Tag: Hypertension

Diabetes and Hypertension: Establishing Work-Relatedness for Seafarer Disability Claims

The Supreme Court ruled that a seafarer’s illnesses, specifically diabetes mellitus and hypertension, are not automatically compensable as permanent total disability benefits. To be entitled to compensation, a seafarer must prove that the illness is work-related and existed during the term of their employment contract. The Court emphasized the importance of medical findings from company-designated physicians and the seafarer’s obligation to follow the conflict-resolution procedure outlined in the POEA-SEC when disputing medical assessments. This decision clarifies the burden of proof for seafarers claiming disability benefits due to illnesses that are not inherently occupational diseases.

Sailing Through Sickness: When Do Seafarer Ailments Warrant Disability?

The case of BW Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. Mario H. Ong revolves around a seafarer’s claim for permanent total disability benefits due to diabetes mellitus and hypertension. Mario H. Ong, employed by BW Shipping, sought compensation after being diagnosed with these conditions while working on board a vessel. The central legal question is whether Ong adequately demonstrated that his illnesses were work-related, thus entitling him to disability benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

The entitlement of an overseas seafarer to disability benefits is governed by the POEA-SEC, which is deemed incorporated into their employment contract. To be entitled to compensation, the seafarer must satisfy two conditions under Section 20(B), paragraph 6 of the 2000 POEA-SEC. First, the injury or illness must be work-related. Second, it must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract. In this case, the Court scrutinized whether Ong’s diabetes and hypertension met these criteria.

The Court emphasized that diabetes mellitus is not an occupational disease under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC.

“Diabetes mellitus is a metabolic and a familial disease to which one is pre-disposed by reason of heredity, obesity or old age. It does not indicate work-relatedness and, by its nature, is more the result of poor lifestyle choices and health habits for which disability benefits are improper.”

This means that the mere diagnosis of diabetes does not automatically warrant disability benefits; the seafarer must prove a significant connection between the illness and their work conditions.

While essential hypertension is recognized as an occupational disease under Section 32A of the POEA-SEC, the Court clarified that not all cases of hypertension qualify for disability benefits. The POEA-SEC requires an element of gravity, specifically that hypertension must impair the function of body organs such as the kidneys, heart, eyes, and brain, resulting in permanent disability. The seafarer must provide real and substantial evidence of this impairment, not merely apparent symptoms.

The Supreme Court found that Ong failed to adequately demonstrate how his work responsibilities led to the acquisition of diabetes and hypertension, and how these conditions are correlated. Furthermore, Ong did not substantiate that his hypertension was severe enough to render him permanently and totally disabled from performing his duties as a seafarer. The Court noted that after Ong’s repatriation, he was promptly attended to by company-designated physicians, underwent a series of checkups and tests, and was provided with the necessary medication and treatment.

On October 2, 2008, just 104 days after Ong’s repatriation, the company-designated physician certified him as fit to resume sea duties. Interestingly, Ong did not immediately contest this finding. Instead, he waited over three months before consulting his own physician. The Court emphasized that the medical certificate from Ong’s personal physician, issued on January 12, 2009, lacked sufficient factual and medical support. The Court contrasted this with the thorough medical attention provided by the company-designated physicians, whose diagnoses were supported by laboratory tests showing normal results.

The Court underscored the significance of compliance with prescribed maintenance medications and lifestyle changes for seafarers with hypertension and/or diabetes. Even with these conditions, a seafarer can remain employed if the illnesses are controlled. The company-designated physicians initially validated Ong’s conditions but, after treatment and medication, found him fit to work, demonstrating the possibility of managing these illnesses effectively.

The Court also rejected Ong’s argument that his inability to work as a seafarer for more than 120 days from repatriation should automatically qualify his disability as permanent and total. The extent of a seafarer’s disability is determined not solely by the number of days unable to work, but by the disability grading provided by the doctor based on the resulting incapacity to work and earn wages.

Ultimately, the Court found that Ong did not comply with his obligation under Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC, which outlines the procedure for challenging the assessment of the company-designated physician. This provision requires the seafarer to disclose any conflicting medical assessments to the company and to signify an intention to resolve the disagreement by referral to a third doctor jointly agreed upon by the parties, whose decision would be final. Ong failed to follow this conflict-resolution procedure, leading the Court to uphold the diagnosis of the company-designated physician.

The Supreme Court, in this case, emphasized that the medical findings, evaluated in relation to the requirements of pertinent law and contract, did not support Ong’s claim for permanent total disability benefits.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a seafarer’s diabetes mellitus and hypertension were work-related and severe enough to warrant permanent total disability benefits under the POEA-SEC.
What does the POEA-SEC require for disability claims?	The POEA-SEC requires that the illness or injury be work-related and exist during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract to be compensable.
Is diabetes mellitus considered an occupational disease under the POEA-SEC?	No, diabetes mellitus is not considered an occupational disease under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, requiring the seafarer to prove a work connection.
What about hypertension? Is that an occupational disease?	Yes, essential hypertension is recognized as an occupational disease, but it must be of such nature as indicative of impairment of the function of body organs, resulting in permanent disability.
What is the role of the company-designated physician in disability claims?	The medical assessment of the company-designated physician is given significant weight, especially if supported by laboratory tests and thorough medical attention.
What is the procedure for disputing the company-designated physician’s assessment?	The seafarer must disclose conflicting medical assessments and signify an intention to resolve the disagreement by referral to a third doctor jointly agreed upon by the parties.
What happens if the seafarer fails to follow the conflict-resolution procedure?	If the seafarer fails to follow the conflict-resolution procedure, the diagnosis of the company-designated physician will be upheld.
Does being unable to work for more than 120 days automatically qualify a seafarer for disability benefits?	No, the extent of disability is determined by the disability grading provided by the doctor, based on the resulting incapacity to work and earn wages, not solely by the number of days unable to work.
Can a seafarer with hypertension or diabetes still be employed?	Yes, a seafarer can still be employed if the conditions are controlled by compliance with prescribed maintenance medications and lifestyle changes.

This case serves as a reminder to seafarers of the importance of documenting their working conditions and any potential health risks they may encounter. It also emphasizes the need to follow the proper procedures for disputing medical assessments to ensure their rights are protected under the POEA-SEC.

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: BW SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. ONG, G.R. No. 202177, November 17, 2021

November 17, 2021

Seafarer Disability Claims: Proving Work-Related Illness Under Philippine Law

The Supreme Court has ruled that a seafarer’s illnesses, hypertension and diabetes, were not directly linked to their work conditions, thus denying a disability claim. The court emphasized the need for substantial evidence to prove a causal connection between the working environment and the illness, especially when the diseases are not listed as occupational under the POEA-SEC. This decision highlights the importance of providing concrete evidence and following the procedures outlined in the POEA-SEC for disability claims.

High Seas, High Stakes: When Do Seafarers’ Health Issues Warrant Compensation?

This case revolves around Manuel M. Cunanan, a seafarer who worked as an assistant carpenter for CF Sharp Crew Management Inc., deployed by Norwegian Cruise Lines. Cunanan’s employment contract was for ten months, beginning November 20, 2009. During his time aboard the vessel, he was diagnosed with elevated blood sugar and hypertension, leading to his medical repatriation in February 2010. After returning to the Philippines, he sought medical attention from both company-designated physicians and his own doctors, receiving conflicting assessments regarding his fitness to return to work. This discrepancy led to a legal battle over his entitlement to disability compensation.

The core legal question is whether Cunanan’s hypertension and diabetes were work-related and, therefore, compensable under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially dismissed Cunanan’s complaint, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, awarding him disability benefits and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) then dismissed the petitioners’ (CF Sharp Crew Management Inc. and Norwegian Cruise Lines Inc.) petition for certiorari due to procedural issues. The Supreme Court, however, took a different stance, focusing on the substantive merits of the case.

The Supreme Court began by addressing the procedural lapses noted by the Court of Appeals, emphasizing that rules of procedure should facilitate, not frustrate, justice. The court acknowledged that while the petitioners had initially failed to submit certified true copies of the NLRC decision, they had later rectified this by attaching certified xerox copies to their petition before the Supreme Court. Given the circumstances and the conflicting findings of the LA and the NLRC, the Supreme Court opted to relax the procedural rules and proceed to rule on the merits of the case.

Turning to the substantive issues, the Court emphasized that entitlement to disability benefits for seafarers is governed by Philippine law, the contract between the parties, and medical findings. The POEA-SEC defines a work-related illness as one resulting from an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the contract. Illnesses not listed are disputably presumed to be work-related, but this presumption does not automatically equate to compensability. The claimant must still present substantial evidence to prove that their work conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting the disease.

Cunanan was diagnosed with hypertension (Stage 1) and Type 2 diabetes mellitus, both controlled. Under the POEA-SEC, hypertension is considered an occupational disease only if it is primary or essential and causes impairment of body organs, resulting in permanent disability. The Court noted that Cunanan failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate his claim of essential hypertension or prove that it had caused impairment of any vital organs. Diabetes, on the other hand, is not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC. The Supreme Court cited C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., et al. v. Santos, emphasizing that diabetes is often a metabolic and familial disease, resulting from lifestyle choices rather than work-related conditions.

The Court further highlighted the inconsistencies in Cunanan’s arguments regarding the cause of his illnesses. While he initially claimed an accident on board the vessel and exposure to hazardous materials, he later attributed his diabetes to a poor diet at sea. These unsubstantiated allegations failed to meet the required quantum of proof for compensability. Importantly, the Court pointed out that hypertension and diabetes do not automatically warrant disability benefits, especially if the seafarer demonstrates compliance with medication and lifestyle changes.

The company-designated physicians had declared Cunanan fit for work 184 days after his repatriation, and Cunanan had even signed a Certificate of Fitness for Work. The Supreme Court emphasized that a seafarer’s inability to work for more than 120 days does not automatically qualify them for permanent and total disability benefits. The initial 120-day treatment period can be extended to 240 days if justified, and the company-designated physician can declare the seafarer fit to work or assess the degree of permanent disability within this extended period. In this case, the company doctors issued the fit-for-work declaration before the 240-day period expired.

The Court also addressed the conflicting medical assessments from Cunanan’s personal doctors, noting that the POEA-SEC gives the company-designated physician the first opportunity to examine the seafarer and issue a medical assessment. If the seafarer disagrees with this assessment, the POEA-SEC provides a procedure for a third doctor to be jointly appointed by both parties. The third doctor’s decision is final and binding. Cunanan failed to follow this procedure. Because he failed to involve a third doctor, the assessment of the company-designated physician prevailed. The court has consistently ruled that the absence of a third doctor’s opinion means the company-designated physician’s assessment should be upheld.

Finally, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of Cunanan’s non-rehiring, clarifying that seafarers are contractual employees, and there was no obligation for the company to renew his contract. There was no concrete evidence that the non-rehiring was due to a permanent and total incapacity to work. Consequently, the court found that Cunanan’s claim for attorney’s fees must also fail. The Supreme Court emphasized that while it is committed to protecting the rights of laborers, it must also uphold the rights of employers when they are in the right. Justice must be dispensed based on established facts, applicable laws, and jurisprudence.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the seafarer’s hypertension and diabetes were work-related and thus compensable under the POEA-SEC. The court needed to determine if there was sufficient evidence to link these illnesses to the seafarer’s working conditions.
What is the POEA-SEC?	The POEA-SEC refers to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract. It sets the terms and conditions for the employment of Filipino seafarers on board ocean-going vessels, including provisions for disability compensation.
What is required to prove a work-related illness for seafarers?	To prove a work-related illness, the seafarer must show that the illness is either listed as an occupational disease in the POEA-SEC or provide substantial evidence that their working conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting the illness. The burden of proof lies on the seafarer.
What happens if the company-designated doctor and the seafarer’s doctor disagree?	If there’s disagreement between the company-designated doctor and the seafarer’s doctor, the POEA-SEC provides a procedure for both parties to jointly appoint a third doctor. This third doctor’s assessment becomes final and binding on both parties.
Why was the seafarer’s claim denied in this case?	The seafarer’s claim was denied because he failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that his hypertension and diabetes were caused or aggravated by his work conditions. He also did not follow the third-doctor procedure outlined in the POEA-SEC.
Is hypertension always considered a work-related illness for seafarers?	No, hypertension is only considered a work-related illness if it is classified as primary or essential and causes impairment of body organs, resulting in permanent disability. Specific documentary evidence, like chest x-ray and ECG reports, is required to substantiate the claim.
What is the significance of the company-designated physician’s assessment?	The company-designated physician has the initial opportunity to assess the seafarer’s medical condition and issue a certification of fitness. Their assessment carries significant weight, especially if the seafarer fails to follow the third-doctor procedure when disagreeing with the assessment.
Does a seafarer’s inability to be rehired automatically qualify them for disability benefits?	No, a seafarer’s inability to be rehired does not automatically qualify them for disability benefits. Seafarers are contractual employees, and there is no guarantee of contract renewal. The seafarer must still prove that they are unable to work due to a work-related illness or injury.
What is the 120/240-day rule in seafarer disability cases?	The 120/240-day rule refers to the period during which a seafarer receives sickness allowance while undergoing medical treatment. The initial treatment period is 120 days, but it can be extended up to 240 days if the seafarer requires further medical attention.
What happens if a seafarer consults their own doctor while still under treatment by the company-designated physician?	Consulting their own doctor is permissible. However, in case of conflicting medical assessments, the seafarer must invoke Section 20 (B) (3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC regarding the joint appointment by the parties of a third doctor whose decision shall be final and binding on them.

This Supreme Court decision underscores the importance of providing concrete evidence and following proper procedures when claiming disability benefits as a seafarer. It reiterates that while the law leans towards protecting laborers, claims must be substantiated with credible proof. It serves as a reminder to both seafarers and employers of their rights and responsibilities under Philippine 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: CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT INC. v. CUNANAN, G.R. No. 210072, August 04, 2021

August 4, 2021

Navigating Total and Permanent Disability Claims: Insights from a Landmark Seafarer’s Case
Timely Medical Assessments Are Crucial for Seafarers Seeking Disability Benefits

Kennedy R. Quines v. United Philippine Lines Inc. and/or Shell International Trading and Shipping Co., G.R. No. 248774, May 12, 2021

Imagine working tirelessly at sea, only to find yourself medically repatriated due to a serious health condition. For many seafarers, this scenario is all too real, and the subsequent battle for disability benefits can be daunting. In the case of Kennedy R. Quines, a seasoned seafarer, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on the importance of timely and definitive medical assessments in determining total and permanent disability. This landmark decision not only sheds light on the rights of seafarers but also underscores the responsibilities of employers in such situations.

Quines, who had served as an Able Seaman for United Philippine Lines Inc. (UPLI) and Shell International Trading and Shipping Co. since 2002, faced a health crisis during his last deployment in 2015. After experiencing severe symptoms, he was repatriated and sought disability benefits, claiming his condition was work-related. The central legal question was whether Quines was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, given the lack of a final medical assessment within the required timeframe.

Understanding the Legal Framework for Seafarer Disability Claims

The legal landscape for seafarer disability claims in the Philippines is governed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between seafarers’ unions and shipping companies. These documents outline the conditions under which a seafarer may be entitled to disability benefits, including the requirement for a medical assessment within 120/240 days of repatriation.

Total and Permanent Disability is defined as a disability that renders a seafarer incapable of resuming work in the same capacity as before, or any work for which they are suited. According to the POEA-SEC, if no definitive assessment is made within the prescribed period, the seafarer is deemed to be totally and permanently disabled by operation of law.

Department of Health Administrative Order No. 2007-0025 further stipulates that a seafarer taking more than two maintenance oral medicines cannot be declared fit for sea duties. This regulation played a crucial role in Quines’ case, as he was prescribed multiple medications for his hypertension.

The Journey of Kennedy R. Quines: From Sea to Court

Kennedy R. Quines’ journey began in 2002 when he started working for UPLI. Over the years, he was repeatedly deployed without needing to reapply, and each time, he was declared fit for sea duties. However, during his 2015 deployment, Quines experienced severe health issues, including hypertension and chest pains, leading to his medical repatriation on April 1, 2016.

Upon returning to the Philippines, Quines was referred to the company-designated physician, who initially declared him fit to work. However, his symptoms persisted, and he was later prescribed multiple medications. Despite this, no final medical assessment was issued within the required 120/240-day period.

Quines sought the opinion of an independent doctor, who diagnosed him with Ischemic Heart Disease and declared him unfit for sea duties. He then filed a claim for total and permanent disability benefits, which was initially granted by the National Conciliation and Mediation Board – Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA). However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, prompting Quines to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s ruling hinged on the absence of a final and definitive medical assessment within the prescribed period. The Court emphasized that the medical reports issued by the company-designated physicians were inconclusive and did not provide a clear picture of Quines’ health status:

“The phrases ‘there is no absolute cardiovascular indication to petitioner’s resumption of seafaring duties,’ ‘patient still has episodes of dizziness and chest pain,’ and ‘not permanently unfit for sea duties’ are too equivocal as they are contradictory at the same time. They do not give a clear picture of the state of petitioner’s health nor present a thorough insight into petitioner’s fitness or unfitness to resume his duties as a seafarer.”

The Court also noted that Quines was taking more than two maintenance medications, which under Department of Health guidelines, disqualified him from being declared fit for sea duties. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the PVA’s ruling, awarding Quines total and permanent disability benefits.

Practical Implications and Key Lessons for Seafarers and Employers

This ruling has significant implications for both seafarers and their employers. For seafarers, it underscores the importance of seeking independent medical opinions if the company-designated physician fails to provide a timely and definitive assessment. It also highlights the need to document all medical treatments and prescriptions, as these can be crucial in disability claims.

For employers, the decision serves as a reminder of their obligation to ensure that medical assessments are conducted within the required timeframe. Failure to do so can result in automatic total and permanent disability status for the seafarer, leading to substantial financial liabilities.

Key Lessons:
- Seafarers should be aware of their rights under the POEA-SEC and CBAs, particularly regarding disability benefits.
- Employers must ensure that medical assessments are thorough, definitive, and completed within the 120/240-day period.
- Both parties should maintain detailed records of medical treatments and assessments to support or contest disability claims.
Frequently Asked Questions

What constitutes total and permanent disability for seafarers?

Total and permanent disability occurs when a seafarer is unable to resume their previous work or any work for which they are suited, as defined by the POEA-SEC.

How long do employers have to assess a seafarer’s disability?

Employers must provide a final and definitive medical assessment within 120 days from repatriation, extendable to 240 days if the seafarer requires further medical treatment.

What happens if no final assessment is made within the required period?

If no final assessment is made within 120/240 days, the seafarer is deemed totally and permanently disabled by operation of law.

Can a seafarer seek an independent medical opinion?

Yes, seafarers can consult independent doctors, especially if they believe the company-designated physician’s assessment is incomplete or inconclusive.

How many maintenance medications can a seafarer take and still be considered fit for sea duties?

According to Department of Health guidelines, a seafarer taking more than two maintenance oral medicines cannot be declared fit for sea duties.

What should seafarers do if they face similar issues?

Seafarers should document all medical treatments, seek independent medical opinions if necessary, and be aware of their rights under the POEA-SEC and CBAs.

ASG Law specializes in maritime law and labor disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.
May 12, 2021

Unclear Medical Assessments: Protecting Seafarers’ Rights to Disability Benefits

The Supreme Court ruled that a seafarer is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits when the company-designated physician fails to provide a complete and definitive assessment of the seafarer’s fitness to work within the prescribed 120/240-day period. This decision emphasizes the importance of clear and conclusive medical evaluations in safeguarding the rights of seafarers to just compensation for work-related illnesses. It highlights that ambiguous medical reports cannot be used to deny benefits if they do not definitively state a seafarer’s fitness to return to work.

Hypertension at Sea: When an Incomplete Medical Report Sank a Seafarer’s Claim

Michael Angelo Lemoncito, a motor man, sought total and permanent disability benefits due to hypertension allegedly acquired during his employment. The company-designated doctors issued a final medical report stating that Lemoncito was cleared of his respiratory infection and that his blood pressure was controlled with medication. However, the report did not explicitly declare him fit to resume work as a seaman, leading to conflicting interpretations regarding his actual health status. This ambiguity became the central legal issue, prompting the Supreme Court to examine the adequacy of medical assessments for seafarers.

The case unfolded when Lemoncito, after being declared fit in a pre-employment medical exam (PEME), began experiencing symptoms such as fever, cough, and high blood pressure while working on board. Upon medical repatriation and subsequent treatment by company-designated doctors, he received a Grade 12 disability rating. However, the final medical report lacked a clear determination of his fitness to return to work. Disagreeing with the company doctors, Lemoncito consulted his own physician, who declared him unfit for sea duty due to hypertensive heart disease and degenerative osteoarthritis. This divergence in medical opinions triggered a legal battle over his entitlement to disability benefits.

At the heart of the dispute was the interpretation of the company-designated doctors’ final medical report. The Supreme Court scrutinized the report, noting its lack of a categorical statement regarding Lemoncito’s fitness to resume his duties. The Court emphasized that phrases such as “blood pressure is adequately controlled with medications” and “patient is now cleared cardiac wise” were too vague and did not provide a clear picture of his overall health or capacity to work. These statements, according to the Court, raised more questions than answers and failed to provide a conclusive assessment of his condition. Building on this principle, the Court referenced Ampo-on v. Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc., which clarifies the responsibilities of company-designated physicians.

The responsibility of the company-designated physician to arrive at a definite assessment within the prescribed periods necessitates that the perceived disability rating has been properly established and inscribed in a valid and timely medical report. To be conclusive and to give proper disability benefits to the seafarer, this assessment must be complete and definite; otherwise, the medical report shall be set aside and the disability grading contained therein shall be ignored.

The Court underscored that a final and definite disability assessment is crucial to accurately reflect the extent of a seafarer’s injuries or illnesses and their ability to resume work. Without such an assessment within the 120/240-day period, the law steps in to consider the seafarer’s disability as total and permanent. This legal principle protects seafarers from being denied benefits based on incomplete or ambiguous medical evaluations. Further emphasizing this point, the Court cited jurisprudence granting permanent total disability compensation to seafarers with cardiovascular diseases or hypertension, even when company doctors issued fit-to-work certifications beyond the prescribed period, as seen in Balatero v. Senator Crewing (Manila) Inc., et al.

The implications of this decision are significant for seafarers and employers alike. It reinforces the importance of thorough and unambiguous medical assessments by company-designated physicians within the mandatory timeframes. Employers must ensure that medical reports clearly and definitively state whether a seafarer is fit to return to work, providing a comprehensive evaluation of their health condition. On the other hand, seafarers are empowered to challenge incomplete or ambiguous medical reports that fail to provide a clear assessment of their fitness. In situations where the company-designated physician’s assessment is lacking, seafarers can seek independent medical opinions to support their claims for disability benefits. This approach contrasts with cases where medical reports are conclusive and well-supported, thereby impacting the outcome.

The Court’s decision also addresses the procedural aspects of disability claims, particularly the role of the third doctor referral rule. While the POEA-SEC mandates a third doctor referral in case of conflicting medical opinions, the Court implicitly acknowledged that strict compliance may be excused when the company-designated physician’s assessment is patently deficient or incomplete. In such cases, the seafarer’s independent medical evaluation may carry greater weight, especially when it provides a more comprehensive and definitive assessment of the seafarer’s condition. Thus, the significance of this case lies in its clear articulation of what constitutes an incomplete or inadequate medical assessment, thereby offering greater protection to seafarers seeking disability benefits. Cases where seafarers followed the third-doctor rule meticulously often yield different results, underscoring the importance of procedural compliance where possible.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the seafarer was entitled to disability benefits based on an allegedly incomplete final medical assessment from the company-designated physicians regarding his hypertension.
What did the company doctors’ report state?	The company doctors’ report stated that the seafarer was cleared of a respiratory infection and his blood pressure was controlled with medication, but it didn’t explicitly declare him fit to work.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court ruled that the medical report was incomplete and, therefore, the seafarer was considered totally and permanently disabled due to the lack of a definitive assessment.
Why was the medical report deemed incomplete?	The report lacked a clear and categorical statement that the seafarer was fit to resume his duties as a seaman, making its conclusions ambiguous and inadequate.
What is the 120/240-day rule in seafarer disability cases?	The 120/240-day rule refers to the period within which the company-designated physician must provide a final and definitive assessment of the seafarer’s fitness to work or disability status.
What happens if the company doctor fails to make a final assessment within the prescribed period?	If the company doctor fails to provide a final assessment within the 120/240-day period, the seafarer’s disability is considered total and permanent by operation of law.
What is the significance of this ruling for seafarers?	This ruling protects seafarers by ensuring that they receive disability benefits when medical assessments are incomplete or ambiguous, preventing employers from denying claims based on vague reports.
Does this ruling affect the third-doctor referral rule?	The ruling suggests that strict compliance with the third-doctor referral rule may be excused when the company-designated physician’s assessment is patently deficient or incomplete.

In conclusion, the Lemoncito case underscores the necessity for clarity and completeness in medical assessments provided to seafarers. It emphasizes that ambiguous medical reports cannot serve as a basis for denying disability benefits, thereby safeguarding the rights of seafarers to just compensation for work-related illnesses. The ruling ensures that the medical profession is closely looked upon to ensure fair and just reports for seafarers who are experiencing illnesses.

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: Michael Angelo T. Lemoncito v. BSM Crew Service Centre Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 247409, February 03, 2020

February 3, 2020

Weighing Medical Opinions: Company Doctors vs. Private Physicians in Seafarer Disability Claims

In disputes over seafarer disability benefits, the Supreme Court has clarified that the medical opinion of a physician who has closely and regularly monitored a seafarer’s health holds more weight than that of a doctor who only consulted with the seafarer once. This means that the assessments of company-designated physicians, who have the opportunity to conduct thorough and continuous evaluations, are generally favored over those of private doctors in determining a seafarer’s fitness for work and eligibility for disability benefits. The court emphasizes the importance of consistent medical observation and comprehensive testing in accurately assessing a seafarer’s condition.

Navigating the Seas of Sickness: Whose Medical Opinion Prevails in a Seafarer’s Claim?

The case of Pedro C. Perea v. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc. arose from a dispute over disability benefits claimed by Perea, a seafarer who experienced health issues, including chest pains and hypertension, during his employment. After being repatriated, he sought disability benefits, presenting a medical certificate from his private physician, Dr. Pascual, stating that he was unfit to work due to uncontrolled hypertension and coronary artery disease. However, the company-designated physicians, Dr. Hao-Quan and Dr. Lim, after conducting extensive examinations, concluded that Perea was cleared of the medical conditions that led to his repatriation. This discrepancy in medical opinions led to a legal battle that eventually reached the Supreme Court, focusing on whose assessment should be given more credence.

The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) sided with the company-designated physicians, a decision that was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The NLRC, however, introduced an issue not initially raised by either party: Perea’s alleged concealment of a pre-existing elbow injury. The Court of Appeals acknowledged this procedural misstep but maintained that the core reason for dismissing Perea’s claim was the lack of substantial evidence to support Dr. Pascual’s assessment. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals’ overall ruling but emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules, stating that the NLRC should have limited its review to the specific issues raised on appeal. Rule VI, Section 4(d) of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission, states:

Section 4. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. –

d) Subject to the provisions of Article 218 of the Labor Code, once the appeal is perfected in accordance with these Rules, the Commission shall limit itself to reviewing and deciding only the specific issues that were elevated on appeal.

The Supreme Court then addressed the central question of which medical opinion should prevail. The Court highlighted that for an illness to be compensable under the POEA Contract, it must be work-related and contracted during the term of the seafarer’s employment. The POEA Contract defines work-related illness as “any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this Contract with the conditions set therein satisfied.” Relevant portions of Section 32-A of the POEA Standard Employment Contract read:

Section 32-A. Occupational Diseases. —

For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied:

(1) The seafarer’s work must involve the risks described herein;

(2) The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer’s exposure to the described risks;

(3) The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it;

(4) There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer.

The Supreme Court emphasized the significance of the company-designated physician’s assessment in determining a seafarer’s fitness for work. The Court acknowledged that while Perea was treated for injuries and hypertension during his contract, the company-designated physicians, Dr. Hao-Quan and Dr. Lim, conducted extensive examinations, including a coronary angiography. The Court emphasized that these doctors were able to monitor Perea’s condition over a prolonged period. The results of the coronary angiography, conducted on July 29, 2010 were as follows:

Coronary Arteriography:

LCA:

LM appears normal and it bifurcates into the LAD and LCx arteries.

LAD is a good-sized, Type III vessel which appears normal throughout its course. The diagonal branches are free of disease.

LCx is a good-sized, non-dominant vessel which appears normal. The OM branches are likewise free of disease.

RCA

is a good-sized dominant vessel with a 40-50% discrete stenosis at its mid vertical limb. The rest of the vessel appears normal.

CONCLUSION:

Insignificant Coronary Artery Disease

RECOMMENDATION:

Optimal Medical Management
Aggressive Risk Factor Modification

The court cited Philman Marine v. Cabanban, emphasizing that a doctor with personal knowledge of the seafarer’s medical condition, who has closely and regularly monitored and treated the illness, is more qualified to assess the seafarer’s disability. This principle underscores the importance of continuous medical observation and comprehensive testing in accurately determining a seafarer’s fitness for work.

Perea’s claim for sickness allowance under the Collective Bargaining Agreement was also denied because the agreement’s effectivity had already lapsed when he experienced chest pains. Additionally, his prayer for moral, exemplary, and compensatory damages was rejected because the respondents were not remiss in their obligation to provide him with adequate medical attention, both on board the vessel and in a foreign port. The court found that the respondents complied with the POEA Contract, including the payment of wages and sickness allowance, which negated any basis for awarding damages.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was determining whose medical opinion should prevail in assessing a seafarer’s disability claim: the company-designated physician who conducted extensive examinations or the private physician who provided a single consultation.
Why did the Supreme Court favor the company-designated physician’s opinion?	The Supreme Court favored the company-designated physician’s opinion because they had the opportunity to monitor the seafarer’s condition over a prolonged period and conducted extensive medical tests. This continuous observation and comprehensive testing were deemed more reliable.
What is the POEA Contract?	The POEA Contract refers to the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels, issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. It outlines the rights and obligations of both the seafarer and the employer.
Under what conditions is hypertension considered compensable for seafarers?	Under the POEA Contract, hypertension is considered compensable if it causes impairment of functions of body organs like kidneys, heart, eyes, and brain, resulting in permanent disability. This must be substantiated with specific medical documents like chest x-ray, ECG, and CT scan reports.
What is the significance of Section 32-A of the POEA Contract?	Section 32-A of the POEA Contract lists occupational diseases that are considered compensable for seafarers, provided that certain conditions are met. These conditions include the seafarer’s work involving the described risks and the disease being contracted as a result of exposure to those risks.
What happens if a seafarer’s private doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment?	The POEA Contract provides that if a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician, a third doctor may be agreed upon jointly by the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.
Was the seafarer entitled to damages in this case?	No, the seafarer was not entitled to damages because the respondents complied with the POEA Contract by providing adequate medical attention and paying his wages and sickness allowance. There was no evidence of negligence or bad faith on the part of the employer.
What was the procedural error committed by the NLRC in this case?	The NLRC committed a procedural error by considering the issue of the seafarer’s alleged concealment of a pre-existing elbow injury, which was not raised by either party before the Labor Arbiter or in the appeal. The Supreme Court reiterated that the NLRC should limit its review to the specific issues elevated on appeal.

This case underscores the importance of thorough and continuous medical evaluation by company-designated physicians in assessing seafarers’ disability claims. It also highlights the need for adherence to procedural rules in labor disputes, ensuring fairness and due process for all parties involved.

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: PEDRO C. PEREA, VS. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., AUGUSTEA ATLANTICA SRL/ITALY, AND CAPTAIN ANTONIO S. NOMBRADO, G.R. No. 206178, August 09, 2017

August 9, 2017

Work-Relatedness of Hypertension: Seafarer Disability Claims and Medical Assessments

This Supreme Court decision clarifies the standard of evidence required for seafarers claiming disability benefits due to hypertension. The Court ruled against Julio C. Espere, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the seafarer to demonstrate a direct causal link between their working conditions and the illness. It also highlights the importance of the medical assessment made by company-designated physicians, especially when supported by thorough medical evaluations, over those of a seafarer’s independently chosen doctor. This decision underscores the need for seafarers to provide substantial evidence that their work significantly contributed to their condition to successfully claim disability benefits.

Hypertension at Sea: Whose Medical Opinion Prevails in Disability Claims?

Julio C. Espere, a Bosun employed by NFD International Manning Agents, Inc., sought disability benefits after being repatriated due to hypertension. He argued that his condition was work-related and entitled him to compensation under the POEA-SEC. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed his complaint, but the NLRC reversed the decision, granting Espere disability benefits. The Court of Appeals (CA) then sided with the employer, reinstating the LA’s decision. The central legal question was whether Espere adequately proved that his hypertension was work-related, thereby entitling him to disability compensation. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, denying Espere’s claim.

The Supreme Court carefully considered whether the CA erred in overturning the NLRC’s decision. It reiterated that judicial review of NLRC decisions is confined to errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Citing Univac Development, Inc. v. Soriano, the Court emphasized that the CA is empowered to evaluate the materiality and significance of evidence, especially when the NLRC’s findings contradict those of the LA. This power includes reviewing factual findings to determine if the NLRC gravely abused its discretion.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the petitioner’s argument that the respondents’ petition before the CA was moot due to their compliance with the writ of execution. The Court clarified that the satisfaction of a judgment award does not automatically render a case moot, especially when no settlement was executed between the parties. This contrasts with Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Madjus, where a settlement agreement led to a different outcome. Here, the payment was merely compliance with a writ, preserving the respondents’ right to appeal.

Turning to the substantive issues, the Court examined the contract between the parties, referencing the Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships. Section 20 of this agreement outlines compensation and benefits for work-related injuries or illnesses. The Court then focused on whose medical assessment should prevail: the company-designated physicians or the seafarer’s chosen doctor. Referencing Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency, Inc., et. al., the Court reiterated the importance of the company-designated physician’s assessment but noted that it is not automatically final or conclusive. The seafarer has the right to seek a second opinion, and in case of disagreement, a third doctor may be jointly agreed upon.

The Court favored the findings of the company-designated physicians over those of Espere’s private physician, Dr. Jacinto. The Court emphasized that Dr. Jacinto’s findings lacked evidence of an extensive or comprehensive examination. Dr. Jacinto did not specify the medications prescribed, the type of medical management implemented, or the basis for concluding that Espere’s hypertension was work-related. In contrast, the company-designated physicians provided detailed reports based on five months of closely monitoring Espere’s condition and analyzing diagnostic test results. This close monitoring allowed for a more accurate diagnosis and assessment of Espere’s fitness for work. The Court cited Monana v. MEC Global Shipmanagement and Manning Corporation, et al., highlighting jurisprudence that gives more weight to assessments from doctors who closely monitored and treated the seafarer.

The Court addressed Espere’s argument that he only needed to prove the probability of his employment contributing to his illness. The Court clarified that for disability to be compensable, two elements must concur: the injury or illness must be work-related, and it must have existed during the term of the employment contract. While the law recognizes a disputable presumption that an illness is work-related, the seafarer must still show a reasonable connection between the nature of the work and the illness. Espere failed to present substantial evidence that his work conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting his illness.

The Court also dismissed Espere’s reliance on his pre-employment medical examination (PEME) as proof that his employment caused his hypertension. The Court clarified that the PEME is a summary examination that determines fitness for sea service but does not uncover all pre-existing medical conditions. Referencing Status Maritime Corporation, et. al. v. Spouses Delalamon, the Court emphasized that the “fit to work” declaration in the PEME is not conclusive proof of being free from any ailment prior to deployment.

The Court’s ruling has significant implications for seafarers seeking disability benefits for hypertension. The decision underscores the importance of providing substantial evidence to support claims of work-relatedness. This includes demonstrating a direct causal link between working conditions and the development or aggravation of the illness. It also highlights the crucial role of the company-designated physician’s assessment, especially when based on thorough medical evaluations and continuous monitoring. Seafarers should ensure they undergo comprehensive medical examinations and gather detailed medical records to support their claims. Furthermore, the decision confirms that a clean bill of health in a pre-employment medical examination doesn’t guarantee the work-relatedness of any illness developed during employment.

Ultimately, the Court ordered Espere to return the judgment award he received, in accordance with Section 18, Rule XI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended. This rule mandates restitution when an executed judgment is reversed or annulled with finality.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the seafarer, Julio C. Espere, adequately proved that his hypertension was work-related, entitling him to disability compensation under the POEA-SEC.
Why did the Supreme Court rule against the seafarer?	The Court ruled against Espere because he failed to provide substantial evidence demonstrating a direct causal link between his working conditions and his hypertension. The Court favored the detailed medical assessments of the company-designated physicians.
What is the importance of the company-designated physician’s assessment?	The company-designated physician’s assessment is considered crucial, especially when it is based on thorough medical evaluations, continuous monitoring, and detailed medical records, providing a more accurate diagnosis. However, it is not automatically final, and the seafarer has the right to seek a second opinion.
What kind of evidence is needed to prove a work-related illness?	To prove a work-related illness, a seafarer must provide substantial evidence showing a reasonable connection between the nature of their work on board the vessel and the illness contracted or aggravated. This includes demonstrating that working conditions caused or increased the risk of contracting the disease.
Does a clean pre-employment medical examination guarantee compensation?	No, a clean pre-employment medical examination (PEME) does not guarantee compensation for illnesses developed during employment. The PEME is a summary examination, not a comprehensive assessment of all potential pre-existing conditions.
What happens if the seafarer and company doctors disagree?	If the seafarer and company doctors disagree, the employer and the seafarer may jointly agree to refer the latter to a third doctor whose decision shall be final and binding on them.
What does the POEA-SEC say about work-related illnesses?	The POEA-SEC outlines that illnesses may be disputably presumed to be work-related, however, the seafarer or claimant must still show a reasonable connection between the nature of work on board the vessel and the illness contracted or aggravated.
What is the implication of failing to prove a work-related illness?	If a seafarer fails to prove that their illness is work-related or work-aggravated, they are not entitled to any disability compensation under the POEA-SEC.
What is restitution in labor cases?	Restitution is the act of restoring or returning something to its rightful owner. In labor cases, particularly when a judgment award has been executed and later reversed or annulled, the recipient of the award may be required to return the funds.

In conclusion, this case underscores the importance of providing substantial evidence to support claims of work-related illnesses, highlighting the weight given to company-designated physicians’ assessments based on thorough medical evaluations. Seafarers should be diligent in documenting their medical condition and seeking expert legal advice to navigate the complexities of disability claims.

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: JULIO C. ESPERE v. NFD INTERNATIONAL MANNING AGENTS, INC., G.R. No. 212098, July 26, 2017

July 26, 2017

Burden of Proof in Employee Compensation Claims: Establishing Causation Between Work Conditions and Illness

The Supreme Court, in this case, ruled against granting death benefits to the respondent, the spouse of a deceased utility worker, as there was insufficient evidence to establish a direct link between the deceased’s working conditions and his cause of death, despite an initial finding of Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (NIDDM) on his death certificate. The court emphasized that while certain conditions like cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and hypertension are listed as occupational diseases, their compensability requires strict adherence to the conditions set forth in the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation, which the respondent failed to sufficiently prove.

When Workplace Stress Doesn’t Automatically Equal Compensation: The Esteves Case

This case revolves around the claim for death benefits filed by Fe L. Esteves following the death of her husband, Antonio Esteves, Sr., who worked as a utility worker at Gubat District Hospital (GDH). Antonio’s death certificate cited ‘CVA, HEMORRHAGIC’ as the immediate cause, ‘HYPERTENSION, STAGE III’ as the antecedent cause, and ‘NIDDM’ as the underlying cause. Fe argued that her husband’s death was work-related due to the stressful and physically demanding nature of his job, entitling her to compensation under Presidential Decree No. 626. The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) denied the claim, a decision later affirmed by the Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC), leading to an appeal and eventual reversal by the Court of Appeals (CA), which the Supreme Court then reviewed.

The central legal question is whether the death of Antonio Esteves, Sr., purportedly due to complications arising from diabetes mellitus, can be considered compensable under the provisions of P.D. No. 626, as amended, specifically considering whether his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the disease or its complications. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the GSIS, underscoring the importance of proving a direct causal relationship between the employee’s work environment and the illness that led to death. To fully understand the court’s perspective, understanding the relevant laws is crucial.

Article 194 of Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended, governs death benefits, stating:

ART. 194. Death. (a) Under such regulations as the Commission may approve, the System shall pay to the primary beneficiaries upon the death of the covered employee under this Title an amount equivalent to his monthly income benefit, plus ten percent thereof for each dependent child, but not exceeding five, beginning with the youngest and without substitution, except as provided for in paragraph (j) of Article 167 hereof: Provided, However, That the monthly income benefit shall be guaranteed for five years: Provided, Further, That if he has no primary beneficiary, the System shall pay to his secondary beneficiaries the monthly income benefit but not to exceed sixty months: Provided, Finally, That the minimum death benefit shall not be less than fifteen thousand pesos. (As amended by Sec. 4, P.D. 1921).

This provision sets the stage for determining who is entitled to death benefits. Crucially, Section 1, Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation clarifies the grounds for compensability:

SECTION 1. Grounds. (a) For the injury and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the injury must be the result of accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. (ECC Resolution No. 2799, July 25, 1984). (b) For the sickness and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the sickness must be the result of an occupational disease listed under Annex “A” of these Rules with the conditions set therein satisfied, otherwise, proof must be shown that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions.

Building on this principle, the petitioner, GSIS, argued that the respondent’s claim should be denied because Antonio’s death was primarily caused by complications from diabetes mellitus, which is not listed as an occupational disease. The Supreme Court acknowledged this argument but also pointed out a critical flaw in the GSIS’s reasoning: the medical records did not conclusively establish that Antonio was diabetic prior to his death. While his blood sugar was elevated at the time of his death, this alone was not sufficient to confirm a pre-existing condition of diabetes.

The Court of Appeals had given weight to certifications from medical professionals suggesting that the elevated blood sugar could have been attributed to stress or the intravenous fluids administered during his hospitalization. However, despite questioning the diagnosis of diabetes, the Supreme Court found that the respondent still failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Antonio’s death was compensable. Even if the underlying cause was not diabetes, the respondent needed to demonstrate that the CVA or hypertension that led to his death was directly linked to his work environment. The critical question then turns on what evidence is necessary to make this causal connection.

The Supreme Court referred to its decision in Government Service Insurance System v. Calumpiano, which outlined the conditions for compensability in cases involving cerebrovascular accident and essential hypertension:

However, although cerebro-vascular accident and essential hypertension are listed occupational diseases, their compensability requires compliance with all the conditions set forth in the Rules. In short, both are qualified occupational diseases. For cerebro-vascular accident, the claimant must prove the following: (1) there must be a history, which should be proved, of trauma at work (to the head specifically) due to unusual and extraordinary physical or mental strain or event, or undue exposure to noxious gases in industry; (2) there must be a direct connection between the trauma or exertion in the course of the employment and the cerebro-vascular attack; and (3) the trauma or exertion then and there caused a brain hemorrhage. On the other hand, essential hypertension is compensable only if it causes impairment of function of body organs like kidneys, heart, eyes and brain, resulting in permanent disability, provided that, the following documents substantiate it: (a) chest X-ray report; (b) ECG report; (c) blood chemistry report; (d) funduscopy report; and (e) C-T scan.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the respondent failed to present evidence demonstrating a history of head trauma at work or that Antonio’s hypertension caused impairment of his body organs. The CA had stated that the stressful tasks and physical activities of Antonio’s job contributed to his illness, but the court found this insufficient without specific evidence linking those activities to the conditions required for compensability under the Amended Rules. The burden of proof, therefore, lies with the claimant to sufficiently demonstrate this causal link. This case highlights the strict requirements for proving work-relatedness in employee compensation claims, even when the employee’s job is physically demanding.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the death of Antonio Esteves, Sr. was compensable under P.D. No. 626, given the initial finding of Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (NIDDM) on his death certificate and his work as a utility worker. The court focused on whether a direct causal relationship existed between his working conditions and his death.
What did the death certificate state as the cause of death?	The death certificate stated the immediate cause of death as ‘CVA, HEMORRHAGIC,’ the antecedent cause as ‘HYPERTENSION, STAGE III,’ and the underlying cause as ‘NIDDM’ (Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus).
Why did the GSIS initially deny the claim for death benefits?	The GSIS denied the claim because the underlying cause of death, Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus, was not considered work-related under the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation.
What was the Court of Appeals’ ruling in this case?	The Court of Appeals reversed the ECC’s decision and directed the GSIS to pay death benefits to Fe L. Esteves, finding that the stressful and physical nature of her husband’s job contributed to his illness.
What was the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, siding with the GSIS and reinstating the ECC’s decision to deny the claim for death benefits, as there was insufficient evidence to establish a direct link between Antonio’s work and his death.
What is required for a cerebrovascular accident to be considered compensable?	For a cerebrovascular accident to be compensable, the claimant must prove a history of trauma at work, a direct connection between the trauma and the cerebrovascular attack, and that the trauma caused a brain hemorrhage.
What is required for essential hypertension to be considered compensable?	Essential hypertension is compensable only if it causes impairment of body organs and is substantiated by specific medical documents like chest X-ray, ECG report, blood chemistry report, funduscopy report, and C-T scan.
What does the case highlight regarding employee compensation claims?	This case highlights the importance of providing sufficient evidence to establish a direct causal relationship between an employee’s working conditions and the illness or injury that led to their disability or death.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case emphasizes the necessity of clearly demonstrating the causal link between an employee’s work environment and the illness leading to death to secure death benefits. While the case acknowledges the potential impact of a demanding job on an employee’s health, it underscores that mere stress is insufficient; concrete evidence connecting specific working conditions to the development or aggravation of a compensable condition is required.

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: GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM VS. FE L. ESTEVES, G.R. No. 182297, June 21, 2017

June 21, 2017

Stroke Compensation: Upholding Employee Welfare in Work-Related Illness Claims

The Supreme Court has affirmed that employees diagnosed with stroke and hypertension may be entitled to compensation if their work environment likely contributed to their condition, even without direct proof of causation. The ruling emphasizes that probability, not absolute certainty, is sufficient in compensation proceedings, and that the welfare of the employee should be the primary consideration. This decision broadens the scope of protection for workers suffering from illnesses exacerbated by their employment.

Beyond the Desk Job: Recognizing Work-Related Stress in Employee Compensation Claims

This case revolves around Jesus B. Villamor’s claim for Employees’ Compensation (EC) Temporary Total Disability (TTD) benefits after suffering a stroke. Villamor, employed by Valle Verde Country Club, Inc. (VVCCI), sought compensation, arguing that his stroke and hypertension were work-related. The Social Security System (SSS) and the Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC) denied his claim, asserting a lack of causal relationship between his clerical job and his illness. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld this denial, leading Villamor to elevate the case to the Supreme Court. The central legal question is whether Villamor presented sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable connection between his work conditions and his stroke, entitling him to EC benefits.

The Supreme Court, in reversing the CA’s decision, underscored that factual findings not supported by evidence on record or based on misapprehension of facts can be grounds for review. The Court emphasized that Villamor was not a mere clerk, as portrayed by the SSS and ECC. His role as Sports Area In-Charge involved demanding responsibilities, including catering to club members’ needs and handling complaints. Additionally, his position as President of the VVCCI Employees Union subjected him to workplace harassment and required him to file cases against VVCCI, increasing his stress levels. This recognition of Villamor’s multifaceted role was critical in the Court’s assessment.

Building on this, the Court addressed the compensability of Villamor’s illnesses under the Employees’ Compensation Law. The Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation state that an illness is compensable if it’s an occupational disease listed in Annex ‘A’ or if proof shows the working conditions increased the risk of contracting the disease. Both stroke and hypertension are listed as occupational diseases. The Supreme Court cited Government Service Insurance System v. Baul, highlighting that cerebro-vascular accident and essential hypertension are considered occupational diseases, lessening the burden of proving a direct causal link between work and illness.

Cerebro-vascular accident and essential hypertension are considered as occupational diseases under Nos. 19 and 29, respectively, of Annex ‘A’ of the Implementing Rules of P.D. No.626, as amended. Thus, it is not necessary that there be proof of causal relation between the work and the illness which resulted in the respondent’s disability.

However, the Court noted that compensability requires compliance with specific conditions outlined in the Rules. For cerebro-vascular accidents, there must be a history of trauma at work due to unusual physical or mental strain, and a direct connection between the trauma and the cerebro-vascular attack. For essential hypertension, impairment of body organs must result in permanent disability, supported by medical documentation. The degree of proof required is substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The focus is on a reasonable work-connection, not a direct causal relation. Here, the Court found Villamor met the threshold.

The Court acknowledged Villamor’s medical reports, including Cranial CT Scan, Chest X-Ray Result, Laboratory or Blood Chemistry Result, and Electrocardiogram Result, supported his diagnoses of hypertension and stroke. His work and union position caused him physical and mental strain, increasing his risk of suffering a stroke affecting his brain, causing cerebral infarctions, paralysis, and speech difficulties. The Court reaffirmed that direct evidence of causation is unnecessary, as probability is the standard in compensation proceedings. Prioritizing employee welfare, strict rules of evidence are relaxed in compensation claims.

Furthermore, the Court dismissed the argument that Villamor’s smoking and drinking habits should bar his claim. Citing Government Service Insurance System v. De Castro, the Court stated that smoking and drinking are not the sole causes of conditions like CAD and hypertension. Other factors, such as age and gender, alongside workplace stresses, can contribute to these illnesses. The Court cautioned against singularly focusing on personal habits to deny compensability, especially for diseases listed as occupational.

In any determination of compensability, the nature and characteristics of the job are as important as raw medical findings and a claimant’s personal and social history. This is a basic legal reality in workers’ compensation law.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the nature of Villamor’s work and medical results provided substantial evidence to support his claim for EC TTD benefits. The Court ordered the SSS and ECC to pay Villamor the benefits due under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended. This decision reinforces the principle that employee welfare is paramount in compensation cases and recognizes the impact of stressful work environments on employee health, especially for those with demanding roles and union responsibilities.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Jesus Villamor’s stroke was work-related, entitling him to Employees’ Compensation Temporary Total Disability benefits, despite the SSS and ECC’s claim that his job as a clerk did not directly cause his illness.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Villamor, reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court found that Villamor’s actual job responsibilities and his role as a union president created a stressful work environment that likely contributed to his stroke, entitling him to compensation.
What is the standard of proof in compensation cases?	The standard of proof in compensation cases is probability, not absolute certainty. This means that it is sufficient to show a reasonable connection between the employee’s work and the illness, rather than proving a direct causal relationship.
Are stroke and hypertension considered occupational diseases?	Yes, both stroke and hypertension are listed as occupational diseases under Annex ‘A’ of the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation. This listing reduces the burden of proof required to establish compensability.
Can personal habits like smoking and drinking bar a compensation claim?	The Court clarified that while personal habits can contribute to illnesses, they should not be the sole determining factor in denying compensation, especially if the disease is listed as occupational and other work-related factors are present.
What evidence did Villamor present to support his claim?	Villamor presented his job description, which demonstrated that he was not a mere clerk but a Sports Area In-Charge with demanding responsibilities. He also presented medical records documenting his hypertension and stroke, as well as evidence of his stressful union-related activities.
*What is the significance of the Baul* case cited in this decision?**	The Baul case established that cerebro-vascular accident and essential hypertension are considered occupational diseases. The Baul case lessened the burden of proving a direct causal link between work and illness in compensation claims.
What rule applies to motions for reconsideration in ECC decisions?	According to Rule 5, Section 11 of the Rules of Procedure for Filing and Disposition of Employees’ Compensation Claims, motions for reconsideration of the decision, resolution or order of the Employees’ Compensation Commission are not allowed.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of considering the totality of an employee’s work environment when evaluating compensation claims. It reinforces the principle that employee welfare should be the paramount consideration, and that a reasonable connection between work and illness is sufficient to establish compensability, even without direct proof of causation. This ruling serves as a reminder to employers and compensation bodies to adopt a more holistic approach in assessing claims, ensuring that deserving employees receive the benefits they are entitled to.

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: JESUS B. VILLAMOR, PETITIONER, V. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION [ECC] AND SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, RESPONDENTS., G.R. No. 204422, November 21, 2016

November 21, 2016

Seafarer’s Duty: Establishing Work-Relatedness and Timely Reporting for Disability Claims

The Supreme Court has ruled that a seafarer’s claim for disability benefits was denied because his cardio-vascular disease was not proven to be work-related and he failed to undergo a post-employment medical examination within the mandated timeframe. This decision underscores the importance of seafarers adhering to the requirements set forth in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) to successfully claim disability benefits. The ruling impacts seafarers seeking compensation for illnesses developed during their employment, setting a clear precedent for future claims.

High Seas, High Stakes: Proving the Link Between a Seafarer’s Health and Hazardous Work

In C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. vs. William C. Alivio, the central question before the Supreme Court was whether Alivio, a seafarer, was entitled to disability benefits for his cardio-vascular disease. Alivio had been employed as a bosun under successive contracts with Blue Ocean Ship Management, Ltd., facilitated by C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. After disembarking from the vessel Phyllis N upon completion of his contract, he sought medical consultation, revealing a diagnosis of hypertension and later, cardio-vascular disease, which ultimately led to him being declared unfit for sea duty. Alivio argued that his condition was work-related and thus compensable, while the petitioners contended that his illness was neither work-related nor reported within the required timeframe following his repatriation.

The Labor Arbiter initially sided with Alivio, awarding him disability benefits and attorney’s fees. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding that Alivio’s repatriation was due to the expiration of his contract, not a medical condition, and that he had failed to comply with the post-employment medical examination requirements. The Court of Appeals (CA) then overturned the NLRC’s ruling, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s award, prompting the petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, in resolving the dispute, emphasized several critical points. The Court first addressed Alivio’s repatriation status. The Court noted that Alivio was repatriated for “finished contract” and not for medical reasons. He chose to complete his employment contract with the petitioners instead of being medically repatriated, even as he claimed he experienced fatigue, weakness and nape pains shortly before his disembarkation on October 3, 2009. The Court cited the case of Villanueva, Sr. v. Baliwag Navigation, Inc., wherein it stated:

We find no reversible error in the CA ruling affirming the denial of Villanueva’s claim for disability benefits. We find it undisputed that he was repatriated for finished contract, not for medical reasons. More importantly, while the 2000 POEA-Standard Employment Contract (Section 32-A [11]) considers a heart disease as occupational, Villanueva failed to satisfy by substantial evidence the condition laid down in the Contract if the heart disease was known to have been present during employment, there must be proof that an acute exacerbation was clearly precipitated by the unusual strain brought by the nature of his work.”

Building on this principle, the Court next considered whether Alivio’s cardio-vascular disease was work-related. The Court emphasized the conditions under the POEA-SEC to be considered occupational, as quoted above. These conditions provide for two possibilities (1) the heart disease is present during employment and there is proof that an acute exacerbation was precipitated by the unusual strain of the seafarer’s work and was followed within 24 hours by the clinical signs of a cardiac arrest or, (2) the seafarer, who is asymptomatic before being subjected to the strain of work, shows signs and symptoms of cardiac injury during the performance of his work, and such symptoms persist.

The Court also highlighted the fact that Alivio failed to undergo a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return, as mandated by the POEA-SEC. The Court stated:

POEA-SEC, Section 20 (B) 3 which provides: “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 his permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.

For this reason, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claims the above benefits.

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.

Therefore, based on these considerations, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the NLRC’s ruling, ultimately dismissing Alivio’s complaint for lack of merit. The decision reinforces the significance of adhering to the procedural and substantive requirements of the POEA-SEC in claims for disability benefits.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the seafarer’s cardio-vascular disease was work-related and if he complied with the POEA-SEC’s post-employment medical examination requirements to be entitled to disability benefits. The Supreme Court ruled against the seafarer on both counts.
Why was the seafarer’s claim for disability benefits denied?	The claim was denied because the seafarer failed to prove that his cardio-vascular disease was work-related and did not undergo a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days of his repatriation. This non-compliance forfeited his right to claim benefits under the POEA-SEC.
What does POEA-SEC stand for, and why is it important?	POEA-SEC stands for the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract. It is crucial because it governs the rights and obligations of Filipino seafarers and their employers, including the conditions for disability claims.
What is the significance of the post-employment medical examination?	The post-employment medical examination is a mandatory requirement under the POEA-SEC. It aims to determine the seafarer’s medical condition upon repatriation and establish whether any illness or injury is work-related, thus affecting their eligibility for disability benefits.
What constitutes a “work-related” illness under the POEA-SEC?	Under the POEA-SEC, a work-related illness is one that resulted from an event occurring in the performance of work or any disease caused by conditions peculiar to the particular employment. The seafarer must provide substantial evidence to prove this connection.
What happens if a seafarer fails to report for a post-employment medical examination?	Failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement for a post-employment medical examination within three working days of repatriation results in the forfeiture of the seafarer’s right to claim disability benefits. This is a strict requirement unless the seafarer is physically incapacitated.
Can a seafarer claim disability benefits if repatriated due to a finished contract?	A seafarer repatriated due to a finished contract can still claim disability benefits if they can prove that the illness or injury was work-related and manifested itself during their employment. However, they must still comply with the post-employment medical examination requirement.
What evidence is needed to prove a heart condition is work-related for a seafarer?	To prove a heart condition is work-related, the seafarer must show that the condition was either caused or aggravated by the nature of their work. They must also present medical records and expert opinions linking their work conditions to the development or exacerbation of the heart condition.

This case serves as a significant reminder for seafarers to diligently comply with the requirements of the POEA-SEC when seeking disability benefits. Establishing the work-relatedness of an illness and adhering to the mandated post-employment medical examination are critical steps in ensuring a successful claim.

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: C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC. VS. WILLIAM C. ALIVIO, G.R. No. 213279, July 11, 2016

July 11, 2016

Hypertension and Glaucoma: Protecting Employees’ Rights to Compensation

The Supreme Court held that Aurelia Y. Calumpiano, a retired court stenographer, is entitled to disability benefits for her hypertension and glaucoma, affirming that hypertension is a compensable occupational disease, especially when it leads to impairment of other body functions such as vision. This ruling underscores the principle that employees’ welfare is paramount, and compensation laws should be liberally interpreted to benefit workers, ensuring they receive the support they deserve when illnesses arise from or are aggravated by their employment.

From Court Stenographer to Compensation Claim: When Years of Service Impact Health

Aurelia Y. Calumpiano, after dedicating thirty years as a court stenographer, applied for disability retirement shortly before her retirement, citing Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease and Acute Angle Closure Glaucoma. Her claim was initially denied by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) on the grounds that these conditions were not work-related. The Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC) upheld GSIS’s decision, leading Calumpiano to appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the ECC’s ruling, finding that her illnesses were indeed connected to her work and thus compensable.

The Supreme Court (SC) took on the case, emphasizing the importance of employees’ welfare in compensation matters. The court acknowledged that while hypertension and glaucoma may not always be directly linked to specific job tasks, the conditions under which an employee works can significantly contribute to their development or aggravation. Furthermore, the SC cited previous rulings such as Government Service Insurance System v. Baul, which recognized cerebro-vascular accident and essential hypertension as occupational diseases, thus not requiring direct proof of causation between the work and the illness.

Building on this principle, the court underscored that essential hypertension is compensable if it causes impairment of body organs such as the eyes, as it did in Calumpiano’s case, leading to glaucoma and vision impairment. This aligns with the understanding that workers’ compensation laws are social legislation meant to be interpreted liberally in favor of the employee, as highlighted in Employees’ Compensation Commission v. Court of Appeals:

Despite the abandonment of the presumption of compensability established by the old law, the present law has not ceased to be an employees’ compensation law or a social legislation; hence, the liberality of the law in favor of the working man and woman still prevails.

Moreover, the court referenced Government Service Insurance System v. De Castro, which emphasized the significance of considering the nature and characteristics of the job when determining compensability. It also stated that:

In any determination of compensability, the nature and characteristics of the job are as important as raw medical findings and a claimant’s personal and social history.

In Calumpiano’s case, the SC noted that her duties as a court stenographer were undoubtedly stressful, contributing to her hypertension. It also recognized the connection between hypertension and the development of glaucoma, supporting the idea that her work environment and the resulting health issues were intertwined. The court pointed out that while some factors contributing to hypertension, such as smoking or diet, might not be directly work-related, the stress and demands of her job played a significant role in its onset and progression. The court cited a recent study showed that patients at both extremes of the blood pressure spectrum show an increased prevalence of glaucoma.

The Supreme Court also addressed the ECC’s reliance on primary risk factors for hypertension, such as smoking and diet, stating that these are not the sole causes. Age, gender, and work stress significantly contribute to its development. This nuanced understanding reflects a more holistic approach to evaluating workers’ compensation claims, considering the individual’s circumstances and work environment. The court did not disregard the ECC’s expertise but found its decision to be erroneous and contrary to the law. Instead, it emphasized the credibility of medical certificates and reports issued by Calumpiano’s attending physicians, which confirmed the link between her hypertension, glaucoma, and work conditions.

Thus, in upholding the CA’s decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to protecting the rights and welfare of employees. The ruling serves as a reminder to government agencies like GSIS to adopt a more compassionate and liberal approach when evaluating claims for disability benefits, especially when the evidence suggests a connection between the employee’s work and their health condition. As the SC stated, probability, not certainty, is the test of proof in compensation cases.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Aurelia Y. Calumpiano’s hypertension and glaucoma were compensable as work-related illnesses, entitling her to disability benefits under the Employees’ Compensation Program.
Why did the GSIS initially deny Calumpiano’s claim?	The GSIS initially denied the claim because it asserted that hypertension and glaucoma were not work-related conditions, failing to see a direct link between her job as a court stenographer and her illnesses.
What is the significance of hypertension being classified as an occupational disease?	Classifying hypertension as an occupational disease means that employees suffering from it are entitled to compensation if it leads to impairment of body functions, without needing to prove direct causation from their work.
How did the Court of Appeals rule in this case?	The Court of Appeals reversed the ECC’s decision, stating that Calumpiano’s illnesses were contracted and aggravated during her employment and thus, compensable under the increased risk theory.
What is the “increased risk theory” mentioned in the decision?	The “increased risk theory” suggests that a non-occupational disease is compensable if the employee can prove that their working conditions increased the risk of contracting the disease.
What factors did the Supreme Court consider in determining compensability?	The Supreme Court considered the stressful nature of Calumpiano’s job, the connection between hypertension and glaucoma, medical reports from her physicians, and the principle of liberally interpreting compensation laws in favor of employees.
What did the Supreme Court say about the role of stress in Calumpiano’s condition?	The Supreme Court recognized that the stressful nature of Calumpiano’s job as a court stenographer significantly contributed to the development of her hypertension, which subsequently led to glaucoma and vision impairment.
How does this ruling impact future compensation claims?	This ruling reinforces the principle that employees’ welfare is paramount and encourages a more compassionate approach when evaluating claims, especially when there is a discernible link between the employee’s work and health condition.
What evidence is considered in determining whether a disease is work-related?	Medical records, physician certifications, job descriptions, work conditions, and the employee’s personal and social history are taken into account to evaluate if the conditions are compensable.
What if hypertension is caused by non-work factors like smoking?	Even if non-work factors contribute to hypertension, the court will still consider the work environment’s impact in exacerbating the condition when determining the compensability of the condition.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case exemplifies the judiciary’s commitment to social justice and the protection of workers’ rights. It emphasizes that compensation laws are designed to support employees who suffer from work-related illnesses, even when those illnesses are complex and multifactorial. This ruling serves as a reminder to interpret and apply these laws with a focus on the welfare and well-being of the employee.

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: GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM VS. AURELIA Y. CALUMPIANO, G.R. No. 196102, November 26, 2014

November 26, 2014

LCA:
	LM appears normal and it bifurcates into the LAD and LCx arteries.


	LAD is a good-sized, Type III vessel which appears normal throughout its course. The diagonal branches are free of disease.


	LCx is a good-sized, non-dominant vessel which appears normal. The OM branches are likewise free of disease.


RCA	is a good-sized dominant vessel with a 40-50% discrete stenosis at its mid vertical limb. The rest of the vessel appears normal.

Tag: Hypertension

Sailing Through Sickness: When Do Seafarer Ailments Warrant Disability?

FAQs

High Seas, High Stakes: When Do Seafarers’ Health Issues Warrant Compensation?

FAQs

Timely Medical Assessments Are Crucial for Seafarers Seeking Disability Benefits

Kennedy R. Quines v. United Philippine Lines Inc. and/or Shell International Trading and Shipping Co., G.R. No. 248774, May 12, 2021

Understanding the Legal Framework for Seafarer Disability Claims

The Journey of Kennedy R. Quines: From Sea to Court

Practical Implications and Key Lessons for Seafarers and Employers

Frequently Asked Questions

Hypertension at Sea: When an Incomplete Medical Report Sank a Seafarer’s Claim

FAQs

Navigating the Seas of Sickness: Whose Medical Opinion Prevails in a Seafarer’s Claim?

FAQs

Hypertension at Sea: Whose Medical Opinion Prevails in Disability Claims?

FAQs

When Workplace Stress Doesn’t Automatically Equal Compensation: The Esteves Case

FAQs

Beyond the Desk Job: Recognizing Work-Related Stress in Employee Compensation Claims

FAQs

High Seas, High Stakes: Proving the Link Between a Seafarer’s Health and Hazardous Work

FAQs

From Court Stenographer to Compensation Claim: When Years of Service Impact Health

FAQs