Tag: Disability Benefits

Seafarer’s Rights: Employer’s Duty to Ensure Timely Medical Assessment and Treatment

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a seafarer is entitled to disability benefits when the employer fails to act on the company-designated physician’s recommendation for necessary medical treatment within the prescribed period. This decision underscores the employer’s responsibility to ensure timely medical assessment and treatment for seafarers, reinforcing the protection afforded to them under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). This case highlights the importance of prompt action by employers in fulfilling their contractual obligations to seafarers in need of medical attention.

Open Heart, Closed Doors: When a Seafarer’s Health is Left Hanging

The case of Oscar M. Paringit v. Global Gateway Crewing Services, Inc. (G.R. No. 217123, February 06, 2019) revolves around a seafarer, Oscar M. Paringit, who sought disability benefits after developing severe heart conditions during his employment. Paringit’s employer, despite being informed by the company-designated physician about the need for open-heart surgery, failed to provide timely approval and support for the procedure. This inaction led Paringit to file a complaint, arguing that his condition rendered him permanently disabled and unfit for duty. The legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the employer’s failure to act on the physician’s recommendation entitled Paringit to disability benefits, especially when the company-designated physician did not issue a final disability assessment within the prescribed period.

Paringit entered into a six-month employment contract with Mid-South Ship and Crew Management, Inc., representing Seaworld Marine Services, S.A., as Chief Mate of the vessel Tsavliris Hellas. Prior to his deployment, he disclosed his high blood pressure during the pre-employment medical examination but was still declared fit for duty. During his employment, he experienced constant fatigue, stress, and blood in his feces. Upon docking in Las Palmas, Spain, he was rushed to the intensive care unit and diagnosed with decompensated cardiac insufficiency, severe anemia, and renal dysfunction. He was medically repatriated to Manila and admitted to YGEIA Medical Center, where he was diagnosed with congestive heart failure, hypertensive cardiovascular disease, valvular heart disease, and anemia secondary to upper GI bleeding.

Dr. Maria Lourdes A. Quetulio, the company-designated physician, prescribed medication and referred Paringit to a valvular heart specialist. The specialist recommended a repeat 2D echocardiogram and coronary angiography. The results indicated a severe valvular problem requiring open-heart surgery for valve replacement or repair, with possible coronary bypass graft. Despite the urgent need for surgery, Paringit’s employer did not approve the recommended procedure. Dr. Quetulio noted that Paringit hesitated to undergo the surgery and considered herbal treatment instead. Later, Dr. May S. Donato-Tan, a cardiologist at the Philippine Heart Center, declared Paringit permanently disabled and unfit for duty as a seaman, due to his heart condition. Paringit then filed a complaint for medical expenses and other money claims. It is important to note that he also executed a quitclaim, acknowledging receipt of US$6,636.70 as sickness allowance.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Paringit, finding that his illnesses were work-related or work-aggravated due to the type of food served and the stressful nature of his job. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision, upholding that Paringit was entitled to permanent total disability benefits. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the labor tribunals’ rulings, faulting Paringit for seeking alternative treatment and asserting that his complaint was premature since the 240-day medical treatment period had not yet lapsed. The Court of Appeals emphasized that it was his duty to consult a third doctor, as required by law. Paringit then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the Court of Appeals’ decision.

The Supreme Court focused on whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined if the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting Paringit’s disability claims. The Court emphasized that to grant a seafarer’s claim for disability benefits, the following requisites must be present: (1) he suffered an illness; (2) he suffered this illness during the term of his employment contract; (3) he complied with the procedures prescribed under Section 20-B; (4) his illness is one of the enumerated occupational diseases or is otherwise work-related; and (5) he complied with the conditions enumerated under Section 32-A for an occupational disease to be compensable. It was undisputed that Paringit was diagnosed with heart disease, anemia, and renal dysfunction while aboard the vessel, leading to his medical repatriation.

The Court noted that Paringit had complied with the post-employment medical examination and that the company-designated physician recommended open-heart surgery. However, the employer failed to act on this recommendation for several months. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA Standard Employment Contract) defines a work-related illness as any sickness resulting from an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A, with the conditions set therein satisfied. Paringit’s heart ailments were classified under cardiovascular events, as defined in Section 32-A(11) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. The Court of Appeals had held that Paringit failed to prove the causal connection between his heart disease and work aboard the vessel, attributing it to poor lifestyle choices. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that while Paringit took medication for his high blood pressure, the working conditions and mandatory diet aboard the vessel made it difficult to maintain a healthy lifestyle. He was served mostly high-fat, high-cholesterol, and low-fiber food, and his work as Chief Mate was stressful and required long hours.

Labor Arbiter Savari had noted that seafarers on ocean-going vessels are not free to choose their diet and must contend with preserved foods. She also found that Paringit, despite being hypertensive, was declared fit to work in his pre-employment medical examination, and the poor food choices in his workplace contributed to his heart disease. The NLRC upheld these findings. Magsaysay Maritime Services, et al. v. Laurel emphasized that for an illness to be compensable, it is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease and the work undertaken. The Court also addressed the Court of Appeals’ assertion that Paringit’s complaint was premature. Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., et al. clarified the rules for reckoning a seafarer’s permanent disability. The Court emphasized that a temporary total disability becomes permanent when declared by the company physician within the allowed periods or upon the expiration of the 240-day medical treatment period without a declaration of fitness to work or the existence of a permanent disability.

The Court pointed out that Dr. Quetulio recommended open-heart surgery, but the employer failed to act on it. With the employer’s silence, Dr. Quetulio could not issue the required disability assessment within the 120-day period, nor extend it to 240 days. The failure to issue a timely disability assessment was due to the employer’s inaction, not Paringit’s supposed inclination toward alternative treatment. Therefore, the labor tribunals did not err in giving credence to the private physician’s findings, who declared Paringit permanently disabled and unfit for duty as a seaman. The Court concluded that the compensability of Paringit’s condition was clear, but the employer delayed his treatment and raised unwarranted procedural barriers.

Shipowners have obligations to their crew members, who risk their lives for their businesses. The Court emphasized the importance of promptly attending to the health needs of those who make their businesses possible. The Supreme Court ultimately granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari, reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstating the rulings of the labor tribunals.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the employer’s failure to act on the company-designated physician’s recommendation for open-heart surgery entitled the seafarer to disability benefits. This was particularly pertinent when the physician did not issue a final disability assessment within the prescribed period.
What did the company-designated physician recommend?	The company-designated physician, Dr. Quetulio, recommended that Paringit undergo open-heart surgery after diagnosing him with congestive heart failure, hypertensive cardiovascular disease, and valvular heart disease. This recommendation was based on the results of various laboratory tests and consultations with a cardiologist.
Why did the Court of Appeals reverse the NLRC decision?	The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC decision because it believed Paringit prematurely filed his complaint before the 240-day medical treatment period lapsed. They also faulted him for considering alternative treatment and not consulting a third physician as required by law.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the rulings of the labor tribunals, granting Paringit’s disability claim. The Court held that the employer’s inaction on the recommended surgery justified the award of disability benefits.
What is the significance of the POEA Standard Employment Contract?	The POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) sets the terms and conditions of employment for Filipino seafarers. It defines work-related illnesses and the procedures for claiming disability benefits, ensuring seafarers’ rights are protected.
What is the 120/240-day rule in disability claims?	The 120/240-day rule refers to the period within which the company-designated physician must assess the seafarer’s condition and issue a final disability assessment. The initial period is 120 days, which can be extended up to 240 days if further medical treatment is required.
What happens if the employer fails to act on the physician’s recommendation?	If the employer fails to act on the company-designated physician’s recommendation for treatment or assessment, the seafarer may be entitled to disability benefits. This is particularly true if the inaction prevents the physician from issuing a timely disability assessment.
What constitutes a work-related illness for seafarers?	A work-related illness for seafarers is defined as any sickness resulting from an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC. The conditions under Section 32-A must be satisfied to establish compensability.

This case serves as a reminder of the obligations shipowners undertake when employing Filipino seafarers. Prompt attention to their health needs and adherence to contractual obligations are not only good business practices but also demonstrate a commitment to justice and the well-being of those who contribute to the success of the maritime industry.

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: OSCAR M. PARINGIT vs. GLOBAL GATEWAY CREWING SERVICES, INC., G.R. No. 217123, February 06, 2019

February 6, 2019

Permanent Disability Benefits: Seafarer’s Rights and Employer Obligations in the Philippines

In a significant ruling for Filipino seafarers, the Supreme Court affirmed that a seafarer is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits if the company-designated physician fails to provide a timely and justified medical assessment within the legally prescribed periods of 120 or 240 days. This decision reinforces the protection of seafarers’ rights, ensuring they receive just compensation for work-related injuries sustained while at sea. It clarifies the responsibilities of employers to provide prompt and adequate medical assessments, upholding the principles of social justice and equitable treatment for seafarers.

From Cramps to Compensation: A Seafarer’s Fight for Disability Benefits

The case of Abosta Shipmanagement Corp. v. Dante C. Segui (G.R. No. 214906) revolves around Dante Segui, an able seaman who suffered debilitating back pain while working aboard the M/V Grand Quest. Segui’s ordeal began with cramps and severe back pain during his duties, eventually leading to a diagnosis of a lumbar disc problem. Upon repatriation to the Philippines, Segui underwent treatment, including surgery, but his condition did not improve, leading him to seek permanent and total disability benefits. The central legal question is whether Segui is entitled to maximum disability benefits, given the conflicting medical assessments and the company-designated physician’s delay in issuing a final disability grading. This case highlights the importance of timely medical assessments and the rights of seafarers to just compensation for work-related disabilities.

The factual backdrop of Segui’s case is critical to understanding the Court’s decision. Segui’s employment with Abosta Shipmanagement was covered by an ITF IBF JSU Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). After experiencing severe back pain on duty, he was medically repatriated and referred to the company-designated physician. The physician diagnosed him with Lumbar Disc Herniation and initiated treatment. However, a significant point of contention arose when the company-designated physician delayed issuing a final disability assessment within the initial 120-day period. Ultimately, the physician assessed Segui with a Grade 8 disability after 219 days, while Segui’s independent physician declared him permanently unfit for sea duty. This discrepancy in medical findings and the delay in assessment formed the crux of the legal dispute.

The legal framework governing this case is primarily based on the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and relevant jurisprudence. Section 20.B of the POEA-SEC stipulates that employers are liable for disability compensation for work-related injuries sustained during the contract term. The Labor Code and its Implementing Rules also play a crucial role in determining disability benefits. Furthermore, the Court considered the impact of collective bargaining agreements, particularly when they provide for higher disability compensation than the POEA-SEC. In this case, the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) Standard Agreement was a key factor, as it provided for potentially more generous disability benefits.

The Supreme Court’s analysis hinged on the timeliness and justification of the company-designated physician’s medical assessment. Citing the case of Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, the Court reiterated the rules for awarding permanent and total disability benefits, emphasizing the importance of a final medical assessment within 120 days or a justified extension up to 240 days. The Court stated:

1. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer’s disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;

2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total;

3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g. seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and

4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.

In Segui’s case, the company-designated physician failed to issue a medical assessment within the initial 120-day period and did not provide a sufficient justification for the delay. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that Segui’s disability became permanent and total, entitling him to maximum disability benefits. The Court contrasted the company-designated physician’s delayed assessment with the detailed medical assessment provided by Segui’s own physician, which clearly indicated his permanent unfitness for sea duty.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of conflicting medical findings, acknowledging that while referral to a third independent physician is typically required, the Court can determine the merit of each assessment based on the available records. In this instance, the Court found ample evidence supporting Segui’s claim of permanent and total disability, as consistently affirmed by the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals. The Court observed that the company-designated physician’s medical reports were consistent with the medical assessment of Segui’s own physician, that is, he is unfit for sea duty in any capacity.

The practical implications of this ruling are significant for seafarers and their employers. Seafarers are now further empowered to claim disability benefits if their employers fail to provide timely and justified medical assessments. Employers, on the other hand, are obligated to ensure that company-designated physicians adhere to the prescribed timelines and provide clear justifications for any delays in assessment. This decision underscores the importance of compliance with POEA-SEC regulations and collective bargaining agreements to protect the rights of seafarers. The Court also affirmed the award of attorney’s fees, citing Article 2208 of the Civil Code, which allows for the recovery of attorney’s fees in actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws. The Court imposed a legal interest of 6% per annum on the monetary award, from the date of finality of the judgment until full satisfaction, as per Nacar v. Gallery Frames.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the seafarer, Dante Segui, was entitled to permanent and total disability benefits, given the delay in the company-designated physician’s medical assessment and the conflicting medical findings.
What is the significance of the 120/240-day rule?	The 120/240-day rule refers to the period within which the company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment. Failure to do so within 120 days, without justification, or within an extended 240-day period, results in the seafarer’s disability being deemed permanent and total.
What happens if there are conflicting medical assessments?	Typically, conflicting medical assessments should be referred to a third independent physician. However, the Supreme Court can determine which assessment has merit based on the available records and evidence presented.
What is the POEA-SEC?	The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) is a standard employment contract that governs the employment of Filipino seafarers. It outlines the rights and obligations of both the seafarer and the employer.
What is the role of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in disability claims?	A CBA, such as the ITF Standard Agreement, can provide for higher disability compensation than the POEA-SEC. If a CBA exists, its terms generally prevail over the POEA-SEC, provided they are more beneficial to the seafarer.
What constitutes permanent and total disability?	Permanent and total disability refers to the inability of a seafarer to perform his or her usual sea duties for an extended period, typically exceeding 120 or 240 days, due to a work-related injury or illness.
Can a seafarer claim disability benefits even if the company-designated doctor gives a low disability grading?	Yes, if the seafarer is certified as permanently unfit for further sea service by the Union’s Doctor, shall also be entitled to 100% compensation.
Is it important to seek a second opinion when there are conflicting medical reports?	Yes, seeking a second opinion can strengthen a seafarer’s claim, especially when the findings of the company-designated physician are unfavorable. This provides additional evidence to support the claim for disability benefits.
What is the effect of the failure of the seafarer to refer the case to a third physician?	While referral to a third physician is ideal in resolving conflicting medical opinions, failure to do so does not automatically result in the dismissal of the complaint. The courts can still rule based on the available evidence.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Abosta Shipmanagement Corp. v. Dante C. Segui serves as a crucial reminder of the rights of Filipino seafarers and the responsibilities of their employers. By emphasizing the importance of timely medical assessments and adherence to contractual obligations, the Court has reinforced the principles of social justice and equitable treatment for those who dedicate their lives to the maritime industry.

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: Abosta Shipmanagement Corp. v. Dante C. Segui, G.R. No. 214906, January 16, 2019

January 16, 2019

Seafarer’s Disability: Timely Assessment Determines Total vs. Partial Benefits

In Jon A. Pastor v. Bibby Shipping Philippines, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that a seafarer is entitled to permanent total disability benefits when the company-designated physician fails to issue a final and definitive assessment of the seafarer’s condition within the prescribed 240-day period. This decision emphasizes the importance of timely medical assessments in determining the extent of disability benefits for seafarers under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). The ruling ensures that seafarers receive appropriate compensation when their ability to work is significantly impaired due to work-related injuries.

From the High Seas to the Courtroom: Did a Seafarer Receive Fair Disability Assessment?

The case revolves around Jon A. Pastor, a seafarer who sustained injuries during his employment. He sought total and permanent disability benefits after an accident left him with lasting physical impairments. The central legal question is whether the company-designated physician provided a timely and definitive assessment of Pastor’s disability. The assessment determines whether he is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits or only partial disability benefits. This case highlights the critical role of medical evaluations in safeguarding the rights of seafarers injured on the job.

The facts of the case reveal that Pastor suffered an accident on August 10, 2014, while working on board the vessel Thomson Celebration. He sustained injuries to his left elbow and lower back, leading to his repatriation on August 15, 2014. Following his return, he underwent medical treatment with a company-designated physician. Despite the treatment, Pastor consulted an independent physician, who declared him unfit for further sea duties due to the limitation of flexion in his left elbow joint and muscle weakness in his left arm. This difference in medical opinions set the stage for a legal battle over the extent of Pastor’s disability benefits.

The legal framework governing this case is primarily the 2010 POEA-SEC, which outlines the compensation and benefits for seafarers who suffer work-related injuries or illnesses. Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC details the employer’s responsibilities, including providing medical attention until the seafarer is declared fit or the degree of disability has been established by the company-designated physician. Crucially, this section also specifies the time frame within which the company-designated physician must provide a definitive assessment. The Supreme Court emphasized this provision, highlighting its significance in protecting seafarers’ rights.

The Court also considered relevant provisions of the Labor Code and the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation (AREC). These provisions further define the concepts of temporary total disability, permanent total disability, and permanent partial disability. They also clarify the conditions under which a temporary total disability can be considered permanent. Specifically, Article 198 of the Labor Code states:

(c) The following disabilities shall be deemed total and permanent:

(1) Temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than one hundred twenty days, except as otherwise provided for in the Rules;

The Court’s reasoning centered on the failure of the company-designated physician to issue a final and definitive assessment within the prescribed period. The initial assessment of Grade 11 was deemed an interim assessment. The final assessment of “12 percent – Left Elbow bending reduced to 90 degrees or less” came after the 240-day period. The Court noted that the company-designated physician’s last assessment, issued on April 14, 2015, was beyond the 240-day extended treatment period. Additionally, the assessment was not definitive as Pastor still complained of pain and required ongoing physical therapy.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a timely and definitive assessment from the company-designated physician. It reiterated that a seafarer’s temporary total disability becomes permanent and total by operation of law if the physician fails to issue a final assessment within the 120-day or extended 240-day period. As the Court stated in Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. v. Jara:

without a valid final and definitive assessment from the company-designated physician within the prescribed periods, the law already steps in to consider the seafarer’s disability as total and permanent.

The Court also addressed the issue of the third doctor referral procedure. The Court stated that the need to consult a second physician arises only when a valid assessment has been made. In this case, the absence of a valid and timely assessment removes the necessity for Pastor to comply with this procedure. Thus, the provision under Section 20 (A) (3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC did not apply. As the Court stated in Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar:

A seafarer’s compliance with such procedure presupposes that the company-designated physician came up with an assessment as to his fitness or unfitness to work before the expiration of the 120-day or 240-day periods. Alternatively put, absent a certification from the company-designated physician, the seafarer had nothing to contest and the law steps in to conclusively characterize his disability as total and permanent.

The Court awarded Pastor permanent total disability benefits amounting to US$80,000.00, as provided under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). It also granted attorney’s fees because Pastor was compelled to litigate to secure his rightful benefits. The denial of moral and exemplary damages was upheld, as there was no evidence to suggest that the respondents acted with malice or bad faith.

The practical implications of this decision are significant for seafarers. It reinforces their right to receive timely and accurate medical assessments. It underscores the importance of the company-designated physician’s role in determining the extent of disability benefits. Employers and company-designated physicians must adhere strictly to the timelines set forth in the POEA-SEC to avoid the automatic conversion of temporary disabilities into permanent and total disabilities. This ruling serves as a strong reminder of the legal protections afforded to seafarers who suffer work-related injuries or illnesses.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the seafarer, Jon A. Pastor, was entitled to permanent total disability benefits due to the company-designated physician’s failure to provide a timely and definitive assessment of his condition.
What is the POEA-SEC?	The POEA-SEC, or Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, is a standard contract that governs the employment of Filipino seafarers. It outlines the terms and conditions of their employment, including compensation and benefits for work-related injuries or illnesses.
What is the role of the company-designated physician?	The company-designated physician is responsible for assessing the seafarer’s medical condition after a work-related injury or illness. They must provide a final and definitive assessment within a specified period (120 days, extendable to 240 days) to determine the extent of disability.
What happens if the company-designated physician fails to provide a timely assessment?	If the company-designated physician fails to provide a final assessment within the 120-day or 240-day period, the seafarer’s temporary total disability becomes permanent and total by operation of law, entitling the seafarer to total disability benefits.
What is the third doctor referral procedure?	The third doctor referral procedure is a mechanism in the POEA-SEC that allows for a neutral third doctor to assess the seafarer’s condition if there is a disagreement between the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s chosen doctor.
When does the third doctor referral procedure apply?	The third doctor referral procedure applies when there is a disagreement between the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s physician, and only after the company-designated physician has issued a valid and timely assessment.
What benefits are seafarers entitled to in case of permanent total disability?	Seafarers with permanent total disability are entitled to compensation as specified in their employment contract or the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which may include disability benefits, medical expenses, and other forms of assistance.
What was the amount awarded to the seafarer in this case?	The Supreme Court awarded Jon A. Pastor US$80,000.00 in permanent total disability benefits, as provided under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Jon A. Pastor v. Bibby Shipping Philippines, Inc. serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of timely and definitive medical assessments for seafarers. It underscores the legal protections available to seafarers who suffer work-related injuries. This ruling reinforces the need for strict adherence to the POEA-SEC guidelines to ensure that seafarers receive the compensation and benefits they are entitled to under the 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: JON A. PASTOR, PETITIONER, V. BIBBY SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC., G.R. No. 238842, November 19, 2018

November 19, 2018

Protecting Seafarers: Employers Must Uphold Medical Obligations and Timely Pay Sickness Allowances

The Supreme Court ruled that employers must fulfill their obligations to provide medical treatment and pay sickness allowances to seafarers promptly. Failure to do so cannot be used as a justification to deny disability benefits if the seafarer misses medical appointments due to the employer’s inaction. This decision reinforces the protection of seafarers’ rights under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs).

When Duty Calls: The High Court Protects Seafarers from Employer Neglect

Christian Albert A. Cariño, a seafarer, suffered an injury while working on board a vessel owned by Maine Marine Phils., Inc. Following his repatriation, a dispute arose when Maine Marine allegedly failed to provide continuous medical treatment and sickness allowance. Cariño’s subsequent failure to attend a scheduled medical appointment was used by the company as grounds to deny his disability benefits. The core legal question was whether the employer’s failure to uphold its medical obligations could justify the denial of benefits to the seafarer.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the POEA-SEC is imbued with public interest and must be construed liberally in favor of seafarers. The court highlighted the interconnected duties of both the seafarer and the employer. While the seafarer must attend medical appointments, the employer is obligated to provide medical treatment and sickness allowance.

SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS

The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:

If the injury or illness requires medical and/or dental treatment in a foreign port, the employer shall be liable for the full cost of such medical, serious dental, surgical and hospital treatment as well as board and lodging until the seafarer is declared fit to work or to be repatriated. However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the employer until such time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the company-designated physician.

In addition to the above obligation of the employer to provide medical attention, the seafarer shall also receive sickness allowance from his employer in an amount equivalent to his basic wage computed from the time he signed off until he is declared fit to work or the degree of disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician. The period within which the seafarer shall be entitled to his sickness allowance shall not exceed 120 days. Payment of the sickness allowance shall be made on a regular basis, but not less than once a month.

The Court noted Cariño’s diligent efforts to follow up on his medical treatment, contrasting it with Maine Marine’s inaction. The Court noted that even if the company-designated physician scheduled a check-up, Cariño’s failure to attend was not due to abandonment. It was the lack of approved medical procedures and unpaid allowance which was in violation of the POEA-SEC. The Court cited a previous ruling:

Accordingly, Section 20-B (2), paragraph 2, of the POEA-SEC imposes on the employer the liability to provide, at its cost, for the medical treatment of the repatriated seafarer for the illness or injury that he suffered on board the vessel until the seafarer is declared fit to work or the degree of his disability is finally determined by the company-designated physician.

Because the employer’s breach of duty led to Cariño’s absence, the Supreme Court deemed the company-designated physician’s failure to assess Cariño within 120 days as unjustified, resulting in a total and permanent disability. The Court, in effect, penalized Maine Marine for failing to act. The Court reiterated that when the company-designated physician fails to provide an assessment, the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of the CBA. The Court emphasized that labor officials should employ reasonable means to ascertain facts speedily and objectively, with little resort to technicalities, and that technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the CBA submitted by Cariño, as his employment contract clearly stated its applicability. The Supreme Court held that the lower court should have considered the CBA, especially since Cariño’s employment contract clearly stated that he was covered by the IBF JSU/AMOSUP-IMMAJ CBA. In essence, the Court allowed the seafarer to receive benefits under the CBA because the contract which the company signed clearly states that Cariño is covered by the CBA.

The Court, referencing the CBA, declared that Cariño was entitled to US$93,154.00 as a permanent and total disability benefit. The court also agreed with the Labor Arbiter’s award of moral and exemplary damages, increasing them to P100,000.00 each due to Maine Marine’s callous treatment.

The Court reiterated that companies like Maine Marine should comply with their contractual obligations and avoid giving seafarers the run-around. The Court awarded attorney’s fees at ten percent (10%) of the total monetary awards, citing Article 2208 of the New Civil Code. Lastly, the Supreme Court stated that Maine Marine is liable for legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until full satisfaction.

In its final ruling, the Court highlighted the joint and several liability of respondents for the monetary awards, following Section 10 of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. By reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision, the Supreme Court prioritized the protection of seafarers’ rights and underscored the importance of employers fulfilling their contractual obligations.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a seafarer could be denied disability benefits for missing a medical appointment when the employer failed to provide the required medical treatment and sickness allowance.
What did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court ruled that employers must fulfill their obligations to provide medical treatment and pay sickness allowances promptly, and failure to do so cannot justify the denial of disability benefits.
What is the POEA-SEC?	The POEA-SEC, or Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, sets the terms and conditions for the employment of Filipino seafarers on ocean-going vessels.
What is a CBA?	A CBA, or Collective Bargaining Agreement, is a negotiated agreement between an employer and a labor union representing the employees, outlining terms and conditions of employment.
What is sickness allowance?	Sickness allowance is a benefit provided to seafarers who suffer work-related injuries or illnesses, equivalent to their basic wage, until they are declared fit to work or their disability is assessed.
Why was the CBA important in this case?	The CBA provided for a higher disability benefit amount than the standard POEA-SEC, and the Court ruled that the seafarer was entitled to the CBA benefits because his employment contract stated he was covered by it.
What damages were awarded in this case?	In addition to disability benefits and sickness allowance, the seafarer was awarded moral damages (P100,000.00) and exemplary damages (P100,000.00) due to the employer’s bad faith.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling reinforces the protection of seafarers’ rights by ensuring that employers fulfill their obligations and cannot use their own failures as a reason to deny benefits.
What is the legal interest imposed in this case?	Respondents are likewise liable for legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum of the foregoing monetary awards computed from the finality of this Decision until full satisfaction.

This decision serves as a reminder to employers in the maritime industry of their duty to prioritize the welfare of their seafarers by promptly addressing their medical needs and providing timely financial support. By upholding these obligations, employers can foster a healthier and more equitable working environment for Filipino seafarers.

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: CHRISTIAN ALBERT A. CARIÑO v. MAINE MARINE PHILS., INC., G.R. No. 231111, October 17, 2018

October 17, 2018

Upholding Company Doctor’s Fitness Certification: Seafarer’s Duty to Seek Third Opinion

In a dispute over disability benefits, the Supreme Court has ruled that a seafarer’s failure to follow the established procedure for contesting a company-designated physician’s fitness certification is fatal to their claim. This means seafarers must adhere strictly to the process of seeking a third, mutually agreed-upon doctor if they disagree with the company doctor’s assessment. The decision reinforces the importance of following contractual obligations and the prescribed steps for resolving medical disputes in maritime employment, impacting how seafarers pursue disability claims.

When a Seafarer’s Health Becomes a Legal Battle: Whose Medical Opinion Prevails?

The case revolves around Manuel R. Verga, a seafarer who sustained an injury while working on board a vessel owned by Magsaysay Maritime Corporation. After being repatriated and examined by the company-designated physician, he was eventually declared fit to work. However, Verga later consulted his own doctors who gave conflicting opinions. This divergence of medical assessments led to a legal dispute concerning Verga’s entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits.

The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the company-designated physician’s certification of fitness should prevail, especially considering that Verga later obtained differing medical opinions from his chosen doctors. The Court’s analysis hinges on the interpretation and application of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), specifically Section 20(A)(3), which outlines the procedure for resolving medical disputes.

Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC clearly stipulates the process for handling disagreements regarding a seafarer’s medical condition:

SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS

x x x x

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.

Building on this provision, the Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory nature of seeking a third opinion. This mechanism exists to resolve conflicting medical assessments. The Court noted that the POEA-SEC recognizes the seafarer’s right to seek a second medical opinion, but it also establishes a procedure to ensure a fair and binding resolution. Failure to follow this procedure can have significant consequences for a seafarer’s claim for disability benefits.

In this case, Verga failed to initiate the process of consulting a third, mutually agreed-upon doctor. He did not inform the company of the differing diagnoses from his chosen physicians, nor did he provide the company with an opportunity to seek a third opinion. Instead, he prematurely filed a complaint for disability benefits. This procedural lapse proved fatal to his claim.

The Supreme Court underscored that Verga’s filing of the complaint was a breach of his contractual obligations under the POEA-SEC. The Court emphasized that the referral to a third doctor is not merely a suggestion but a mandatory requirement. Failure to comply with this requirement can be detrimental to a seafarer’s claim, especially when the company-designated doctor has declared the seafarer fit to work.

Furthermore, the Court gave considerable weight to the fact that Verga signed a Certificate of Fitness to Work, indicating his initial agreement with the company-designated physician’s assessment. The Court also noted that Verga did not challenge the certification for four months after it was issued. This delay further weakened his position. These actions implied his concurrence with the company physician’s findings.

The Court contrasted the thoroughness of the company-designated physician’s assessment with the examinations conducted by Verga’s chosen doctors. The company doctor had monitored Verga’s condition over several months, providing consultations, treatments, and assessments. The Court found this continuous monitoring to be more credible than the one-time examinations performed by Verga’s doctors.

The ruling in Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Verga highlights the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and established procedures in maritime employment. Seafarers who disagree with a company-designated physician’s assessment must take positive action to initiate the process of seeking a third, mutually agreed-upon doctor. Failure to do so can result in the denial of their claims for disability benefits.

This approach contrasts with cases where the company fails to provide adequate medical attention or unduly delays the assessment process. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the company must act in good faith and fulfill its obligations to the seafarer. However, in cases where the company has complied with its duties and the seafarer fails to follow the prescribed procedure, the Court is more likely to uphold the company-designated physician’s assessment.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the seafarer to demonstrate that their doctor’s findings are correct and to notify the company of the contrary finding. The company then carries the burden of initiating the referral process to a third doctor. This division of responsibilities ensures a fair and transparent process for resolving medical disputes.

The practical implications of this ruling are significant for seafarers and maritime employers alike. Seafarers must be diligent in protecting their rights and following the prescribed procedures for contesting medical assessments. Maritime employers must ensure that they comply with their obligations to provide adequate medical attention and facilitate the referral process when necessary. By adhering to these principles, both parties can avoid costly and time-consuming legal disputes.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the seafarer was entitled to disability benefits despite a company-designated physician declaring him fit to work, and his failure to seek a third medical opinion as per POEA-SEC guidelines.
What is the POEA-SEC?	The POEA-SEC refers to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, which sets out the terms and conditions governing the employment of Filipino seafarers on ocean-going vessels.
What is the role of the company-designated physician?	The company-designated physician is responsible for examining and assessing the seafarer’s medical condition upon repatriation. Their assessment is initially given significant weight in determining the seafarer’s entitlement to disability benefits.
What should a seafarer do if they disagree with the company-designated physician’s assessment?	If a seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician, they should seek a second opinion from a doctor of their choice and then notify the company of the differing opinion, initiating the process for a third, mutually agreed-upon doctor.
What is the significance of the “Certificate of Fitness to Work”?	The Certificate of Fitness to Work indicates that the company-designated physician has determined that the seafarer is medically fit to resume their duties. Signing this certificate can be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the physician’s assessment.
What is the role of a third doctor in resolving medical disputes?	A third doctor, mutually agreed upon by the employer and the seafarer, provides a final and binding assessment of the seafarer’s medical condition, resolving any conflicting opinions between the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s chosen doctor.
What happens if a seafarer fails to follow the POEA-SEC procedure for resolving medical disputes?	Failure to follow the POEA-SEC procedure, such as prematurely filing a complaint without seeking a third opinion, can be detrimental to the seafarer’s claim for disability benefits.
What is the main takeaway from this Supreme Court decision?	The main takeaway is that seafarers must strictly adhere to the POEA-SEC procedure for resolving medical disputes, particularly the mandatory requirement of seeking a third, mutually agreed-upon doctor, to strengthen their claim for disability benefits.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Verga underscores the importance of procedural compliance in maritime disability claims. Seafarers must be proactive in protecting their rights by following the established mechanisms for resolving medical disputes. This includes seeking a third medical opinion when disagreeing with the company-designated physician’s assessment.

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: MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION v. VERGA, G.R. No. 221250, October 10, 2018

October 10, 2018

Seafarer’s Rights: Establishing Compensability of Illnesses Under the POEA-SEC

The Supreme Court held that a seafarer’s illness, even if not directly listed as an occupational disease, can be compensable if the working conditions contributed to its development or aggravation. This ruling emphasizes the importance of a liberal interpretation of the POEA-SEC in favor of seafarers, especially when their work environment and dietary provisions at sea contribute to the onset or worsening of a disease. The court prioritized the seafarer’s welfare, reinforcing the principle that the POEA-SEC should be applied fairly and reasonably to protect Filipino seafarers working on ocean-going vessels.

From Oiler to Patient: Can a Seafarer’s Diet and Labor Lead to Disability Compensation?

This case, Skippers United Pacific, Inc. v. Lagne, revolves around Estelito Lagne, an oiler who developed rectosigmoid adenocarcinoma during his employment. Lagne sought disability benefits, arguing his condition was work-related due to the food provisions on the ship and the strenuous nature of his job. The petitioners, Skippers United Pacific, Inc., contested this, arguing that Lagne’s illness was not listed as an occupational disease under the POEA-SEC. The central legal question is whether Lagne’s illness is compensable under the POEA-SEC, considering it is not explicitly listed as an occupational disease, and whether there is sufficient evidence to link his working conditions to the development or aggravation of his condition.

The Supreme Court addressed the compensability of Lagne’s illness by examining the requirements under Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC, which requires that the injury or illness must be work-related and must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract. The Court noted that while rectosigmoid adenocarcinoma is not listed under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, the agreement creates a disputable presumption that illnesses not listed are work-related. However, the seafarer must still present substantial evidence demonstrating that their work conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting the disease. In this case, Lagne’s duties as an oiler, which included heavy lifting and exposure to conditions that aggravated his condition, were taken into account.

Building on this principle, the Court considered the NLRC’s findings regarding the food provisions on the ship, which consisted mostly of frozen meat and canned goods, lacking fresh vegetables. This dietary condition was deemed a contributing factor to Lagne’s rectal illness. The Court cited Leonis Navigation Co., Inc., et al. v. Heirs of the late Catalino V. Villamater, et al., emphasizing that factors such as high fat intake and genetics can increase the risk of colorectal cancer. In that case, the Supreme Court had already weighed in on risk factors regarding colorectal cancer. To put it in perspective, the Supreme Court quoted the previous ruling:

Factors that increase a person’s risk of colorectal cancer include high fat intake, a family history of colorectal cancer and polyps, the presence of polyps in the large intestine, and chronic ulcerative colitis.

Diets high in fat are believed to predispose humans to colorectal cancer. In countries with high colorectal cancer rates, the fat intake by the population is much higher than in countries with low cancer rates. It is believed that the breakdown products of fat metabolism lead to the formation of cancer-causing chemicals (carcinogens). Diets high in vegetables and high-fiber foods may rid the bowel of these carcinogens and help reduce the risk of cancer.

The Court also highlighted the appellate court’s findings that the interplay of age and dietary factors contributed to Lagne’s condition, as he was 55 years old at the time of signing his employment contract, an age at which the incidence of rectosigmoid cancer is more likely. Dr. Go, the company-designated doctor, acknowledged that risk factors for rectosigmoid adenocarcinoma include age and a diet rich in saturated fat. The Court reiterated that it is sufficient if the employment contributed even in a small degree to the development of the disease, and the employer assumes the risk of liability even if the ailment was contracted prior to employment.

As to the sickness allowance, the Court affirmed its award in favor of Lagne, as there was no evidence on record that the petitioners had duly paid it. Moreover, the petitioners did not dispute that Lagne was repatriated for medical reasons. According to Section 20 (B) (3) of the POEA-SEC:

Upon sign off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall the period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.

Regarding the award of attorney’s fees, the Court found it justified because Lagne was compelled to litigate due to the petitioners’ failure to satisfy his valid claim. Where an employee is forced to litigate to protect their rights, they are entitled to attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent of the total award at the time of actual payment. In line with the State’s policy to protect labor rights, the POEA-SEC is designed to benefit Filipino seafarers. Its provisions should be construed and applied fairly, reasonably, and liberally in their favor.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a seafarer’s illness (rectosigmoid adenocarcinoma), not explicitly listed as an occupational disease under the POEA-SEC, is compensable due to work-related factors like diet and labor. The court also took up the issues on sickness allowance and attorney’s fees.
What is the POEA-SEC?	The POEA-SEC refers to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers, which sets the terms and conditions of employment for Filipino seafarers. It outlines the rights and obligations of both the seafarer and the employer.
What constitutes a work-related illness under the POEA-SEC?	A work-related illness is defined as any sickness resulting in disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, or any illness that can be proven to have been caused or aggravated by working conditions. Even illnesses not listed in Section 32-A can be compensable if proven to be work-related.
What evidence did Lagne present to support his claim?	Lagne presented evidence of his duties as an oiler, the food provisions on the ship, and medical assessments linking his condition to dietary factors and strenuous work conditions. He also presented a medical assessment from a private doctor stating that he was unfit to work as a seaman.
How did the Court interpret the POEA-SEC in favor of the seafarer?	The Court interpreted the POEA-SEC liberally, emphasizing that its provisions are designed to protect Filipino seafarers. It stated that even a small degree of contribution from employment to the development of a disease is sufficient for compensability.
What is the significance of the company-designated physician’s opinion?	While the opinion of the company-designated physician is considered, the Court also takes into account the findings of other medical professionals and the overall circumstances of the case. In this case, the Court gave more weight to the NLRC and CA findings, considering the factors of dietary provisions and working conditions.
What are the implications of this ruling for other seafarers?	This ruling reinforces the rights of seafarers to claim disability benefits for illnesses that are work-related, even if not explicitly listed as occupational diseases. It highlights the importance of considering the seafarer’s work environment and dietary conditions in assessing compensability.
What is sickness allowance, and how is it awarded?	Sickness allowance is a benefit provided to seafarers who are signed off from the vessel for medical treatment. It is equivalent to the seafarer’s basic wage and is paid until they are declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed, but not exceeding 120 days.
Why was attorney’s fees awarded in this case?	Attorney’s fees were awarded because Lagne was compelled to litigate to protect his rights due to the petitioners’ failure to satisfy his valid claim. This is in line with the principle that an employee forced to litigate is entitled to compensation for the expenses incurred.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Skippers United Pacific, Inc. v. Lagne underscores the importance of liberally interpreting the POEA-SEC to protect the rights of Filipino seafarers. It clarifies that even illnesses not explicitly listed as occupational diseases can be compensable if the working conditions contributed to their development or aggravation, ensuring that seafarers receive the benefits they are entitled to under the 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: Skippers United Pacific, Inc. v. Lagne, G.R. No. 217036, August 20, 2018

August 20, 2018

Seafarer’s Rights: When a Delayed Medical Assessment Equals Total Disability

In Phil-Man Marine Agency, Inc. vs. Dedace, the Supreme Court affirmed that if a company-designated physician fails to provide a complete and definitive medical assessment within 120 days of a seafarer’s repatriation, the seafarer is deemed to have a total and permanent disability. This ruling underscores the importance of timely and thorough medical evaluations in protecting the rights and welfare of Filipino seafarers, ensuring they receive the compensation and benefits they are entitled to under the law. It emphasizes the employer’s responsibility to ensure that medical assessments are conducted promptly and accurately.

Lost at Sea? How a Seafarer’s Sepsis Claim Navigated Legal Waters

Aniano P. Dedace, Jr., a seafarer employed by Phil-Man Marine Agency, Inc., experienced recurring abdominal pains while working aboard the vessel M/V APL Shanghai. After being diagnosed with disseminated sepsis with multiple liver abscesses in Singapore, he was repatriated to the Philippines and referred to a company-designated physician, Dr. Nicomedes G. Cruz. The central legal question was whether Dedace’s illness was work-related and, consequently, whether he was entitled to permanent disability benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially ruled against Dedace, stating that his illness was not work-related and therefore not compensable, only granting him sickness allowance. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision, citing Dr. Cruz’s opinion that the illness was not work-related. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed these decisions, holding that the petitioners failed to overcome the disputable presumption that Dedace’s illness was work-related. The CA emphasized that Dr. Cruz did not provide a sufficient explanation for his conclusion.

The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, highlighting the importance of the company-designated physician’s role in assessing the seafarer’s medical condition within the prescribed 120-day period. The Court emphasized that this assessment must be complete, definite, and adequately explained. According to Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC:

Section 20. B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS. The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:

3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.

Building on this provision, the Court noted that the company-designated physician’s failure to issue a final and comprehensive assessment within the 120-day period effectively renders the seafarer totally and permanently disabled. This is because the POEA-SEC places a significant responsibility on the employer and their designated physician to promptly and accurately assess the seafarer’s condition.

In this case, Dr. Cruz’s reply, stating that Dedace’s illness was not work-related, was deemed inadequate. The Court pointed out that Dr. Cruz based his opinion on the view of an unnamed gastroenterologist and failed to provide his own substantiated assessment. Moreover, neither Dr. Cruz nor the gastroenterologist offered a clear explanation for their conclusion, which made it difficult to determine why Dedace’s illness was not considered work-related.

The Court also addressed the argument that Dedace failed to present substantial evidence to prove a causal connection between his work conditions and his illness. However, the Court clarified that this requirement does not apply when the company-designated physician fails to make a proper assessment within the 120-day period. In such cases, the seafarer is not obligated to consult with another physician or present additional medical evidence.

Furthermore, the Court underscored that the award of attorney’s fees was justified in this case. According to Article 2208 of the Civil Code, attorney’s fees can be awarded when a party is compelled to litigate to protect their rights. Since Dedace was forced to file a claim before the NLRC and subsequently appeal to higher courts to secure his disability benefits, he was entitled to recover attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the seafarer, Aniano P. Dedace, Jr., was entitled to permanent disability benefits due to an illness contracted during his employment, and whether the company-designated physician’s assessment was sufficient under the POEA-SEC.
What is the 120-day rule for seafarer medical assessments?	The 120-day rule requires the company-designated physician to provide a complete and definite medical assessment of the seafarer’s condition within 120 days from the date of repatriation; failure to do so results in the seafarer being deemed totally and permanently disabled.
What happens if the company doctor doesn’t provide a proper assessment?	If the company-designated physician fails to provide a complete and explained assessment within 120 days, the seafarer is deemed totally and permanently disabled, and the burden shifts to the employer to prove otherwise.
Is an illness presumed work-related for seafarers?	Under the POEA-SEC, illnesses not listed under Section 32 are disputably presumed to be work-related; the employer must present evidence to overcome this presumption.
Can a seafarer claim attorney’s fees in these cases?	Yes, attorney’s fees can be awarded if the seafarer is forced to litigate to protect their rights due to the employer’s refusal to pay disability benefits.
What is the significance of a gastroenterologist’s opinion in this case?	The gastroenterologist’s opinion was deemed immaterial because the company-designated physician did not rely on it to make an informed medical assessment.
What does ‘permanent total disability’ mean in this context?	Permanent total disability refers to a condition that prevents the seafarer from returning to their previous work or any other gainful employment, entitling them to disability benefits.
What are the employer’s responsibilities regarding medical assessments?	Employers must ensure that seafarers receive prompt and thorough medical assessments from company-designated physicians within the mandated timeframe, and must provide clear and substantiated reasons for any denial of benefits.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Phil-Man Marine Agency, Inc. vs. Dedace reinforces the importance of adherence to the POEA-SEC guidelines and the protection of seafarers’ rights. The ruling serves as a reminder for employers to ensure prompt and thorough medical assessments are conducted, and that any denial of benefits is based on clear and substantiated medical evidence.

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: Phil-Man Marine Agency, Inc. vs. Dedace, G.R. No. 199162, July 04, 2018

July 4, 2018

Work-Related Illness: Seafarer’s Right to Total Disability Benefits

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a seafarer’s bladder cancer, aggravated by occupational exposure, is work-related and entitles him to total and permanent disability benefits. This decision underscores the importance of protecting seafarers’ rights and ensuring fair compensation for illnesses linked to their work environment. The court emphasized that even if an illness is not explicitly listed as an occupational disease, it can still be considered work-related if there’s a reasonable connection between the job and the condition, especially when the employer’s own doctor acknowledges occupational risk factors.

From the High Seas to the Courtroom: Can a Seafarer’s Cancer Claim Total Disability?

Aldrine Ilustricimo, a seafarer, experienced blood in his urine while working on a vessel. He was diagnosed with bladder cancer, and the company-designated doctor assessed him with a Grade 7 disability. Ilustricimo sought a second opinion, which deemed him unfit to work. Despite this, the company insisted on the Grade 7 rating. The central legal question revolves around whether Ilustricimo is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, considering his illness’s potential link to his occupation and the conflicting medical assessments.

The case hinges on whether Ilustricimo’s bladder cancer is work-related. The Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) stipulates that for an illness to be compensable, it must be work-related and exist during the employment contract. A work-related illness includes any sickness resulting from an occupational disease listed in Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC. Illnesses not listed are disputably presumed to be work-related. However, the seafarer must still provide substantial evidence that their work conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting the disease. It’s important to note that the employment doesn’t need to be the sole reason for the illness, it’s enough to show a reasonable link between the work and the disease.

In Ilustricimo’s case, the company doctor noted that risk factors for his bladder cancer included “occupational exposure to aromatic amines and cigarette smoking.” Given Ilustricimo’s 21 years of service, the court found it plausible that his work contributed to or aggravated his illness. Moreover, the company did not dispute Ilustricimo’s entitlement to disability benefits, but contested the extent of the disability. The VA considered the illness as work-related based on Section 32 of POEA-SEC, adding that even if the petitioner’s illness is not among those specifically mentioned in Section 32, the same is deemed work-related since the risk factors for the illness include occupational exposure to aromatic amines as stated on the company doctors’ medical certification. This admission significantly shifted the burden of proof.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of compliance with the third-doctor referral procedure outlined in Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC. This section states that if the seafarer’s doctor disagrees with the company-designated doctor’s assessment, a third doctor may be jointly agreed upon, and their decision will be final and binding. The court emphasized that while this referral is mandatory, the company bears the burden of initiating the process once the seafarer expresses disagreement with the company doctor’s assessment.

The POEA-SEC stipulates:

SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS
The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows:
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.

Despite Ilustricimo informing the company of his intent to seek a third opinion, the company failed to initiate the referral process. This failure is crucial because it prevents the company from insisting on its initial disability rating. The court noted that the company was notified of such intent. In Formerly INC Shipmanagement Incorporated v. Rosales, We reiterated Our earlier pronouncement in Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. v. Constantino that when the seafarer challenges the company doctor’s assessment through the assessment made by his own doctor, the seafarer shall so signify and the company thereafter carries the burden of activating the third doctor provision.

Moreover, the court clarified that the company-designated physician’s findings are not absolutely binding. Labor tribunals and courts can weigh the inherent merits of medical findings and consider other evidence. Ilustricimo’s condition required continuous medical intervention and the company doctors’ requirement for him to undergo periodic cystoscopy despite having undergone chemotherapy and surgery. This ongoing need for treatment, even after the 240-day period, indicated a total and permanent disability.

Considering that petitioner’s illness is serious in nature considering the company doctors’ requirement for him to undergo periodic cystoscopy despite having undergone chemotherapy and surgery. It further observed that petitioner was never declared “cancer-free” and “fit to work” by his attending physicians and his illness persisted despite the final disability grade of 7 given. For the VA, this means that petitioner could no longer return to the seafaring profession and is, thus, permanently and totally disabled.

The concept of disability extends beyond medical definitions, focusing on the worker’s ability to earn a living. As the court held in Hanseatic Shipping Philippines Inc. v. Ballon, total disability refers to “the disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work of similar nature that he was trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainments could do.” In Ilustricimo’s case, the risk of recurrence associated with his previous occupation as Quarter Master made it unreasonable to expect him to resume sea duties. Given these circumstances, the court ruled that Ilustricimo is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, aligning with the State’s policy to protect labor rights and ensure fair compensation.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the seafarer’s bladder cancer was work-related and entitled him to total and permanent disability benefits. The court considered the connection between his occupation and illness.
What is the significance of the company doctor’s assessment?	The company doctor’s assessment is initially important, but it is not absolutely binding. The courts and labor tribunals can consider other evidence and the merits of the medical findings.
What is the third-doctor referral procedure?	If the seafarer’s doctor disagrees with the company doctor, a third, jointly agreed-upon doctor can provide a final and binding assessment. The company bears the burden of initiating this referral process.
What happens if the company fails to initiate the third-doctor referral?	If the company fails to initiate the third-doctor referral, it cannot insist on its initial disability rating. The court can then consider other evidence to determine the extent of the disability.
What constitutes total and permanent disability for a seafarer?	Total and permanent disability refers to the inability to earn wages in the same kind of work or similar nature for which the seafarer was trained. It focuses on the loss of earning capacity.
Is an illness not listed in the POEA-SEC automatically not compensable?	No, illnesses not listed in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC are disputably presumed to be work-related. The seafarer must present substantial evidence linking their work conditions to the illness.
What evidence did the seafarer present to prove his bladder cancer was work-related?	The seafarer presented the company doctor’s report stating that risk factors included occupational exposure to aromatic amines. The VA considered this to be enough proof that his work had indeed caused, contributed, or at least aggravated his illness.
Why was the seafarer awarded total disability benefits in this case?	Because the court considered it unreasonable for him to continue being a seafarer due to the recurrence of the disease. The company doctor even required the seafarer to have periodic cystoscopy despite his previous chemotherapy and surgery.

This case reinforces the seafarer’s right to just compensation when occupational hazards contribute to serious illnesses. By emphasizing the company’s duty to initiate the third-doctor referral process and considering the broader impact of disability on earning capacity, the Supreme Court has strengthened the protections available to Filipino seafarers.

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: ALDRINE B. ILUSTRICIMO v. NYK-FIL SHIP MANAGEMENT, INC., G.R. No. 237487, June 27, 2018

June 27, 2018

Seafarer’s Entitlement to Disability Benefits: Addressing Pre-Existing Conditions and Timely Assessments

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that a seafarer’s entitlement to disability benefits hinges on whether a pre-existing condition was willfully concealed during the pre-employment medical examination (PEME) and whether the company-designated physician provided a timely and definitive assessment of the seafarer’s condition. The Court emphasized that absent a timely assessment, the seafarer’s disability is conclusively presumed to be total and permanent. This decision underscores the importance of transparency in disclosing medical history and the employer’s responsibility to provide prompt medical evaluation and assessment.

Brain Stroke at Sea: Did the Seafarer Conceal a Pre-Existing Condition?

This case revolves around Columbano Pagunsan Gallano, Jr., a ship master who suffered a brain stroke while working on board M.V. Pearl Halo. He sought total and permanent disability benefits from his employers, Philsynergy Maritime, Inc. and Trimurti Shipmanagement Ltd. The employers denied the claim, alleging that Gallano fraudulently concealed a pre-existing heart condition, pointing to his possession of Isordil, a medication for chest pain, which he did not disclose during his PEME. The core legal question is whether Gallano’s brain stroke was a work-related illness entitling him to disability benefits, or whether he was disqualified due to concealment of a pre-existing condition.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the facts and the applicable laws, primarily the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). The Court emphasized that under Section 20 (A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, employers are liable for disability benefits if a seafarer suffers a work-related injury or illness during the term of their contract. However, Section 20 (E) stipulates that a seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness in the PEME is disqualified from receiving compensation and benefits.

Petitioners argued that Gallano’s failure to disclose his alleged heart condition, evidenced by his possession of Isordil, constituted fraudulent concealment. The Court, however, rejected this argument, emphasizing that to be considered pre-existing, the illness must meet specific conditions outlined in the 2010 POEA-SEC. Specifically, there must be either an advice of a medical doctor on treatment for the continuing illness or the seafarer must have been diagnosed and had knowledge of such illness but failed to disclose it during the PEME.

The Court found no evidence that Gallano had prior medical advice or diagnosis for hypertension or a heart condition. It was highlighted that Isordil is primarily used for angina or chest pain, not specifically for hypertension. Moreover, the specialist’s opinion that Gallano may have experienced symptoms of hypertension was deemed speculative. The Court emphasized that had Gallano been suffering from pre-existing hypertension, it would likely have been detected during the PEME, which included blood pressure tests, electrocardiograms, and chest x-rays. Since Gallano’s PEME showed normal results, the Court concluded that there was no willful concealment.

Building on this principle, the Court addressed whether Gallano’s brain stroke was a work-related illness. Section 20 (A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC defines a work-related illness as any sickness resulting from an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the contract, provided the conditions set therein are satisfied. Both cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and hypertension are listed under Section 32-A. The Court examined the specific conditions for CVA and hypertension to be considered compensable.

For CVA, the conditions include proof that an acute exacerbation was clearly precipitated by an unusual strain of work if heart disease was known during employment. For hypertension, the conditions include normal blood pressure, chest x-ray, and ECG/treadmill results on the last PEME if the patient was not known to have hypertension. The Court noted that Gallano’s brain stroke occurred while performing his duties as a ship master, and his PEME showed normal results, thus fulfilling the conditions for compensability.

The petitioners further argued that Gallano’s claim should be dismissed because he failed to resort to the joint appointment of a third doctor to resolve the conflicting medical opinions between the company-designated physician and his own physician. The Court cited Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. v. Dumadag, emphasizing that compliance with this procedure presupposes a timely assessment from the company-designated physician.

In this case, the company-designated physician’s last medical report was issued beyond the 120-day period from Gallano’s repatriation, and it did not provide a definitive assessment of his fitness to work or disability. The Court emphasized that absent a timely and conclusive assessment, the seafarer has nothing to contest, and the law steps in to conclusively characterize the disability as total and permanent. Without a valid final assessment within the 120/240-day periods, the need for a third doctor referral is negated.

The Court clarified that Gallano’s disability benefits should be awarded under the 2010 POEA-SEC, not the CBA, because his condition arose from an occupational disease rather than an accident. As such, he was entitled to US$60,000.00 in total disability compensation. The Court upheld the award of attorney’s fees, noting that Gallano was compelled to litigate to protect his rights.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the seafarer was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits due to a brain stroke suffered during his employment, and whether he had concealed a pre-existing condition that would disqualify him from receiving such benefits.
What is the significance of the Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME)?	The PEME is crucial because it establishes the seafarer’s health condition before employment. Any pre-existing conditions that are knowingly concealed can disqualify the seafarer from compensation and benefits under the POEA-SEC.
What constitutes a “pre-existing illness” under the 2010 POEA-SEC?	A pre-existing illness is defined as one for which the seafarer had received medical advice or diagnosis prior to the processing of the POEA contract but failed to disclose during the PEME.
What happens if there is a disagreement between the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s doctor?	The 2010 POEA-SEC provides a mechanism for resolving medical disputes through the joint appointment of a third, independent doctor whose assessment shall be final and binding on both parties.
What is the timeframe for the company-designated physician to provide a final assessment of the seafarer’s condition?	The company-designated physician has 120 days, extendable to 240 days under certain conditions, to provide a final and definitive assessment of the seafarer’s fitness to work or the degree of disability.
What happens if the company-designated physician fails to provide a timely assessment?	If the company-designated physician fails to provide a timely assessment within the 120/240-day period, the seafarer’s disability is conclusively presumed to be total and permanent, negating the need for a third doctor referral.
What is the basis for awarding disability benefits in this case: the CBA or the POEA-SEC?	The disability benefits are awarded under the 2010 POEA-SEC, not the CBA, because the seafarer’s condition arose from an occupational disease (hypertension leading to stroke) rather than an accident.
What amount of disability compensation is the seafarer entitled to under the 2010 POEA-SEC?	Under the 2010 POEA-SEC, the seafarer is entitled to US$60,000.00 as total and permanent disability benefits, along with attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the award.

This case clarifies the importance of full disclosure during the PEME and the obligation of employers to ensure timely and accurate medical assessments for seafarers. It reinforces the seafarer’s right to disability benefits when work-related illnesses occur, absent clear evidence of fraudulent concealment and provided that medical assessments are conducted within the prescribed periods.

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: PHILSYNERGY MARITIME, INC. VS. COLUMBANO PAGUNSAN GALLANO, JR., G.R. No. 228504, June 06, 2018

June 6, 2018

Causal Connection and Seafarer’s Illness: Establishing Work-Relatedness for Disability Claims

In the case of Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc. v. Roderos, the Supreme Court ruled that for a seafarer’s illness to be compensable, there must be substantial evidence demonstrating a causal connection between the work performed and the illness contracted, especially when the illness is not listed as an occupational disease. The Court emphasized that the seafarer bears the burden of proving that their working conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting the disease. This decision underscores the importance of providing concrete evidence to support claims for disability benefits in cases involving non-occupational diseases.

Beyond the Galley: Proving Work-Related Colon Cancer at Sea

This case arose from a claim filed by Alma Roderos, the widow of Francisco Roderos, a seafarer who died from colon cancer. Francisco had been employed as a Chief Cook aboard the vessel “MT ANNELISE THERESA.” After experiencing abdominal pains and constipation during his employment, he was diagnosed with Stage 4 Colon Adenocarcinoma. Upon repatriation, he underwent treatment but eventually passed away. Alma sought disability benefits, arguing that her husband’s illness was work-related or, at the very least, aggravated by his work conditions.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the claim, a decision affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Both tribunals reasoned that colon cancer was not listed as an occupational disease in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), and the company-designated physician had deemed the illness not work-related. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed these decisions, finding that Francisco’s illness was indeed work-related due to dietary factors, stress, and exposure to heat and fumes on board the vessel. The Supreme Court, however, took a different view.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by reiterating the importance of the POEA-SEC as the law between the parties. The Court emphasized that for a seafarer to be entitled to disability benefits under Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC, two elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related, and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract. The Court then clarified how work-relatedness is determined under the POEA-SEC, distinguishing between illnesses listed as occupational diseases and those that are not.

For illnesses not listed under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, a disputable presumption arises in favor of the seafarer, suggesting that these illnesses are work-related. However, this presumption does not relieve the seafarer of the burden of presenting substantial evidence to prove that their work conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting the disease. The Court explicitly stated that:

…the claimant-seafarer must still prove by substantial evidence that his/her work conditions caused or, at least, increased the risk of contracting the disease. This is because awards of compensation cannot rest entirely on bare assertions and presumptions. In order to establish compensability of a non-occupational disease, reasonable proof of work-connection-but not direct causal relation-is required.

In this case, the Court found that colon cancer is not among the occupational diseases listed in the POEA-SEC. The Court in Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. vs. Villamater explicitly stated that under Section 32-A of the POEA Standard Contract, only two types of cancers are listed as occupational diseases. Therefore, the crucial question was whether the respondent presented substantial evidence to establish a reasonable causal connection between Francisco’s work and his colon cancer.

The respondent argued that Francisco’s diet on board the vessel, consisting of processed meats and high-fat, low-fiber foods, and his exposure to dangerous chemicals, contributed to his illness. The Supreme Court acknowledged that factors like high fat intake and family history could increase the risk of colorectal cancer. However, the Court pointed out that the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to support these claims. Specifically, there was no proof presented regarding Francisco’s actual dietary intake or the presence of harmful chemicals aboard the vessel at the time he served as Chief Cook.

The Court noted that, as the Chief Cook, Francisco could have presented evidence of the meals he prepared, but he did not. Furthermore, the petitioners presented affidavits from other seafarers indicating that the vessel was well-provisioned with a variety of healthy foods. While the respondent cited online sources about the risks of certain chemicals, none of these studies specifically linked those chemicals to colon cancer. The Court concluded that the respondent’s evidence was insufficient to establish a reasonable causal connection between Francisco’s work and his illness.

Building on this point, the Court highlighted the significance of the company-designated physician’s medical report, which stated that Francisco’s colon cancer was not work-related. While the findings of a company-designated physician are not automatically final and binding, the seafarer must follow a specific procedure to challenge these findings. According to established jurisprudence, if a seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, they must seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of their choice. If a disagreement persists, the employer and seafarer should jointly refer the matter to a third doctor, whose decision is considered final and binding.

The Supreme Court emphasized that this referral to a third doctor is a mandatory procedure. In this case, Francisco failed to request a re-examination by a third doctor and instead initiated legal proceedings. This failure, according to the Court, constituted a breach of the POEA-SEC and solidified the company-designated physician’s assessment as final and binding. The Court, quoting from Formerly INC Shipmanagement, Inc. vs. Rosales, underscored the mandatory nature of the third doctor referral process:

This referral to a third doctor has been held by this Court to be a mandatory procedure as a consequence of the provision that it is the company-designated doctor whose assessment should prevail. In other words, the company can insist on its disability rating even against a contrary opinion by another doctor, unless the seafarer expresses his disagreement by asking for the referral to a third doctor who shall make his or her determination and whose decision is final and binding on the parties.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding that the respondent failed to present substantial evidence of a causal connection between Francisco’s work and his illness, and that Francisco failed to follow the mandatory procedure for challenging the company-designated physician’s assessment. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of providing concrete evidence and following the established procedures when claiming disability benefits for illnesses that are not explicitly listed as occupational diseases under the POEA-SEC.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the seafarer’s colon cancer was work-related, entitling his widow to disability benefits, and whether there was substantial evidence to prove a causal connection between his work and the illness. The case also hinged on the seafarer’s failure to seek a third doctor’s opinion, as required by the POEA-SEC.
What is the POEA-SEC?	The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) is a standard employment contract prescribed by the POEA that governs the employment of Filipino seafarers on board ocean-going vessels. It outlines the terms and conditions of their employment, including provisions for disability and death benefits.
What does “work-related illness” mean under the POEA-SEC?	Under the POEA-SEC, a work-related illness is one that results in disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, or an illness that is caused or aggravated by the seafarer’s working conditions. For non-listed illnesses, the seafarer must provide substantial evidence to prove the connection.
What is “substantial evidence”?	Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.
What is the role of the company-designated physician?	The company-designated physician is responsible for assessing the seafarer’s disability, whether total or partial, due to injury or illness during the term of their employment. Their assessment is not automatically final, but it carries significant weight.
What should a seafarer do if they disagree with the company-designated physician’s assessment?	If a seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, they must seek a second opinion from a doctor of their choice. If a disagreement persists, the employer and seafarer should jointly refer the matter to a third doctor, whose decision is final and binding.
Is seeking a third doctor’s opinion mandatory?	Yes, according to the Supreme Court, the referral to a third doctor is a mandatory procedure. Failure to comply with this procedure can result in the company-designated physician’s assessment becoming final and binding.
What evidence did the seafarer’s widow present in this case?	The seafarer’s widow argued that the seafarer’s diet onboard the vessel consisted of processed meats and high-fat, low-fiber foods, and his exposure to dangerous chemicals, contributed to his illness. However, she presented no concrete evidence of his actual diet or the presence of specific chemicals on the vessel.
Why did the Supreme Court reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision?	The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision because the respondent failed to present substantial evidence that the seafarer’s work caused or aggravated his illness. Furthermore, the seafarer failed to seek a third doctor’s opinion to challenge the company-designated physician’s assessment.

The Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc. v. Roderos case highlights the importance of providing solid evidence to support claims for disability benefits, especially when dealing with illnesses not explicitly listed as occupational diseases. It also underscores the mandatory nature of seeking a third doctor’s opinion when disputing the findings of a company-designated physician. These principles are crucial for seafarers seeking compensation for illnesses allegedly contracted or aggravated during their employment.

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: Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc. v. Roderos, G.R. No. 230473, April 23, 2018

April 23, 2018