Hernan Gregorio Pesquera

This case involves a 59-year-old plaintiff's challenge under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits, based on claims of hypertension, coronary insufficiency, varicose veins, and emotional issues. The court reviewed the administrative record under the substantial evidence standard, which makes the Secretary's factual findings conclusive if supported by the evidence, and summarized medical examinations showing the plaintiff could perform light work with no significant cardiac limitations or other impairments preventing employment. Applying vocational factors such as the plaintiff's age, high school education, and prior work experience as a machinist and driver, the Secretary determined he was not disabled under the applicable regulations and grids. The court upheld the denial, noting it lacked authority to reweigh evidence or make new findings.

healthcare

This case involved shipping companies Sea-Land Services and Gulf Puerto Rico Lines challenging municipal license taxes imposed by Puerto Rican coastal municipalities on their ocean transportation activities, including freight and accessorial services at ports like San Juan. The plaintiffs argued that the taxes violated the U.S. Constitution's Commerce and Import-Export Clauses, which they urged the court to apply to Puerto Rico. The court held that these constitutional provisions do apply to Puerto Rico and that the taxes were unconstitutional because they were not fairly apportioned to the companies' local activities, instead reaching a substantial portion of interstate and foreign commerce revenues without regard to where income was earned. The reasoning centered on the lack of any allocation formula by the municipalities, the companies' extensive out-of-jurisdiction operations, and the resulting risk of multiple taxation on the same income streams.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved a maritime contract dispute where Stainless Steel & Metal Manufacturing Corp., the shipper named on a bill of lading, sued carrier Sacal V.I., Inc. for consequential damages after a motor crane was dropped and damaged during unloading in St. Croix; the crane was owned by a third party, not the plaintiff, and the damage occurred when a rented shore crane malfunctioned. The court dismissed the complaint, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to recover because it was neither the owner nor the consignee of the damaged goods and that its claims for lost profits, rental costs, and penalties did not arise under applicable maritime law or precedents allowing recovery by parties with direct interests in the cargo. The decision addressed the interplay between federal admiralty jurisdiction, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, and Puerto Rico's negligence statute but concluded that none supported the plaintiff's claims for indirect losses in these facts.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved an attorney who filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the justices of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, challenging his six-month suspension from practicing law on due process grounds under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. The court reasoned that under the Rooker doctrine, federal district courts lack the authority to review or overturn state court judgments, as such review would constitute improper appellate jurisdiction over state decisions.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

The case involves a sixty-year-old woman with limited education who previously worked as a sewing machine operator and sought judicial review under the Social Security Act of the denial of her claims for disability insurance benefits and widow’s disability benefits due to alleged back pain since 1969. The court examined medical evidence from multiple physicians regarding her physical limitations and ability to work. It determined that the plaintiff could not return to her prior job and that the Secretary failed to meet the burden of showing she could perform other substantial gainful activity, warranting remand for an evidentiary hearing on that claim. For the widow’s disability benefits, which require a stricter showing of impairment severity without regard to age or work history, the court found the Secretary’s denial supported by substantial evidence and affirmed it.

healthcare

This case involved a plaintiff's attempt to obtain judicial review under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare's denial of her claim for disability insurance benefits based on arthritis, nervousness, and pain. The plaintiff had a prior 1969 application denied in 1970 that became final after she took no further action, and her 1973 application was dismissed on res judicata grounds because it involved the same facts, issues, and time period. The court decided it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case, holding that the regulations bar reopening a final decision absent good cause and that judicial review under the Act does not extend to refusals to reopen unless constitutional grounds are raised. The action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

In this case, plaintiff David Gonzalez, a police captain in Puerto Rico, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendant Superintendent Astol Calero summarily discharged him without notice or hearing after Gonzalez investigated organized crime involving public officials, leading to his transfers, public statements, and eventual firing. The court consolidated proceedings on injunctive relief and found facts showing Gonzalez's investigations prompted complaints, media coverage, and discipline, but determined that the discharge implicated his liberty interests in reputation and future employment under the Due Process Clause. Citing precedents like Board of Regents v. Roth and Paul v. Davis, the court reasoned that the circumstances created a 'reputation-plus' stigma requiring a hearing, though no pre-termination evidentiary hearing was mandated by regulation, and it addressed related First Amendment claims without finding them dispositive in the excerpted analysis. The decision focused on the unconstitutional administration of dismissal procedures rather than the regulations themselves.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff seeking a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief against the defendants, including records under the Freedom of Information Act and an order to retain him in the jurisdiction pending resolution. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds that the plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies by appealing the denial of his FOIA request, and the plaintiff failed to prosecute the case over nearly a year, missing deadlines for briefs and responses to the motion. The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment under Rule 56 due to supporting affidavits and documents. It granted summary judgment dismissing the action with prejudice, reasoning that the complaint failed to allege exhaustion of remedies or any genuine issue of material fact, the retention request was moot, and the plaintiff had not responded or shown intent to proceed.

procedurefederal power

This case concerned whether a federal district court in Puerto Rico had jurisdiction under 12 U.S.C. § 632 over a dispute involving a national bank, or whether the case should be remanded to local court. The court denied the bank's motion for reconsideration of the remand order. It reasoned that Public Law 86-230 clarified that national banking laws apply in Puerto Rico on the same footing as in the states and District of Columbia, eliminating any special federal jurisdiction based on treatment of Puerto Rico as foreign or insular. The opinion noted that national banks are generally subject to the same jurisdictional rules as other corporations, requiring diversity or federal question jurisdiction absent the foreign banking exception, which does not apply here.

federal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a plaintiff's appeal under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act for judicial review of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare's denial of disability insurance benefits. The plaintiff, who had worked in various manual jobs and met insured status through March 1969, established that his physical impairments prevented return to prior work, shifting the burden to the Secretary to show capacity for other substantial gainful activity. The court determined that the administrative law judge's conclusion, based on a vocational expert's testimony, was flawed because it did not account for evidence of the plaintiff's mental impairment, low education, and welfare dependency, and because his brief work as a watchman appeared to be charitable rather than actual employment. The case is remanded to the Secretary for further psychiatric evaluation and a new hearing to determine whether the plaintiff's combined physical and mental condition precluded substantial gainful activity during the relevant period.

federal powerhealthcare

This case concerned a debt collection action in which the plaintiff, as assignee of a credit owed by the defendants' estate to a company that had undergone Chapter XI bankruptcy proceedings, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim for damages. The court granted the motion and dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice. The core reasoning was that the defendants, despite notice of the bankruptcy, never filed a proof of claim, so the confirmation order discharged any such claim under Section 17 of the Bankruptcy Act; moreover, the unliquidated nature of the claim meant it did not qualify for set-off under the Puerto Rico Civil Code, as the debts were not both determined and demandable at the relevant time.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

The case involved a claim for personal injuries allegedly caused by an injection of the prescription drug Kenalog 40, manufactured by defendant E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. Plaintiffs sued Squibb on a negligence theory, alleging the company failed to provide adequate warnings in Spanish or on the packaging and improperly relied on physicians to inform patients of risks. The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, exercising diversity jurisdiction and applying Commonwealth law, granted Squibb's motion for summary judgment. The court held that manufacturers of prescription drugs have a duty to warn only the prescribing physician, who serves as a learned intermediary, rather than the ultimate patient, and that undisputed facts showed no breach of this duty. Judgment was entered dismissing the claims against Squibb with prejudice.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involved a Section 1983 lawsuit by plaintiff Vega Matta against Puerto Rico government officials alleging that his termination from his position as administrator of a health center was politically motivated and violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. After the defendants failed to respond timely to the complaint, the court entered default against them and denied their later motion to set it aside, finding the delay willful and any summons defect merely technical and curable. Following an evidentiary hearing on damages, the court concluded that two defendants had infringed the plaintiff's First Amendment right to free association by basing the termination on political affiliation. It ordered the plaintiff's reinstatement with back pay, awarded $4,498 in lost earnings and $20,000 in damages for emotional distress against those defendants, and dismissed the claims against the others.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In United States v. Cortés, the defendant, convicted on one count of a two-count indictment, moved for a new trial claiming that a juror was statutorily disqualified due to inability to understand English, citing her excusal in a separate case. The court denied the motion, finding after reviewing voir dire transcripts from both proceedings that the juror demonstrated sufficient English proficiency through her responses to multiple questions. The court reasoned that the defendant had waived any objection by not challenging the juror during voir dire despite opportunity to do so, that only clear evidence of incompetence would justify further inquiry or relief, and that no such evidence existed here.

criminal lawprocedure

A physician filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against three articles of the Puerto Rico Penal Code that criminalized performing or aiding abortions (except therapeutic ones), a woman's consent to abortion, and advertising abortion services, claiming the provisions violated constitutional rights to privacy and free speech under Roe v. Wade and related cases. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the article applicable only to women and that no justiciable case or controversy existed for the remaining articles because the plaintiff's stated plans to open a clinic and advertise did not demonstrate sufficient immediate injury or adverse legal interests. The ruling was based solely on Article III jurisdictional requirements of standing and justiciability, without addressing the underlying constitutional challenges.

abortioncriminal lawfree speech

This case is a subrogation action in which Hanover Insurance sought to recover payments made to its insured for damage to a C-45 Bliss Press machinery during shipment from New York to San Juan, Puerto Rico. The defendants admitted negligence and the resulting damages of $8,346.62 but argued that their liability was limited to $50 under a clause in the bill of lading or, alternatively, to $500 under the per-package limitation in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), 46 U.S.C. § 1304(5). The court held that the contractual $50 limitation was null and void under COGSA § 1303(8) because it lessened the carrier’s liability beyond what the statute permits, and that the $500 statutory cap did not apply because the uncrated, openly shipped machinery did not qualify as a “package.” As a result, the court entered judgment against the defendants for the full amount of the damages plus costs.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved Modern Equipment Corp. suing Puerto Rico Telephone Co. for damages after the company refused to publish the plaintiff's commercial advertisements in its telephone directories for 1969-70 and 1970-71 due to nonpayment for prior ads. The court decided that the defendants were not liable and dismissed the complaint. The core reasoning was that contracts for telephone service (a public utility) and directory advertising (a private matter) are separate and distinct, so the company could lawfully refuse the new advertising contract for nonpayment under its rate schedule approved by the Public Service Commission, and the plaintiff's excuse of deficient service was invalid because it had already obtained a separate remedy for that issue.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a libel lawsuit brought by Anthony J. Nieves and his family against The Army Times Publishing Co. and Larry Phillips, claiming that an article falsely accused him of offensive sexual conduct. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing privilege under Puerto Rico law, lack of malice, and limitations on damages from New York Times v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Welch. The court denied the motion, finding triable issues of fact as to whether the article accurately reported a privileged proceeding, whether it identified the plaintiff with reckless disregard, and the availability of damages for reputational harm and emotional suffering.

free speechtorts & liability

The case involved a petitioner convicted of reckless driving under Puerto Rican law, sentenced to a fine or short jail term, who was denied a jury trial at arraignment and appealed on the ground that the Sixth Amendment required one because the offense could involve hard labor or penitentiary confinement. The court denied the habeas corpus petition. It held that the federal jury-trial right applies in Puerto Rico but that, under Baldwin v. New York, the maximum penalty of six months or a $500 fine objectively classifies the offense as petty rather than serious. Older doctrines that examined the nature of the offense, common-law indictability, or possible hard labor were deemed superseded by this penalty-based standard.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit brought by seaman Richard J. Stephenson against Star-Kist Caribe, Inc., alleging negligence and unseaworthiness on the F/V GOLDEN SCARAB that caused his injuries in 1968. The central dispute was whether Star-Kist exercised sufficient control over the vessel to qualify as its owner pro hac vice, despite the vessel being formally owned by a Canadian corporation. After reviewing loan and fish-purchase agreements between the parties, along with testimony on Star-Kist's role in financing, operations, crew payments, supplies, and employment decisions, the court concluded that Star-Kist had effective control. It therefore held Star-Kist liable for the plaintiff's injuries as a matter of law and entered an interlocutory judgment on liability, deferring the determination of damages.

torts & liability