FirstAlerts

LA CATRINA RESTAURANT LLC in Chicago Failed Its Inspection

City inspection records show LA CATRINA RESTAURANT LLC failed a Risk 1 health inspection on August 18, 2026.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 5:52 a.m. ET
, located at in , , failed its public health inspection on August 18, 2026, according to city inspection records. The city record shows no later inspection of this establishment. It may have been re-inspected since without the record being updated. According to the inspection findings, the inspector recorded black slimy substances on the interior water components of the ice machine dripping into ice used for human consumption, a manager with no hair restraint in the food prep area, and torn door gaskets on coolers. The record also listed frozen meats stored in plastic grocery bags, food debris on a manual can opener, standing water on the basement dry storage room floor, an expired food handler certificate, and a food manager without a required allergen training certificate.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 120 Aug 2026, 09:52current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.