The Supreme Court has clarified the importance of timely medical assessments in seafarer disability claims, emphasizing that a company-designated physician’s failure to provide a conclusive assessment within the prescribed period (120 or 240 days) results in the seafarer’s disability being considered total and permanent. This ruling protects the rights of seafarers to receive just compensation for work-related injuries and illnesses, ensuring that employers and their designated physicians adhere to the timelines set forth in the POEA-SEC.

Maritime Mishap: Navigating the Waters of Seafarer’s Disability Rights

This case revolves around Edilberto R. Paleracio, a seafarer who sustained an injury to his right arm while on duty. The central legal question is whether Paleracio is entitled to permanent total disability benefits due to the injury, considering the conflicting medical assessments and the timeliness of these assessments under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

Paleracio was hired as an Able Bodied Seaman by Sealanes Marine Services, Inc. On September 5, 2012, a steel chain disengaged and struck his right arm, leading to medical evaluations in Finland and the Philippines. Upon his return to Manila on September 27, 2012, he reported the pain and was examined by company-designated physicians. He underwent surgery for a neglected radial shaft fracture. Subsequently, due to alleged lack of improvement and discontinuation of treatment, he consulted a private specialist, Dr. Ticman, who declared him unfit to work as a seaman.

A critical aspect of this case involves the medical assessments made by the company-designated physician and Paleracio’s private physician. The POEA-SEC outlines specific procedures for determining a seafarer’s disability, including timelines for medical examinations and the resolution of conflicting medical opinions. Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC stipulates:

Section 20-A. Compensation and Benefits for Injury or Illness. —

For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so…

If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.

The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the third doctor referral when there is a disagreement between the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s doctor, provided that the company-designated physician’s assessment is valid and timely. In this case, Dr. Bautista, the company-designated physician, issued a fit-to-work certification on March 21, 2013, 175 days after Paleracio’s arrival in the Philippines. Paleracio consulted his physician on February 7, 2013 and secured the latter’s opinion on March 14, 2013. He filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits on February 8, 2013, 134 days after arrival.

The Court scrutinized whether the company-designated physician had sufficient justification to extend the original 120-day period for assessment to 240 days. The Labor Code and the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation (AREC) provide guidelines for temporary total disability and its potential extension. According to Article 198 (c) (1) of the Labor Code and AREC, Rule VII, Section 2 (b), a seafarer is considered to be on temporary total disability during the 120-day period. This period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days if the sickness still requires medical attendance beyond the 120 days. Therefore, the company-designated physician must provide sufficient justification to extend the original 120-day period of assessment.

The Court found no evidence that the company-designated physician declared the necessity for an extension. Dr. Bautista’s certification merely stated the time elapsed since surgery and declared Paleracio fit to return to work, despite his complaints of pain. The Supreme Court explained that the medical assessment of the company-designated physician is not the final word on the seafarer’s claim for permanent and total disability. To be effective, the assessment must be issued within the authorized 120-day period or the properly extended 240-day period. The Supreme Court explained that when the company-designated physician fails to issue a declaration as to the seafarer’s fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment would address his temporary total disability, then the seafarer is deemed to be permanently disabled.

The Court also addressed the issue of the mandatory post-employment examination, finding that Paleracio’s referral to the company-designated physician on October 8, 2012, was within the three-day working period requirement. The Supreme Court stated that it is highly inequitable to resolve any doubt against the seafarer. The company should have submitted proof of normal working days to support their allegation that he indeed reported for post-employment medical examination beyond the authorized period.

Regarding attorney’s fees, the Court reiterated that such fees cannot be recovered as part of damages unless there is a showing of bad faith. Since Paleracio failed to prove bad faith on the part of the respondents, the award of attorney’s fees was deemed inappropriate and ordered to be returned. The Court noted that under evidentiary rules, a positive assertion is generally entitled to more weight than a plain denial.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central legal question is whether Paleracio is entitled to permanent total disability benefits due to a work-related injury, considering the conflicting medical assessments and the timeliness of these assessments under the POEA-SEC.
What is the POEA-SEC?	The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) governs the employment of Filipino seafarers on board ocean-going vessels, outlining their rights, benefits, and obligations.
What is the 120/240-day rule?	The 120/240-day rule refers to the period within which a company-designated physician must provide a final assessment of a seafarer’s disability. Initially, the period is 120 days, extendable to 240 days if further medical treatment is required.
What happens if the company-designated physician fails to provide a timely assessment?	If the company-designated physician fails to provide a conclusive assessment within the 120/240-day period, the seafarer’s disability is considered total and permanent by operation of law.
What is the role of a third doctor in disability claims?	If the seafarer’s doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, a third doctor may be jointly agreed upon by the employer and seafarer to provide a final and binding decision.
What is the three-day mandatory reporting requirement?	The three-day mandatory reporting requirement obliges the seafarer to submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return.
Why is the timeliness of medical assessments important?	Timeliness is critical because it ensures that seafarers receive prompt medical attention and a fair assessment of their disability, protecting their right to compensation for work-related injuries.
What was the outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, affirming the NLRC’s decision to award disability compensation to Paleracio but deleting the award of attorney’s fees.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements and timelines set forth in the POEA-SEC to protect the rights of seafarers. The ruling clarifies that employers and company-designated physicians must act diligently and provide timely assessments of a seafarer’s condition to avoid the imposition of permanent total disability benefits. This decision serves as a reminder to both employers and seafarers to be vigilant in safeguarding their rights and obligations under maritime law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Edilberto R. Paleracio vs. Sealanes Marine Services, Inc., G.R. No. 229153, July 09, 2018