The Tribunal de Apelaciones de Puerto Rico recently upheld a lower court's decision regarding a contract dispute between Numed Medical Services LLC and its former employee, Stephanie Guardiola. This ruling, issued on April 30, 2026, clarifies the legal obligations surrounding employment contracts and counterclaims in federal court. The case is significant as it illustrates the complexities of employment law and the importance of filing claims correctly.
The dispute began when Numed Medical Services LLC filed a lawsuit against Guardiola, seeking repayment for a certification cost after her employment ended prematurely. The court's decision impacts not only the parties involved but also sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future.
Background
Numed Medical Services LLC, a healthcare provider, initiated the lawsuit against Stephanie Guardiola in September 2025. The company claimed that it had paid for Guardiola to receive a Laser Specialist certification, which was part of an agreement that required her to remain employed with Numed for three years following the certification. However, Guardiola left her position in October 2023, prompting Numed to seek repayment of $8,847.78, which included the certification cost and administrative fees.
In response, Guardiola filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that her previous federal lawsuit against Numed regarding wrongful termination and sexual harassment should have included Numed's claim as a counterclaim. She contended that Numed's failure to raise its claim in the federal case constituted a waiver of its right to do so. The lower court agreed with Guardiola, leading to Numed's appeal.
The Ruling
The Tribunal de Apelaciones, led by Judge Sánchez Ramos, along with Judges Romero GarcÃa and Pérez Ocasio, affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss Numed's lawsuit. The court ruled that the lower court acted correctly in dismissing the case because it should have been presented as a compulsory counterclaim in the federal lawsuit. The judges stated, "the claim presented by the employer constitutes a compulsory counterclaim in the federal action," highlighting the interconnectedness of the two cases.
The court emphasized that both actions stemmed from the same employment termination, which was central to both the federal and state claims. The ruling noted that resolving the state claim could lead to unnecessary fragmentation of the legal issues and could complicate the federal case. As a result, the court determined that Numed's lawsuit was improperly filed and should be addressed within the context of the ongoing federal litigation.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for both Numed Medical Services LLC and Stephanie Guardiola. For Numed, the decision means they cannot pursue their claim in state court, effectively limiting their options for recovering the costs associated with Guardiola's certification. The court's ruling reinforces the importance of filing all related claims in a single legal proceeding to avoid complications and ensure judicial efficiency.
Moreover, the decision serves as a reminder for employers and employees alike about the importance of understanding their contractual obligations and the legal processes involved in employment disputes. The ruling may influence how future cases are approached, particularly regarding the necessity of filing counterclaims in federal court when related issues arise.
What's Next
Numed Medical Services LLC has the option to pursue its claim within the federal court system, as the ruling does not prevent them from raising the issue there. The company may need to reassess its strategy and prepare to present its claim as a counterclaim in the ongoing federal lawsuit initiated by Guardiola. Details regarding any related cases pending were not available in the court filing.