The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals ruled on May 29, 2026, to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Radamés Caraballo Alicea against SG Construction Inc. The case arose after Caraballo, a construction worker, suffered a serious injury while on the job. The ruling affects Caraballo and potentially other workers in similar situations, as it addresses important legal questions about workplace injury claims and the statute of limitations.
The dispute began when Caraballo filed a lawsuit on April 20, 2025, against several individuals and entities, alleging that he was injured while using a nail gun at work. The initial complaint did not name SG Construction Inc. as a defendant. However, after further investigation, Caraballo amended his complaint on January 2, 2026, to include SG Construction Inc. as a defendant. This amendment raised questions about whether the statute of limitations had expired for his claims.
The case reached the Court of Appeals after SG Construction Inc. filed a petition for certiorari on April 10, 2026. They sought to overturn a lower court's decision that had allowed Caraballo's claim to proceed. The lower court had ruled that Caraballo's amendment to include SG Construction Inc. was valid and that the statute of limitations had been interrupted because he had initially filed against unknown defendants.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeals, led by Judge Grana Martínez, found that the lower court had erred in its decision. The court stated, "The demand filed against the alleged partners of the corporation does not interrupt the one-year statute of limitations established in our Civil Code." The judges concluded that Caraballo's initial complaint did not properly identify SG Construction Inc. and that the amendment was filed too late, resulting in the dismissal of the case against the company.
The court emphasized that Caraballo had a responsibility to include SG Construction Inc. in his original complaint. They noted that the law requires a plaintiff to specify claims against a defendant, and simply using fictitious names does not suffice to interrupt the statute of limitations. The ruling clarified that Caraballo's failure to properly name the corporation as a defendant meant he could not pursue his claim after the statute of limitations had expired.
This ruling has significant implications for workplace injury claims in Puerto Rico. It underscores the importance of timely and accurate filings in legal cases, particularly in personal injury lawsuits. Workers who suffer injuries on the job must be diligent in identifying all responsible parties in their claims to avoid losing their right to seek damages.
The decision may also influence future cases involving workplace injuries, as it sets a precedent regarding the need for proper identification of defendants and adherence to statutory deadlines. Workers and their legal representatives will need to be more careful in ensuring that all relevant parties are included in their initial filings to protect their rights.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Caraballo will appeal the decision to a higher court. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential next steps. However, the ruling serves as a reminder of the critical importance of understanding legal procedures in personal injury cases.