respondent. Ms. Browning prepared and

signed an inspection report setting forth the violations that

she ob served during the inspection.

5 . During her April inspection, Ms. Browning observed an

employee engage in food preparation, handle clean equipment or

utensils, or touch unwrapped single service items, without

washing hands. Ms. Browning identified this as a critical

violation on DBPR Form HR - 5022 - 015 , the Food Service Inspection

Report . Th e failure of a food service employee to wash their

hands constitutes a significant threat to the public health,

safety, and welfare .

6 . Inspector Browning also observ ed in April potentially

hazardous cold food held at temperatures greater than 41 degrees

Fa h renheit. Specifically, she observed potatoes at 68 degrees,

batter at 70 degrees, rice at 85 degrees, soup at 55 degrees,

turnovers at 90 degrees , and butter at 90 degrees. Ms. Browning

made notes of these observations in her report. She identified

this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR - 5022 - 015 , the Food

Service Inspection Report .

7 . Potatoes, batter, rice, soup, and turnovers are

potentially hazardous foo ds and Respondent failed to maintain

them at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less. This

failure constituted a significant threat to the public health,

safety, and welfare .

8 . On July 27, 2010, Ms. Browning conducted a nother food

service inspect ion on Respondent. Again she prepared and signed

an inspection report setting forth the violations that she

observed during the inspection.

9. During the July inspection, Ms. Browning again observed

an employee engage in food preparation, handle clean e quipment

or utensils, or touch unwrapped single service items, without

washing hands. She observed that an employee did not wash his

hands before putting on gloves to prepare food. Ms. Browning

identified this as a critical violation on DBPR Form HR - 5022 -

015 , the Food Service Inspection Report .

10. It is necessary for employees preparing food to wash

their hands even if they are going to be wearing gloves because

the gloves could have a tear, or a pin hole, or be otherwise

compromised. The failure to wash hands constitute d a

significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare .

1 1 . During the July inspection, Ms. Browning observed what

she described as clarified butter , which here will be referred

to as ghee, on the counter with a temperature of 80 degrees .

I nspector Browning also again observed potentially hazardous

cold food held at temperatures greater than 41 degrees

Fa h renheit. In this instance she observed cream at 47 degrees,

tofu at 45 degrees, milk at 45 degrees, potatoes at 45 degr ees,

yoghurt at 45 degrees, and cooked vegetables at 55 degrees.

Ms. Browning identified this as a critical violation on DBPR

Form HR - 5022 - 015, the Food Service Inspection Report.

1 2 . Cream, tofu, milk, potatoes, yoghurt, and cooked

vegetables are poten tially hazardous foods and Respondent failed

to maintain them at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or

less.

1 3 . Potentially hazardous food must be kept at 41 d e grees

Fahrenheit or below because when the temperature rises above

that temperature , bac teria begin to grow at a much faster rate .

A person consuming the food can then contract a food - borne

illness. The failure to maintain these temperatures constituted

a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare .

1 4 . Ms. Pandey, witness for Respondent, is an experienced

cook. She worked for many years at a Hare Krishna Temple in

Alachua County. She is knowle d geable in the preparation and use

of ghee.

1 5 . Ms. Pandey testified that g hee is a form of clarified

butter that has been used f or a great many years in India, and

is still used in significant amounts there, precisely because of

the widespread lack of refrigeration. Ghee does not spoil as

fast as butter or milk or yoghurt. Ms. Pandey testified that

ghee is not perishable and that it is therefore not dangerous

when at room temperature. She further testified that

refrigeration in fact makes it very difficult to use ghee,

because it becomes hard and loses its flavor.

1 6 . It was not clear from the evidence presented that ghee

is a p otentially hazardous food or that failure to keep it at a

temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less constituted a

significant threat to the public health, safety, or welfare .

1 7 . The testimony and admitted reports of Inspector

Browning as to the fa ilure of Respondent ' s employee to wash his

hands were clear and the reports were recorded at the time of

the observation. Ms. Pandey offered no evidence to the

contrary. Her unsworn assertion during argument that her

husband was not preparing food, but o nly put on protective

gloves because he was aware of the inspection and was scared was

not credible, even if it had been offered as testimony.

18 . The testimony and admitted reports of Inspector

Browning as to the temperature of the foods was clear and was

recorded at the time of the observation. Ms. Pandey offered no

evidence to the contrary. Her unsworn assertion during argument

that the refrigerator holding the food was not being used in the

restaurant but was only for storage of personal items was not

credible, even if it had been offered as testimony.

1 9. Petitioner issued an A dministrative C omplaint against

Respondent for the above violations on August 2, 2010.

20 . Respondent has had two previous disciplinary Final

Orders entered within 24 mont h s of the Administrative C omplaint

issued in this case. In the first Stipulation and Consent

Order, signed by Anuradha Pandey on January 10, 2010 , and

entered on January 15, 2010 , Respondent agreed to pay a fine of

$ 1 5 5 0.00, but did not admit nor deny the allegations of fact

contained in the Administrative Complaint , which would have

constituted critical violations . In the second Stipulation and

Consent Order, signed by Anuradha Pandey on June 2, 20 10 , and

entered on June 10, 2010 , Respondent agreed to pa y a fine of

$2,000.00, but again did not admit or deny the allegations of

fact contained in the Administrative Complaint , which would have

constituted critical violations .

21 . The June 10, 2010 Stipulation and Consent Order was in

settlement of an adminis trative complaint issued on May 10,

2010 , alleging violations of the Food Code revealed in an

April 19, 2010 inspection , one of the same inspections for which

evidence was submitted in this case.

C ONCLUSIONS OF LAW

22 . The Division of Administrative He arings has

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in this

proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes.

23 . Petitioner is given responsibility to inspect public

food service establishment s to enforce the provisions of chapter

509 , Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 509.032(2)(c) .

24 . As a licensed public food service establishment,

Respondent is subject to inspection and to the requirements of

chapter 509 and implementing rules.

25 . Petitioner has the burden of p roof to show, by clear

and convincing evidence, that Respondent committed the acts

alleged in the Administrative Complaint . F erris v. Turlington ,

510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

26 . Clear and convincing evidence has been defined as

requiring :

[ T ]hat the ev idence must be found to be

credible; the facts to which the witnesses

testify must be distinctly remembered; the

testimony must be precise and explicit and

the witnesses must be lacking in confusion

as to the facts in issue. The evidence must

be of such w eight that it produces in the

mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or

conviction, without hesitancy, as to the

truth of the allegations sought to be

established.

Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) .

27 . Disciplinary actions may be based only upon those

offenses specifically alleged in the Administrative Co m plaint.

See Cottrill v. Dep ' t of Ins. , 685 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA

1996); Kinney v. Dep ' t of State , 501 So. 2d 129, 133 (Fla. 5th

DCA 1987); and Hunter v. Dep ' t of Prof ' l Reg. , 458 So. 2d 842,

844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). A statute imposing a penalty is never

to be construed in a manner that expands the statute. Hotel and

Rest. Comm ' n v. Sunny Seas No. One , 104 So. 2d 570, 571 (Fla.

1958).

28 . S ection 509.032(2)(d) requires Petitioner to adopt and

enforce standards and requirements for obtaining, storing,

preparing, processing, serving or displaying food to protect the

public from food - borne illness in public food service

establishments.

2 9. Section 509.032(6) gives the Div ision authority to

adopt rules to carry out the prov i sions of chapter 509 .

30 . The Division has adopted Florida Administrative Code

Rule 61C - 1.001(14) , which incorporates by reference various

provisions of the 2001 U. S. Food and Drug Administration Food

Code (Food Code) , including definitions found in paragraph 1 -

201.10(B), all of chapters 2 and 3 , and certain changes made by

the Supplement to the 2001 FDA Food Code (August 29, 2003).

31 . Food Code R ule 2 - 301.14 , as incorporated by reference,

is entitl ed, " When to Wash " and provides:

FOOD EMPLOYEES shall clean their hands and

exposed portions of their arms as specified

under paragraph 2 - 301.12 immediately before

engaging in FOOD preparation including

working with exposed FOOD, clean EQUIPMENT

and UTENSI LS, and unwrapped SINGLE - SERVICE

and SINGLE - USE ARTICLES and:

(A) After touching bare human body parts

other than clean hands and clean, exposed

portions of arms;

(B) After using the toilet room;

(C) After caring for or handling SERVICE

ANIMALS or aqu atic animals as specified in

paragraph 2 - 403.11(B);

(D) Except as specified in paragraph 2 -

401.11(B), after coughing, sneezing, using a

handkerchief or disposable tissue, using

tobacco, eating, or drinking;

(E) After handling soiled EQUIPMENT or

UTENSILS ;

(F) During FOOD preparation, as often as

necessary to remove soil and contamination

and to prevent cross contamination when

changing tasks;

(G) When switching between working with raw

FOOD and working with READY - TO - EAT FOOD;

(H) Before donning gloves for working with

FOOD; and

(I) After engaging in other activities that

contaminate the hands .

32 . Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence

that Respondent violated Food Code Rule 2 - 301.14, as

incorporated by reference in rules of the Division, on April 19,

2010 , and again on July 27, 2010.

33 . Food Code Rule 3 - 501.16 (A) is entitled , " Potentially

Hazardous Food, Hot and Cold Holding " and provides:

(A) Except during preparation, cooking, or

cooling, or when time is used as the public

health c ontrol as specified under paragraph

3 - 501.19, and except as specified in

paragraph (B) of this section, POTENTIALLY

HAZARDOUS FOOD shall be maintained:

(1) At 57°C (135°F) or above, except that

roasts cooked to a temperature and for a

time specified in paragraph 3 - 4 01.11(B) or

reheated as specified in paragraph 3 -

403.11(E) may be held at a temperature of

54°C (130°F) or above ; or

(2) At a temperature specified in the

following:

(a) 5°C (41°F) or less; o f

(b) 7°C (45°F) or between 5°C (41°F) and

7°C (45°F) in existing refrigeration

EQUIPMENT that is not capable of maintaining

the FOOD at 5°C (41°F) or less if:

(i) The EQUIPMENT is in place and in use in

the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, and

(ii) Within 5 years of the REGULATORY

AUTHORITY ' S adoption of this Code, the

EQUIPMENT is upgraded or replaced to

maintain FOOD at a temperature of 5°C (41°F)

or less.

34 . Food Code Rule 1 - 201.10(B)(65) defines the term

" Potentially Hazardous Food " as follows:

(a) " Potentially hazardous food " means a

FOOD that is n atural or synthetic and that

requires temperature control because it is

in a form capable of supporting:

(i) The rapid and progressive growth of

infectious or toxigenic microorganisms;

(ii) The growth and toxin production of

Clostridium B otulinum ; or

(iii) In raw shell EGGS , the growth of

Salmonella Enteritidis .

(b) " Potentially hazardous food " includes

an animal FOOD (a FOOD of animal origin)

that is raw or heat - treated; a FOOD of plant

origin that is heat - treated or consists of

raw seed sprouts; cut melons; and garlic - in -

oil mixtures that are not modified in a way

that results in mixtures that do not support

growth as specified under s ubpara graph (a)

of this definition.

(c) " Potentially hazardous food " does not

include:

(i) An air - cooled hard - boiled EGG with

shell intact, or a shell EGG that is not

hard - boiled, but has been treated to destroy

all viable Salmonellae ;

(ii) A FOOD with an a w value of 0.85 or

less;

(iii) A FOOD with a pH level of 4.6 or

belo w when measured at 24°C (75°F);

( iv) A FOOD, in an unopened HERMETICALLY

SEALED CONTAINER, that is commercially

processed to achieve and maintain commercial

sterility under conditions of

nonrefrigerated storage and distribution;

( v) A FOOD for which laboratory evidence

demonstrates tha t the rapid and progressive

growth of infectious or toxigenic

microorganisms or the growth of S.

Enteritidis in EGGS or C. B otulinum can not

occur, such as a FOOD that has an a w and a pH

that are above the levels specified under

s ubparagraphs (c)(ii) and ( iii) of this

definition and that may contain a

preservative, other barrier to the growth of

microorganisms, or a combination of barriers

that inhibit the growth of microorganisms;

or

(vi) A FOOD that does not support the

growth of microorganisms as speci fied under

Subparagraph (a) of this definition even

though the FOOD may contain an infectious or

toxigenic m icroorganism or chemical or

physical contaminant at a level sufficient

to cause illness.

35 . Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence

that Respondent violated Food Code Rule 2 - 501.16 (A) , as

incorporated by reference in rules of the Division, on April 19,

2010 . P otatoes, batter, rice, soup, and turnovers are

potentially hazardous foods and Respondent failed to mainta in

them at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less.

36 . Petitioner similarly proved by clear and convincing

evidence that Respondent violated Food Code Rule 2 - 501.16(A), as

incorporated by reference in rules of the Division, on July 27,

2010. Crea m, tofu, milk, potatoes, yoghurt, and vegetables are

potentially hazardous foods and Respondent failed to maintain

them at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less.

37 . As the principle element of Respondent ' s defense,

Ms. Pandey sought to co nduct a courtroom demonstration to prove

that ghee is not hazardous. Petitioner objected on the grounds

that Respondent had not advised the Division that there would be

a demonstration. The undersigned reserved ruling and permitted

Respondent to proffer her demonstration. She attempted to show

that butter, due to the amount of water in it, would not burn;

while ghee, because it had been cooked down to a semi - solid

state with excess water removed, would. E xperiments and

demonstrations , no less than testi mony or documentary evidence,

are admissible provided the demonstrations are conducted under

the same or similar circumstances as those in issue at trial.

Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Bell , 147 Fla. 734, 738 (Fla. 1941) .

The strict requirement of " essential similarity " has even been

relaxed. " The is sue is one of the weight to be given the

evidence rather than its relevance or materiality. " GMC v.

McGee , 837 So. 2d 1010, 1039 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2002) , quoting

Johnson v. State , 442 So. 2d 193, 196 (Fla. 1984).

38 . While Petitioner had not been put on specific notice

that Respondent was going to make a demonstration regarding

perishability, Respondent ' s position that ghee is not a

potentially hazardous food was known to Petitioner , and no

prejudice was shown. Ms. Pandey failed, however, to demonstrate

any scientific connection between combustion and perish a bility.

While nicely dramatic, the demonstration therefore was not

relevant to the issue of whether or not ghee is in fact a

potentially hazardous food, and was not considered in the

preparation of this Recommended Order.

3 9. Ms. Pandey ' s testimo ny that ghee was developed to

retard spoilage and is not dangerous at room temperature is

credible. While she did not prove that ghee is not a

" potentially hazardous food " because it falls under Food Code

R ule (65)(c)(v) or (vi) , she need not do so. Whil e the law is

clear that the Division does not have the burden of prov ing the

inapplicability of every exception or exemption to a penal

statute, exclusions are treated somewhat differently. As

explained by the Supreme C ourt in Purifoy v. State , 359 So. 2d

446, 448 - 449 (Fla. 1978):

The crucial difference between an 893.02(2)

exclusion and 893.10(1) exemption (or

exception) is that one who claims the

benefits of the latter in effect admits

possession of the contraband but claims that

his possession was expre ssly authorized by

law. In contrast, defendants (such as

Purifoy) who claim the benefit of the former

deny that the matter in their possession is

a prohibited substance. In other words,

Section 893.10(1) provides an excuse for

what would otherwise be cri minal conduct,

and the burden of establishing that excuse

properly rests as a matter of defense on the

individual claiming it since there is

nothing to excuse until the state has proven

the elements of a crime. Section 893.02(2),

however, simply tests whe ther particular

conduct is in fact criminal. To ignore this

distinction is to relieve the state of

proving an essential element of the crime

and to require the accused to establish his

innocence.

40 . Food Code Rule 1 - 201.10(B)(65)(c) similarly provides

an exclusion, not an exemption (or exception). The rule

provides that " potentially hazardous foods " do not include

certain foods that do not support the growth of microorganisms.

It is critical to note that t his language does not describe

certain foods which come under the definition of " potentially

hazardous foods " but are then exempted from regulation, thereby

creating an affirmative defense and shift ing the burden of proof

to Respondent. R ather , the language describes certain foods

that simply do not fall within th e category of " potentially

hazardous foods " in the first place . Ms. Pandey has credibly

raised doubt as to whether ghee in fact is a " potentially

hazardous food " at all.

41 . The burden is on the Petitioner to prove by clear and

convincin g evidence that ghee is in fact a " potentially

hazardous food. " The Petitioner has failed to meet this burden

with respect to ghee.

42 . Section 509.261(1), Florida Statutes, provides that

any public food service establishment that operates in violatio n

of chapter 509, or implementing rules, is subject to fines not

to exceed $1000.00 per offense, and the suspension or revocation

of a license.

43 . The Division has adopted r ule 61C - 1.005(6) ,

establishing disciplinary guidelines for the imposition of

pen alties for violation s of the Food Code. It provides in

pertinent part :

(6) Standard penalties. This section

specifies the penalties routinely imposed

against licensees and applies to all

violations of law subject to a penalty under

Chapter 509, F.S. An y violation requiring

an emergency suspension or closure, as

authorized by Chapter 509, F.S., shall be

assessed at the highest allowable fine

amount.

* * *

(b) Critical violation. Fines may be

imposed for each day or portion of a day

that the viol a tion exists, beginning on the

date of the initial inspection and

continuing until the violation is corrected.

1. 1st offense - Administrative fine of

$250 to $500.

2. 2nd offense - Administrative fine of

$500 to $1,000.

3. 3rd and an y subsequent offense -

Administrative fine of $750 to $1,000,

license suspension, or both.

44 . Rule 61C - 1.005(5)(a) provides that :

' [c] ritical violation ' means a violation

determined by the d ivision to pose a

significant threat to the public health,

s afety, or welfare and which is identified

as a food borne illness risk factor, a

public health intervention, or critical in

DBPR Form HR - 5022 - 014 Lodging Inspection

Report or DBPR Form HR - 5022 - 015 Food Service

Inspection Report, incorporated by reference

i n subsection 61C - 1. 002(8), F.A.C., and not

otherwise identified in this rule.

45 . Petitioner presented evidence of critical violations

occurring on April 19, 2010. However, the June 10, 2010 ,

Stipulation and Consent Order was in settlement of an earlie r

administrative complaint issued on May 10, 2010 , that alleged

violations documented at t his same inspection . The April 19 ,

2010, violations therefore are not considered here as new

offenses, but are considered only for penalty purposes.

46 . The two violations of July 27, 2010, discussed above

posed a significant threat to the public health, safety, or

welfare and were identified as critical on the DBPR Form HR -

5022 - 015 Food Service Inspection Report. They were therefore

critical violations within th e meaning of rule 61C - 1.005(a).

47 . Rule 61C - 1.00 5(5)(e) defines " third and any subsequent

offense " to mean " a violation of any law subject to penalty

under Chapter 509, F.S., after two or more disciplinary Final

Orders involving the same licensee have be en filed with the

Agency Clerk within the 24 months preceding the date the current

administrative complaint is issued, even if the current

violation is not the same as the previous violation. "

48 . The two previous disciplinary Final Orders entered

within 24 months of the administrative complaint , filed with the

agency clerk, and accepted as an exhibit in this case make these

violations " third and subsequent offenses " within the meaning of

rule 61C - 1.005(e). In Kaplan v. Department of Health , 8 So. 3d

391 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2009), it was held that prior discipline

imposed as a result of Stipulation and Consent Order co uld

co nstitute a prior offense for purposes of penalty calculation ,

even in the absence of a specific finding of statutory

violation.

REC OMMENDATION

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 F inal

O rder imposing a total fine of $1500.0 0 against The Green Mango

for the two critical violations occurring on July 27, 2010 , to

be paid within 30 calendar days of the filing of the Final Order

with the Agency Clerk .

DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January , 2012 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

F. SCOTT BOYD

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.s tate.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 23rd day of January, 2012.

ENDNOTE

1/ All references to statutes and rules are to the versions in

effect in 201 0 , the time of the alleged violations, except as

otherwise indicated.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Anuradha Paudey

The Green Mango

6839 Southwest 82nd Te rrace

Gainesville, Florida 32608

William A. Veach, Director

Division of Hotels and Restaurants

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Layne Smith, General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions

within 15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any

exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the

agency that will issue the final order in this case.