FirstAlerts

PHODEGA in Chicago Fails Health Inspection

Official health inspection records show PHODEGA at 1924 W Division St failed an inspection on August 17, 2026.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 19, 2026, 10:21 a.m. ET
, located at in , , failed a health inspection on August 17, 2026, according to official health inspection records. The establishment is classified as . According to the official inspection record, the inspector recorded the following observations: - Cold holding temperatures: Ribeye was observed at an improper cold holding temperature of 54.7F inside a prep cooler. Head cheese, pork roll, cooked ribeye, and liver pate were found at improper cold holding temperatures ranging from 46-68F in the prep cooler. Approximately 40 lbs of food valued at $250.00 was discarded. - Non-food contact surfaces: Grease spills were observed on the exterior of fryers. - Garbage disposal: An outside garbage dumpster was observed overflowing with trash, preventing lid closure. - Physical facilities: Food debris was observed on floors under cooking equipment, and 3 large openings were observed in the wall under the 3-compartment sink in the main dish washing area. - Ventilation and lighting: Several burnt out lights were observed at the ventilation hood, and lights at the ventilation hood were missing protective shielding. - Uncorrected core violations: Previous core violations from 1-15-2026 (report #2629828) were not corrected, including food storage containers containing rice without labels and a City of food service sanitation manager on duty without allergen training.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 219 Aug 2026, 14:21current

    Added structured headline, dek, and sources_cited list.

  2. Version 119 Aug 2026, 14:15

    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.