FirstAlerts
Food Safety Inspections

MIA FRANCESCA CORP in Chicago Failed Its Inspection

MIA FRANCESCA CORP failed an August 7, 2026, health inspection in Chicago before passing a follow-up inspection four days later.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 19, 2026, 2:55 p.m. ET
, located at in , , Illinois, on August 7, 2026, according to official city inspection data. The establishment was categorized as . The establishment was inspected again on August 11, 2026, with the result listed as "Pass". During the August 7 inspection, official observations noted improper cold holding temperatures of TCS foods inside of the walk-in cooler, specifically sausage at 46F and meat sauce at 58F. Management was instructed to maintain all cold TCS foods below 41F, and a citation was issued. The inspection also noted that exposed hand washing sinks in the Coach House bar and second floor bar were not accessible for use. The hand washing sink behind the Coach House bar was backed up with standing water and the hand washing sink behind the second floor bar was overflowing at the floor drain. Management was instructed to repair both sinks so they could be used properly, and a citation was issued. Additional observations required management to clean and maintain the floor dry beneath the second floor bar to eliminate pest harborage conditions, and noted multiple boxes stored on the floor in the basement liquor room, where management was instructed to keep all items off the floor.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 119 Aug 2026, 18:55current

    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.