APOPKA, FL. Back in March 2026, a state inspector walked into Fujisan Sushi #6189, a seafood market retail operation on the north side of Orlando, and found that the person in charge could not answer basic questions about foodborne illnesses and their symptoms.
That finding was one of five violations documented during the March 11 inspection by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The market met sanitation inspection requirements overall, but the violations that inspectors recorded raise specific questions about how the business handles food safety training and emergency preparedness.
What Inspectors Found
The inspector noted that the person in charge "could not answer all the questions related to foodborne illnesses and their symptoms." At a seafood market, where raw fish and shellfish carry real risks of illness from pathogens like Vibrio and Salmonella, that gap is not a paperwork problem.
Management also could not provide information on how employees are informed of their responsibility to report a foodborne illness. The inspector's notes describe the failure plainly: the market had no documented system for making sure workers know to report when they are sick.
The third management violation involved emergency response. The market had no written plan for how employees should handle vomit or diarrheal events on the premises. The inspector provided guidance on site, but the plan itself did not exist at the time of the inspection.
None of the five violations were corrected on site.
The Permit Problem, Again
The missing permit display was flagged as a repeat violation, meaning inspectors had cited the same issue at a prior visit. The inspector noted that the food establishment permit was not conspicuously displayed, as required under Florida Administrative Code 5K-4.020(2)(d).
For a retail food establishment, the permit is the basic public-facing credential. A shopper has no way to verify a market's current licensed status if the permit is not visible.
The fifth violation involved records for a special process approval. The market did not have a copy of the approved special process documentation on hand. Special process approvals cover practices like curing, smoking, or acidifying fish, procedures that require specific protocols to prevent bacterial growth. The inspector's note states simply that the food establishment did not have a copy of the approved special process approval.
What These Violations Mean
The three priority foundation violations tied to management knowledge are not technical oversights. They represent the structural layer of food safety: does the person running the operation know what to do when something goes wrong?
When a person in charge cannot answer questions about foodborne illness symptoms, the practical consequence is that they may not recognize a sick employee as a risk, or know which illnesses require a worker to be excluded from food handling. At a seafood market, where product is often handled directly and sold raw, that knowledge gap has a direct line to customer exposure.
The missing employee illness reporting system compounds the problem. If workers have never been told they are required to report symptoms like vomiting, diarrhea, or jaundice, they may continue handling product while contagious. The inspector's finding at Fujisan Sushi #6189 was specific: management could not explain how employees are informed of that responsibility.
The absent vomit and diarrheal events plan matters for a different reason. Norovirus, one of the most common causes of foodborne illness outbreaks in retail and food service settings, spreads rapidly through contaminated surfaces. A written response plan is the mechanism that ensures contaminated areas are cleaned and disinfected before other employees or customers are exposed. The inspector provided guidance, but the plan was not in place on the day of the visit.
The Longer Record
The March 2026 inspection was the third FDACS inspection on record for this location. The facility's history is short but shows a consistent pattern of violations accumulating across each visit.
In April 2023, inspectors found two violations and the market met inspection requirements. By September 2024, the violation count had risen to four, and the facility again met sanitation inspection requirements. The March 2026 inspection brought five violations, including the repeat permit display citation that had not been resolved in the intervening period.
The repeat permit violation is the clearest evidence of a pattern. Between the September 2024 inspection and the March 2026 visit, the permit display problem was not corrected. That is a span of roughly 18 months.
The violation count has grown with each inspection cycle: two, then four, then five. None of the violations in March 2026 were corrected on site, and the missing special process approval records remained unresolved at the close of the inspection.