Ortiz v. Holsum de Puerto Rico, Inc., 190 P.R. 511

Ortiz employed by Holsum de Puerto Rico in 1995; multiple drug tests in 2011 under Ley 59-1997; first 2011 test (Jan 24) invalid due to dilution; second test (Jan 28) negative; third test (Feb 11) hair sample positive leading to dismissal; trial court denied Holsum’s summary judgment motion; appellate court denied certiorari and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the two-test-per-year limit count an invalid result?	Ortiz must not count invalid toward annual limit	Holsum argues invalid results still count toward limit	Invalid results count toward the two-test limit
Was summary judgment proper given the undisputed facts?	Ortiz entitled to judgment as a matter of law	Holsum seeks dismissal based on statute	No summary judgment for Holsum; material issues remain
Did Holsum's third test violate the statutory method for testing (urine only) under Act 59-1997?	Ortiz challenge to third test after invalid first test	Holsum argues permissible under exceptions	Hair test invalid under Act 59-59-1997; third test not properly admissible

Dávila v. Rivera v. Antilles Shipping, Inc., 147 DPR 483 (1999) (interlocutory review in agency proceedings limited; exceptions apply)
Aguayo Pomales v. R & G Mortg., 169 DPR 36 (2006) (three exceptions to non-reviewability of interlocutory orders)
P.A.C. v. E.L.A. I, 150 DPR 359 (2000) (rogada system; appellate review limited to issues raised)
Col. Ing. Agrim. P.R. v. A.A.A., 131 DPR 735 (1992) (limits on appellate review in administrative proceedings)
Dept. de la Familia v. Shrivers Otero, 145 DPR 351 (1998) (principles governing review of interlocutory decisions)
SLG Zapata-Rivera v. J.F. Montalvo, 189 DPR 444 (2013) (material facts necessary to support summary judgment)
Pepsi-Cola v. Mun. Cidra et al., 186 DPR 713 (2012) (public law considerations in summary judgments)
Ramos Pérez v. Univisión, 178 DPR 200 (2010) (summary judgment standards in Puerto Rico appellate practice)