ASG Law

Tag: Seafarer Disability

  • Seafarer’s Disability: Fitness Certification and the Burden of Proof

    In Allan S. Navarette v. Ventis Maritime Corporation, the Supreme Court ruled that a seafarer, once certified fit for duty by a company-designated physician within the allowable period and without compelling evidence of coercion in signing a fitness certificate, is not entitled to permanent total disability benefits. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to prescribed procedures in assessing seafarer disabilities and the probative weight given to medical assessments by company-designated physicians. It serves as a reminder that while seafarers’ rights are protected, the burden of proving entitlement to disability benefits lies with the claimant.

    When a Seafarer’s ‘Fit to Work’ Certification Trumps an Independent Doctor’s Opinion

    Allan S. Navarette, a chief cook employed by Ventis Maritime Corporation, sought disability benefits after experiencing chest pain and other symptoms while at sea. Despite being diagnosed with ischemic heart disease, hypertension, and acute gastritis, the company-designated physician eventually declared him fit to work within the 240-day period allowed under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). Navarette then consulted his own doctor who declared him unfit. The National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) initially ruled in favor of Navarette, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, finding that he was not totally and permanently disabled. The Supreme Court then had to determine whether Navarette was indeed entitled to permanent total disability benefits.

    The legal framework governing seafarer disability claims is rooted in Article 198 of the Labor Code, the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation (AREC), and Section 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC. These provisions outline the conditions under which a seafarer is entitled to compensation and benefits for injuries or illnesses sustained during their employment. Specifically, they address the concept of permanent total disability, which is defined as the inability to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days. Furthermore, the POEA-SEC stipulates that a seafarer must undergo a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon their return. This examination is critical in determining the seafarer’s fitness to work or assessing the degree of disability.

    A key aspect of the POEA-SEC is the procedure for resolving conflicting medical assessments. If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician, the POEA-SEC provides a mechanism: a third doctor, agreed upon jointly by the employer and the seafarer, should render a final and binding decision. In this case, Navarette obtained an opinion from his personal physician, Dr. Vicaldo, who declared him unfit to work. However, he did not pursue the option of a third doctor to reconcile this conflicting assessment with that of the company-designated physician. Instead, Navarette only requested a meeting to settle the payment of his full disability benefits. Because of the failure to consult with a third doctor to settle the conflicting opinions, the opinion of the company doctor had more merit.

    The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed periods for medical assessment. In Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, the Supreme Court summarized the rules governing total and permanent disability benefit claims. These rules establish that the company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment within 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to them. This period may be extended to 240 days if further medical treatment is required or if the seafarer is uncooperative. Here, Navarette was repatriated on June 12, 2015, and the company-designated physician issued a final assessment on November 20, 2015, which was 161 days after repatriation, falling within the extended 240-day period.

    In its analysis, the Court considered the medical reports documenting Navarette’s treatment by the company-designated physicians. These reports showed that he was regularly seen and managed for his conditions, including ischemic heart disease and hypertension. Ultimately, the physicians recommended that he was fit to resume sea duties. Importantly, Navarette signed a Certificate of Fitness for Work, releasing the company from any claims related to his being declared fit for duty. The Court deemed this certificate a valid and binding document. While Navarette alleged that he was compelled to sign the certificate due to a promise of deployment, he presented no evidence to support this claim. The Supreme Court found his allegation a mere afterthought and insufficient to overturn the document he signed.

    The Court acknowledged the conflicting assessment from Navarette’s personal physician but noted that Navarette did not pursue the prescribed procedure of consulting a third doctor to resolve the disagreement. As the Court stated in Magsaysay Mitsui Osk Marine, Inc. v. Buenaventura, “the failure to refer the conflicting findings between the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s physician of choice grants the former’s medical opinion more weight and probative value over the latter.” This procedural lapse significantly weakened Navarette’s claim. Thus, the medical assessment of the company-designated physician has more weight than the opinion of the personal doctor.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether Allan S. Navarette was entitled to permanent total disability benefits after being declared fit to work by the company-designated physician but deemed unfit by his personal doctor. The Supreme Court needed to determine if the company doctor’s assessment was valid.
    What is a company-designated physician? A company-designated physician is a doctor appointed by the employer to examine and treat a seafarer upon repatriation for medical reasons. Their assessment of the seafarer’s condition and fitness to work carries significant weight.
    What is the prescribed period for a company-designated physician to issue a final assessment? The company-designated physician generally has 120 days from the seafarer’s repatriation to issue a final assessment. This period can be extended to 240 days if further medical treatment or evaluation is necessary.
    What happens if there is a disagreement between the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s personal doctor? If there is a disagreement, the POEA-SEC provides that a third doctor, jointly agreed upon by the employer and the seafarer, should make a final and binding decision. It is important to consult a third doctor to settle the differing opinions.
    What is the significance of a Certificate of Fitness for Work? A Certificate of Fitness for Work, signed by the seafarer, indicates that they have been declared fit to resume their duties. It can be a crucial piece of evidence against a claim for disability benefits, especially if there is no proof of coercion in signing it.
    What is permanent total disability in the context of seafarer employment? Permanent total disability refers to a condition where a seafarer is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days due to injury or illness sustained during employment. The seafarer’s ability to work is greatly reduced.
    What legal documents govern seafarer disability claims? Seafarer disability claims are governed by Article 198 of the Labor Code, the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation (AREC), and Section 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC. These rules define the rights and obligations of both the seafarer and the employer.
    Why was Navarette’s claim for disability benefits denied by the Supreme Court? Navarette’s claim was denied because the company-designated physician declared him fit to work within the allowable period, he signed a Certificate of Fitness for Work, and he failed to pursue the option of consulting a third doctor to resolve the conflicting medical opinions. The Supreme Court gave more weight to the company doctor’s assessment.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Navarette v. Ventis Maritime Corporation emphasizes the importance of following established procedures in seafarer disability claims and the probative value of medical assessments made by company-designated physicians. Seafarers must be diligent in pursuing their claims and ensuring that all procedural requirements are met. Employers must adhere to legal requirements for medical assessments and 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: Allan S. Navarette v. Ventis Maritime Corporation, G.R. No. 246871, April 19, 2022

  • Navigating Seafarer Disability Claims: The Importance of Timely Medical Assessments

    In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that a seafarer’s claim for disability benefits was premature because he filed his complaint before securing a medical opinion from his own doctor to counter the company-designated physician’s assessment. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements outlined in the POEA-SEC, which mandates that a seafarer obtain a contrary medical assessment prior to initiating legal action. This decision underscores the necessity for seafarers to diligently follow the established protocols for disability claims to ensure their rights are properly asserted and protected.

    Seafarer’s Voyage to Justice: When Does the Clock Start Ticking on Disability Claims?

    Edgardo Paglinawan, an engine and deck fitter, sought disability benefits after developing ulcerative colitis during his employment with Dohle Philman Agency, Inc. Upon repatriation, the company-designated physician declared his condition not work-related, leading the company to deny his claim. Paglinawan then filed a complaint, but only secured a medical opinion from his own doctor after initiating legal proceedings. This timeline became central to the Supreme Court’s decision, highlighting a critical aspect of maritime disability law: the timing of medical assessments in relation to legal claims.

    The legal framework governing seafarer disability claims is primarily found in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). As the Supreme Court emphasized, POEA-SEC is deemed incorporated to the seafarer’s employment contract, and it governs his claim for permanent disability benefits, the POEA-SEC aims to protect Filipino seafarers by setting out the terms and conditions for their employment, including provisions for disability compensation. Central to this framework is Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, which specifies that for an illness to be compensable, it must be both work-related and have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract. The 2010 POEA-SEC defines a work-related illness as “any sickness as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this Contract with the conditions set therein satisfied.” Moreover, illnesses not listed in Section 32 are disputably presumed as work-related, but the seafarer must still prove the correlation of the illness to their work.

    In this case, Paglinawan’s ulcerative colitis was not listed as an occupational disease, triggering the disputable presumption of work-relatedness. However, the Supreme Court sided with the Court of Appeals (CA), emphasizing that Paglinawan failed to provide substantial evidence proving a reasonable causal connection between his condition and the nature of his work as an engine and deck fitter. The Court highlighted the significance of the company-designated physician’s report, which stated that Paglinawan’s illness was not work-related. According to established jurisprudence, such a report is binding unless refuted by a physician of the seafarer’s choice and a third, jointly selected doctor. Paglinawan’s failure to secure a contrary medical opinion before filing his complaint proved fatal to his claim.

    The Supreme Court’s decision also addressed the issue of prematurity in filing disability claims. The court cited previous rulings that highlighted the importance of obtaining a medical assessment from the seafarer’s own physician before initiating legal action. In Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. San Juan, the Court stated that the seafarer’s claim therein is prematurely filed because at the time of filing, the seafarer is under the belief that he is totally and permanently disabled from rendering work as he was unable to resume work since his repatriation, and that he was not yet armed with a medical certificate from his physician of choice. The Court further elaborated on specific scenarios where a cause of action for disability benefits accrues, emphasizing that a claim is premature if filed before obtaining a contrary medical opinion when the company-designated physician deems the condition not work-related. In the case of Daraug v. KGJS Fleet Management Manila, Inc., the Court stated that the seafarer’s claim was likewise prematurely filed as he had yet to consult his own physician; on the contrary, he was armed with the company designated physician’s report that he is fit to work, and his own conclusion that the injury was work-related.

    The Supreme Court clarified that a claim for total and permanent disability benefits may be considered prematurely filed if there is no contrary opinion from the seafarer’s physician of own choice, and a third doctor as required depending on the applicable scenario. In Paglinawan’s case, the sequence of events was critical: the company-designated physician issued a non-work-related assessment, then Paglinawan filed his complaint, and only afterward did he obtain a medical certificate from his own physician. This timeline violated the established procedure and rendered his claim premature. The Court was also not persuaded by Paglinawan’s argument that the company-designated physician’s opinion was inherently biased. The Court pointed out that Paglinawan could have obtained a different opinion before filing the complaint to support his claim.

    Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that the 120-day rule, which sets a period for the company-designated physician to provide a final assessment, was not relevant in this case because the physician had already rendered an assessment within that timeframe. The 120-day rule provides that when the company-designated physician neglects to render a final assessment within 120 days, the law comes in and creates a presumption that the seafarer suffers a permanent total disability. Given the absence of a timely contrary medical opinion and the lack of substantial evidence linking his illness to his work, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of disability benefits to Paglinawan. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and providing concrete evidence in seafarer disability claims.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the seafarer’s claim for disability benefits was premature because he filed the complaint before obtaining a contrary medical opinion from his own physician.
    What is the POEA-SEC? The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) is a standard employment contract for seafarers that sets out the terms and conditions for their employment, including provisions for disability compensation. It is deemed incorporated to the seafarer’s employment contract, and it governs his claim for permanent disability benefits.
    What does the POEA-SEC say about work-related illnesses? Under the POEA-SEC, for an illness to be compensable, it must be work-related and have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract. Illnesses not listed in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC are disputably presumed as work-related.
    What is the role of the company-designated physician? The company-designated physician is responsible for assessing the seafarer’s medical condition and providing a medical report. Their assessment is considered binding unless refuted by a physician of the seafarer’s choice and a third, jointly selected doctor.
    Why was the seafarer’s claim considered premature? The seafarer’s claim was considered premature because he filed the complaint before obtaining a contrary medical opinion from his own physician to dispute the company-designated physician’s assessment that his illness was not work-related.
    What is the 120-day rule? The 120-day rule sets a period for the company-designated physician to provide a final assessment of the seafarer’s medical condition. If the physician fails to do so within this period, a presumption arises that the seafarer suffers from a permanent total disability.
    What evidence is needed to support a disability claim? To support a disability claim, a seafarer must provide substantial evidence demonstrating a reasonable causal connection between their illness and the nature of their work. A contrary medical opinion from the seafarer’s own physician is also crucial.
    What happens if the company-designated physician says the illness is not work-related? If the company-designated physician determines that the illness is not work-related, the seafarer must obtain a contrary medical opinion from their own physician and, if necessary, a third doctor to challenge the initial assessment.

    This case serves as a reminder to seafarers and their legal representatives to carefully adhere to the procedural requirements outlined in the POEA-SEC when pursuing disability claims. Obtaining timely medical assessments and gathering substantial evidence are critical steps in ensuring a successful outcome.

    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: Edgardo M. Paglinawan v. Dohle Philman Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 230735, April 04, 2022

  • The Seafarer’s Right: Defining ‘Total Disability’ and the Duty of Referral in Maritime Employment

    This Supreme Court decision clarifies the rights of seafarers regarding disability benefits, emphasizing the importance of timely and valid medical assessments by company-designated physicians. The Court ruled that if the company-designated physician fails to provide a final assessment within the legally prescribed periods (120 or 240 days), the seafarer’s disability is considered total and permanent by operation of law. Furthermore, the employer has a duty to initiate referral to a third doctor if the seafarer disputes the company physician’s assessment. This ruling protects seafarers from delayed or inadequate medical assessments and ensures they receive just compensation for work-related disabilities.

    Navigating Murky Waters: When Back Pain Becomes a Seafarer’s Total Loss

    The case of Benhur Shipping Corporation v. Alex Peñaredonda Riego arose from a dispute over disability benefits claimed by a seafarer, Alex Peñaredonda Riego, who suffered back pain while working as a Chief Cook aboard a vessel. Riego’s employer, Benhur Shipping Corporation, initially provided medical treatment but later assessed his disability as Grade 11, corresponding to a partial loss of lifting power. Disagreeing with this assessment, Riego sought a second opinion from his own doctor, who declared him permanently unfit for work. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether Riego was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, considering the conflicting medical assessments and the procedural requirements under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

    The POEA-SEC governs the employment of Filipino seafarers and outlines the procedures for claiming disability benefits. A key provision is the requirement for a company-designated physician to assess the seafarer’s condition within a specific timeframe. According to established jurisprudence, specifically Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. v. Quiogue, the company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer’s disability grading within 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him. If this timeline is not met, the seafarer’s disability could be considered permanent and total.

    Building on this principle, the Supreme Court has recognized an extension of this period up to 240 days under certain circumstances. This extension is permissible only if the company-designated physician provides sufficient justification, such as the need for further medical treatment. However, the burden of proof lies with the employer to demonstrate this justification. It’s important to note that if the company-designated physician fails to provide a final assessment even within this extended 240-day period, the seafarer’s disability automatically becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.

    In Riego’s case, the Court found that the company-designated physician failed to issue a final and valid assessment within the prescribed timeframe. Although Riego was repatriated on December 15, 2013, the company-designated physician only issued a Grade 11 disability assessment on May 26, 2014, which is 156 days after repatriation. Moreover, even after issuing this assessment, the company-designated physician certified that Riego was still undergoing medical evaluation, contradicting the notion of a final assessment. This failure to provide a timely and conclusive assessment was a critical factor in the Court’s decision.

    Another crucial aspect of the POEA-SEC is the procedure for resolving conflicting medical opinions. Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC provides a mechanism to challenge the validity of the company-designated physician’s assessment. If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.

    The Supreme Court has clarified the steps involved in invoking this provision. The seafarer must notify the employer of their disagreement with the company-designated physician’s assessment and express their intention to seek a third opinion. Following notification, the employer then carries the burden of initiating the process for the referral to a third doctor commonly agreed between the parties. The Court emphasized that the referral to a third doctor is a mandatory procedure, reinforcing the seafarer’s right to challenge the company’s medical assessment.

    While the Court has set this procedure, this case helps delineate the necessary requirements of what such a notice should entail. The shipping company argued that Riego’s request for a third opinion was deficient because it didn’t include the medical report from his chosen doctor. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the seafarer’s letter-request for referral to a third doctor sent to the employer indicating the seafarer’s doctor’s assessment of the seafarer’s fitness to work or the disability rating, which is contrary to the company-designated physician’s assessment, then that suffices to set in motion the process of choosing a third doctor.

    In this instance, Riego’s letters stated that his chosen medical expert declared him permanently unfit, referring to the seafarer’s fitness to work. The June 25, 2014 letter even expressly stated that the medical opinions of the respective doctors (the company-designated physician and respondent’s chosen doctor) differ. As a result, both letters requested that a third medical opinion be considered. The Court found that these letters constituted sufficient notification to proceed with the process of referral to the third doctor.

    The Court concluded that Benhur Shipping Corporation failed to comply with its duty to initiate the referral process. By ignoring Riego’s requests for a third opinion, the company violated the conflict resolution mechanism under the POEA-SEC. This failure had significant consequences for the outcome of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that labor tribunals and courts are empowered to conduct their own assessment to resolve the conflicting medical opinions based on the totality of evidence when the employer fails to act on the seafarer’s valid request for referral to a third doctor.

    The Court, thus, conducted its own assessment of Riego’s disability. After reviewing the medical reports from both the company-designated physician and Riego’s chosen physician, the Court concluded that Riego was indeed suffering from a permanent disability that rendered him unfit to work as a seafarer. The Court considered the persistent pain and sensory deficits reported by Riego, as well as the recommendations from medical specialists regarding his need for further evaluation and treatment. Since it was highly improbable for him to perform his usual tasks as seafarer on any vessel which effectively disables him from earning wages in the same kind of work or that of a similar nature for which he was trained, Riego was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.

    What is the POEA-SEC? The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) governs the employment terms and conditions for Filipino seafarers. It includes provisions for disability compensation and medical assessments.
    What is the role of the company-designated physician? The company-designated physician is responsible for assessing the seafarer’s medical condition and providing a disability grading within a specified period. This assessment is crucial for determining the seafarer’s eligibility for disability benefits.
    How long does the company-designated physician have to make an assessment? The company-designated physician typically has 120 days to provide a final assessment. This period can be extended to 240 days if further medical treatment is needed, with proper justification.
    What happens if the seafarer disagrees with the company doctor’s assessment? If the seafarer disagrees, they can consult their own physician. If the opinions conflict, the seafarer can request a third doctor, jointly agreed upon with the employer, whose decision is final and binding.
    What should the seafarer include in his/her letter to the employer? The seafarer needs to send a letter to the employer that indicates the seafarer’s doctor’s assessment of the seafarer’s fitness to work or the disability rating, which is contrary to the company-designated physician’s assessment.
    What is the employer’s responsibility after receiving the letter? The employer carries the burden of initiating the process for the referral to a third doctor commonly agreed on between the parties.
    What happens if the employer fails to comply with the referral process? The medical findings of the seafarer’s doctor shall be conclusive and binding against the employer. The courts are obliged to uphold the conclusive and binding findings unless the same are tainted with bias or not supported by medical records or lack scientific basis
    What is the difference between partial and total disability? Partial disability refers to a loss of some earning capacity, while total disability means the seafarer is unable to perform their usual work or any similar occupation. Total disability often leads to higher compensation.

    This case underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements outlined in the POEA-SEC and existing jurisprudence. By failing to provide a timely and valid medical assessment and neglecting the seafarer’s request for a third opinion, Benhur Shipping Corporation was ultimately held liable for total and permanent disability benefits. This ruling serves as a reminder to employers in the maritime industry to prioritize the health and well-being of their seafarers and to comply with their legal obligations in assessing and compensating work-related disabilities.

    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: Benhur Shipping Corporation vs. Alex Peñaredonda Riego, G.R. No. 229179, March 29, 2022

  • Overcoming the Presumption: Seafarer Disability Claims and Employer Responsibilities in the Philippines

    In the Philippines, seafarers who suffer injuries or illnesses during their employment are entitled to disability benefits if the condition is work-related. This ruling clarifies that while illnesses not explicitly listed as occupational may be presumed work-related, the seafarer must prove that their working conditions contributed to or aggravated their condition. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the POEA-SEC guidelines, especially regarding referrals to a third doctor in cases of conflicting medical opinions, to ensure fair resolution of disability claims.

    High Seas, Hidden Injuries: When is a Seafarer Entitled to Disability Benefits?

    This case revolves around Luisito C. Reyes, a Second Officer, who claimed total and permanent disability benefits from Jebsens Maritime, Inc. and Alfa Ship & Crew Management GMBH following a spinal injury sustained while working on board a vessel. Reyes argued that he slipped and fell, leading to a compression fracture. The company-designated physician declared him fit to work, while his personal physicians deemed him permanently unfit for sea duties. This discrepancy led to a legal battle that tested the application of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and the burden of proof in establishing work-relatedness and disability.

    The legal framework governing seafarer disability claims is primarily rooted in the POEA-SEC, which is integrated into every seafarer’s employment contract. Section 20(A) of the POEA-SEC stipulates that employers are liable for disability benefits when a seafarer suffers a work-related injury or illness during their contract. Additionally, illnesses not explicitly listed as occupational diseases are disputably presumed to be work-related, shifting the burden to the employer to prove otherwise. This presumption acknowledges the unique and often hazardous working conditions faced by seafarers.

    The Supreme Court, in analyzing the case, underscored the importance of the legal presumption of work-relatedness, stating that,

    “the presumption is made in the law to signify that the non-inclusion in the list of occupational diseases does not translate to an absolute exclusion from disability benefits.”

    This means that employers cannot simply dismiss a claim because the illness isn’t on a pre-approved list; they must actively demonstrate that the condition is unrelated to the seafarer’s work. The Court found that the respondents failed to adequately dispute the presumption of work-relatedness in Reyes’ case.

    However, the presumption of work-relatedness doesn’t automatically guarantee compensability. The seafarer must still demonstrate that their working conditions caused or increased the risk of their injury or illness. In Reyes’ case, his duties as a Second Officer included assisting in cargo handling, navigating the vessel in various conditions, and participating in mooring operations. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals’ observation that the physically demanding nature of this work aggravated Reyes’ underlying medical condition, leading to his spinal fracture.

    A critical aspect of seafarer disability claims is the medical assessment process. The POEA-SEC outlines a specific procedure for determining the extent of a seafarer’s disability. Within 120 days of repatriation (extendable to 240 days if needed), the company-designated physician must provide a final and definite assessment of the seafarer’s condition. If the seafarer disagrees with this assessment, they can consult a physician of their choice. In cases of conflicting medical opinions, the POEA-SEC mandates referral to a third, independent doctor jointly selected by both parties. The third doctor’s opinion is considered final and binding.

    In this instance, the company-designated physician declared Reyes fit to work, while his personal physicians concluded he was permanently disabled. The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the third-doctor referral process, citing jurisprudence that,

    “upon notification by the seafarer of his intention to refer the conflicting findings to a third doctor, the company carries the burden of initiating the process for referral to a third doctor commonly agreed upon between the parties.”

    The Court found that Reyes had indeed requested a third doctor, but the respondents refused, thus breaching the POEA-SEC requirements. Due to the respondents’ failure to comply with the mandatory referral procedure, the Court had to weigh the merits of the conflicting medical findings.

    The Court ultimately gave more weight to the medical report from Reyes’ physician, Dr. Magtira, which deemed him permanently disabled. The Court noted that while the company-designated physician deemed Reyes fit for work, their report also acknowledged episodes of numbness in the affected area. This, coupled with the fact that Reyes sought a second medical opinion shortly after his last treatment, supported the conclusion that he was unfit for sea duty. This decision underscores the principle of social justice, where doubts are resolved in favor of the laborer.

    Finally, Reyes also sought disability benefits under a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which provided a higher compensation amount than the POEA-SEC. However, the CBA provision required the injury to result from an accident. The Court found that Reyes failed to provide sufficient evidence of an accident occurring on board the vessel. Therefore, while he was not entitled to the higher benefits under the CBA, he was still entitled to the standard disability benefits under the POEA-SEC.

    The Court awarded Reyes $60,000.00 in permanent and total disability benefits, the maximum amount provided under the POEA-SEC. Additionally, the Court awarded attorney’s fees, recognizing the legal complexities and the need to protect the seafarer’s rights. The Court, however, denied moral and exemplary damages, finding no evidence of bad faith or malicious intent on the part of the respondents in providing medical treatment and sickness allowance.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the seafarer, Luisito C. Reyes, was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits following a spinal injury sustained during his employment. The court focused on whether the injury was work-related, and the proper procedure for resolving conflicting medical opinions.
    What is the POEA-SEC? The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) is a standard employment contract that governs the employment of Filipino seafarers on ocean-going vessels. It sets the minimum terms and conditions of employment, including provisions for disability benefits.
    What happens if the company doctor and my personal doctor disagree? If there is a disagreement between the company-designated physician and your personal physician, the POEA-SEC requires that both parties jointly agree on a third, independent doctor. The third doctor’s assessment will then be final and binding.
    Who is responsible for initiating the third doctor referral? While the seafarer must express their intent to seek a third opinion, the responsibility of initiating the referral process to a mutually agreed-upon third doctor rests with the company. Failure to do so can invalidate the company doctor’s assessment.
    What is the legal presumption of work-relatedness? The POEA-SEC states that any illness not listed as an occupational disease is disputably presumed to be work-related for seafarers. This means the employer must prove the illness is not connected to the seafarer’s work.
    What kind of evidence is needed to prove a work-related injury? While a direct causal link isn’t always required, the seafarer must provide reasonable proof that their working conditions contributed to or aggravated their injury or illness. This can include medical records, incident reports, and witness testimonies.
    What disability benefits am I entitled to under the POEA-SEC? Under the POEA-SEC, if a seafarer is assessed with a permanent and total disability, they are entitled to a benefit of US$60,000.00. This amount can vary based on the specific terms of the contract or any applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
    Can I claim benefits under both the POEA-SEC and a CBA? You may be able to claim benefits under both if the CBA provides more favorable terms than the POEA-SEC. However, you must meet the specific requirements outlined in the CBA, such as proving that the injury was caused by an accident.
    What is the significance of the 120/240-day rule? The company-designated physician has 120 days from the seafarer’s repatriation to provide a final medical assessment. This period can be extended to 240 days if further medical treatment is required. If no assessment is given within this timeframe, the seafarer’s condition may be considered permanent and total disability.

    This case illustrates the complexities involved in seafarer disability claims in the Philippines. It highlights the importance of understanding the POEA-SEC provisions, particularly the legal presumptions, the medical assessment process, and the mandatory third-doctor referral. Both seafarers and employers must be aware of their rights and responsibilities to ensure a fair and just resolution 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: LUISITO C. REYES v. JEBSENS MARITIME, INC., G.R. No. 230502, February 15, 2022

  • 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

  • The Unsigned Assessment: Seafarer Entitled to Disability Benefits Despite ‘Fitness’ Certification

    In Avior Marine, Inc. v. Turreda, the Supreme Court affirmed that a seafarer, Arnaldo R. Turreda, was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits due to an incomplete and questionable medical assessment by the company-designated physician. The court emphasized the importance of a final, definitive, and scientifically supported disability assessment to protect seafarers’ rights, especially when their health conditions are uncertain. This ruling underscores the legal responsibility of employers to ensure thorough and unbiased medical evaluations, and to actively participate in resolving disputes regarding a seafarer’s fitness for duty.

    Navigating Murky Waters: Can a Hasty ‘Fit to Work’ Certification Sink a Seafarer’s Disability Claim?

    Arnaldo R. Turreda, a Chief Cook employed by Avior Marine, Inc., experienced severe headaches while aboard the vessel Water Phoenix. After being repatriated due to his condition, he underwent medical examinations by the company-designated physician. While initially diagnosed with several health issues, including hypertension and heart-related conditions, he was abruptly declared fit to work just three weeks later. Concerned about his persistent symptoms, Turreda sought a second opinion from his own doctor, who deemed him unfit for sea duty. This divergence in medical opinions led to a legal battle over Turreda’s entitlement to disability benefits, with the core question being whether the company-designated physician’s assessment was sufficient to deny his claim.

    The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) governs the rights and obligations of seafarers and their employers. According to the POEA-SEC, a work-related illness is defined 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.” This definition highlights the importance of determining whether a seafarer’s illness is linked to their work environment and conditions.

    Notably, the Supreme Court has previously recognized hypertensive cardiovascular disease as an occupational disease under certain circumstances, as elucidated in Bautista v. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc., et al. The Court stipulated that for a seafarer to claim compensation for hypertensive cardiovascular disease, they must demonstrate that the disease was contracted under specific conditions, such as an acute exacerbation due to unusual strain from their work or the onset of symptoms during work performance. In this case, Avior Marine argued that Turreda’s illness was merely a simple migraine, not a work-related condition. However, the Court found compelling evidence suggesting otherwise.

    The court noted that the prompt repatriation and subsequent medical tests conducted by the company-designated physician indicated a more serious underlying condition than a simple migraine. The fact that Turreda was prescribed medications for high blood pressure and underwent cardiac evaluations suggested that he was indeed suffering from hypertensive cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Turreda had been declared fit for sea duty prior to his employment, implying that his cardiovascular issues arose during his time aboard the Water Phoenix. This aligns with the POEA-SEC provision recognizing a causal relationship between the disease and the seafarer’s job when symptoms manifest during employment.

    “A party in whose favor the legal presumption exists may rely on and invoke such legal presumption to establish a fact in issue. The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created thereby which, if no contrary proof is offered, will prevail.”, Bautista v. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc. et al. In disability claims, the POEA-SEC outlines a specific procedure for resolving disputes regarding medical assessments. If the seafarer’s doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, the parties may jointly agree to consult a third doctor, whose decision shall be final and binding. This process ensures an impartial resolution based on expert medical opinion.

    The case of INC Navigation Co. Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Rosales, clarifies that the burden of initiating the third doctor provision lies with the company once the seafarer challenges the company doctor’s assessment. The Court emphasized that the company must actively respond by setting into motion the process of choosing a third doctor. In Ilustricino v. NYK-FIL Ship Management, Inc., et al., the Court further underscored the importance of the employer’s response to the seafarer’s request for a third-doctor referral. The court highlighted that the burden to refer the case to a third doctor shifts to the respondents upon being notified of the petitioner’s intent to dispute the company doctors’ findings.

    In Turreda’s case, he notified Avior Marine of the conflicting medical assessments and requested a third-doctor referral, but the company failed to initiate the process. While Avior Marine argued that the request was made after the case had already been filed, the Court clarified that the POEA-SEC does not specify a timeframe for seeking a third opinion, allowing it even during labor tribunal proceedings. Since no third doctor was appointed, the Court proceeded to evaluate the medical reports, emphasizing the importance of a final, complete, and definitive disability assessment. To be conclusive, the medical assessment or report of the company-designated physician should be complete and definite to provide the appropriate disability benefits to seafarers.

    The court found the company-designated physician’s assessment to be lacking in several respects. First, the physician issued a certificate of fitness to work just three weeks after advising Turreda to continue medication for high blood pressure and related conditions. Second, the assessment lacked supporting documentation, such as laboratory results and specialist reports. Third, the medical reports were unsigned, further casting doubt on their validity. Clear bias on the part of the company-designated physician may be shown if there is no scientific relation between the diagnosis and the symptoms felt by the seafarer, or if the final assessment of the company-designated physician is not supported by the medical records of the seafarer.

    Because of the incomplete, questionable, and unsubstantiated nature of the company-designated physician’s assessment, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that Turreda was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. This case reinforces the importance of a thorough and unbiased medical evaluation in determining a seafarer’s fitness for duty and entitlement to disability benefits. The court emphasized that employers must ensure that medical assessments are complete, definitive, and supported by sufficient medical evidence.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the company-designated physician’s assessment was sufficient to deny the seafarer’s claim for total and permanent disability benefits, considering the incomplete and questionable nature of the assessment.
    What is a work-related illness under the POEA-SEC? A work-related illness is any sickness resulting in disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, provided the conditions set therein are satisfied. This definition requires a clear link between the illness and the seafarer’s work.
    Under what conditions is hypertensive cardiovascular disease considered an occupational disease for seafarers? Hypertensive cardiovascular disease is considered an occupational disease if it was known to be present during employment and an acute exacerbation was clearly precipitated by the unusual strain of the seafarer’s work, the strain of work brought about an acute attack followed within 24 hours by clinical signs, or if a person was asymptomatic before work and showed signs during work.
    What happens when the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s doctor disagree on the medical assessment? The POEA-SEC provides that a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer, and the third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties. The burden of initiating the third doctor provision lies with the company once the seafarer challenges the company doctor’s assessment.
    What are the requirements for a valid disability assessment by the company-designated physician? A valid disability assessment must be final, complete, and definitive, reflecting the true extent of the seafarer’s illness or injuries and their capacity to resume sea duties. It must also be supported by sufficient medical evidence and free from bias.
    What happens if the company fails to initiate the process of choosing a third doctor? If the company fails to initiate the process of choosing a third doctor after being notified of the disagreement, the assessment of the company-designated physician is not binding. The court will then evaluate the medical reports and evidence presented by both parties.
    Why was the company-designated physician’s assessment in this case considered insufficient? The assessment was considered insufficient because it was issued hastily, lacked supporting documentation, and was unsigned, raising concerns about its validity and completeness. The physician also certified Turreda as fit to work despite ongoing health issues and medication.
    What is the significance of a seafarer being declared fit for duty during the pre-employment medical examination? If a seafarer is declared fit for duty during the pre-employment medical examination, it creates a presumption that any subsequent illness developed during employment is work-related. The burden then shifts to the employer to prove otherwise.

    This case demonstrates the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting the rights of seafarers and ensuring fair and thorough medical evaluations in disability claims. The ruling emphasizes the importance of employers fulfilling their obligations under the POEA-SEC and acting in good faith when assessing a seafarer’s fitness for duty.

    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: AVIOR MARINE, INC. VS. ARNALDO R. TURREDA, G.R. No. 250806, September 29, 2021

  • Seafarer’s Disability: The Imperative of Timely Medical Assessments in Maritime Employment

    In Hartman Crew Phils. v. Acabado, the Supreme Court addressed the rights of seafarers to disability benefits, emphasizing the importance of timely and definitive medical assessments by company-designated physicians. The Court ruled that if a company-designated physician fails to provide a final disability assessment within the 120 or 240-day period, the seafarer’s disability is conclusively presumed to be permanent and total, entitling them to maximum benefits. This ruling underscores the stringent requirements placed on employers to ensure prompt and accurate medical evaluations, protecting the rights of seafarers injured or who become ill while on duty.

    Navigating the High Seas of Healthcare: When a Seafarer’s Claim Sails or Sinks on Timely Medical Assessments

    Randy Acabado, a Wiper employed by Hartman Crew Philippines and Sea Giant Shipmanagement Ltd., suffered knee injuries while working aboard a vessel. Upon repatriation, he was examined by a company-designated physician, Dr. Alegre, who initially assessed a Grade 10 disability. However, Acabado sought additional medical opinions that suggested a more severe condition. The central legal question arose when the company-designated physician failed to issue a final and definitive disability assessment within the prescribed 120 or 240-day period stipulated under the POEA-SEC. This failure triggered a dispute over Acabado’s entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits.

    The case hinges on the interpretation and application of the 120/240-day rule, crucial in determining a seafarer’s eligibility for disability benefits. The entitlement to disability benefits for seafarers is governed by the Labor Code, its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), the POEA-SEC, and established jurisprudence. The POEA-SEC outlines specific procedures and timelines for assessing a seafarer’s disability, emphasizing the role of the company-designated physician in providing a timely and accurate medical evaluation. This framework aims to protect seafarers from potential exploitation while ensuring fair compensation for work-related injuries or illnesses.

    The Supreme Court, in line with previous rulings, reiterated the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines for medical assessments. The Court referenced the Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc., et al. v. Quiogue ruling, which clearly defines the obligations of the company-designated physician. The Elburg ruling stipulates that:

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

    If the physician fails to provide an assessment within this period, the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total. However, if there is a justifiable reason for the delay, such as the need for further medical treatment, the period may be extended to 240 days. The employer bears the burden of proving that the extension is justified. Even within the extended period, failure to provide a final assessment results in the seafarer’s disability being deemed permanent and total, regardless of any justification.

    The court emphasized that the company-designated physician’s assessment must be final and definitive, clearly stating the seafarer’s disability grading. An interim assessment, where further treatment or rehabilitation is required, does not meet the legal standard. The absence of a definitive declaration regarding the seafarer’s capacity to return to work, or a categorical degree of disability, renders the assessment insufficient.

    In this case, the petitioners argued that Dr. Alegre’s assessment on January 16, 2016, corresponded to a Grade 10 disability. However, the Court scrutinized the medical reports and found that they lacked the finality required by law. The reports indicated that Acabado was still undergoing physical therapy and advised to return for follow-up appointments, therefore showing a non-definitive rating.

    The implications of failing to issue a final assessment within the prescribed period are significant. As the court highlighted, the referral to a third doctor, as outlined in Section 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, is contingent upon the company-designated physician providing a valid, final, and definite assessment within the 120/240-day period. Without this initial assessment, the seafarer is not obligated to seek a third opinion and is considered permanently disabled by operation of law. This legal principle protects seafarers from undue delays and ensures that they receive timely compensation for their disabilities.

    Building on this principle, the Supreme Court found that Hartman Crew Phils. and Sea Giant Shipmanagement Ltd. failed to demonstrate that Dr. Alegre provided a final and definitive medical assessment within the allowable timeframe. Consequently, Acabado’s disability was deemed permanent and total upon the lapse of the 240-day period. The Court upheld the CA’s decision to award Acabado US$60,000.00 in permanent total disability benefits. This ruling reinforces the importance of strict compliance with the POEA-SEC regulations and the timelines set forth for medical assessments.

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees to Acabado. Article 2208 of the Civil Code justifies the award of attorney’s fees when a party is compelled to litigate to protect their interests. In this case, Acabado was forced to pursue legal action to secure his disability benefits, making the award of attorney’s fees appropriate. This aspect of the ruling serves as a reminder that employers who fail to meet their obligations may be liable for additional costs incurred by the seafarer in pursuing their rightful claims.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the seafarer was entitled to permanent total disability benefits due to the failure of the company-designated physician to issue a final and definitive medical assessment within the prescribed 120 or 240-day period.
    What is the 120/240-day rule? The 120/240-day rule refers to the period within which a company-designated physician must issue a final and definitive assessment of a seafarer’s disability. The initial period is 120 days, which can be extended to 240 days if there is a justifiable reason for the delay.
    What happens if the company-designated physician fails to issue an assessment within the 120/240-day period? If the company-designated physician fails to issue a final assessment within the 120/240-day period, the seafarer’s disability is conclusively presumed to be permanent and total, entitling them to disability benefits.
    What constitutes a final and definitive assessment? A final and definitive assessment must clearly state the seafarer’s disability grading and their capacity to return to work. Interim assessments or recommendations for continued treatment do not meet this requirement.
    Is the seafarer required to seek a third doctor’s opinion if the company-designated physician fails to issue a timely assessment? No, the seafarer is not required to seek a third doctor’s opinion if the company-designated physician fails to issue a final assessment within the 120/240-day period. The seafarer is considered permanently disabled by operation of law.
    What is the basis for awarding attorney’s fees in this case? Attorney’s fees are awarded because the seafarer was compelled to litigate to protect their interests and secure their disability benefits, as justified under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.
    What is the significance of the Elburg ruling in this case? The Elburg ruling provides a clear framework for the obligations of the company-designated physician and the consequences of failing to meet the prescribed timelines for medical assessments.
    What type of disability benefits was the seafarer awarded in this case? The seafarer was awarded US$60,000.00 in permanent total disability benefits, reflecting the maximum compensation available under the POEA-SEC for total and permanent disability.

    The Hartman Crew Phils. v. Acabado case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of strict adherence to the POEA-SEC regulations regarding medical assessments for seafarers. Employers must ensure that company-designated physicians provide timely and definitive evaluations to avoid potential liability for permanent total disability benefits. The ruling reinforces the protection afforded to seafarers, recognizing their vulnerability and the need for fair compensation when work-related injuries or illnesses occur.

    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: Hartman Crew Phils. v. Acabado, G.R. No. 249567, September 29, 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

  • Seafarer’s Disability Claim: Premature Filing and Abandonment of Treatment

    In Crown Shipping Services vs. John P. Cervas, the Supreme Court ruled that a seafarer who prematurely files a disability claim and abandons medical treatment with the company-designated physician is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed periods for medical assessment and treatment, as outlined in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). This decision underscores the seafarer’s duty to comply with the company’s medical protocols to properly determine the extent of their disability and eligibility for compensation, balancing the rights and obligations of both the employer and the employee in maritime employment.

    High Seas Injury: Was the Seafarer’s Claim Shipshape?

    The case revolves around John P. Cervas, an Able Seaman employed by Carisbrooke Shipping Ltd. through its local manning agent, Crown Shipping Services. On December 20, 2012, Cervas sustained a left leg injury during a lifeboat drill amidst rough seas. Upon repatriation, he was examined by the company-designated physician, Dr. Carlos Lagman, who diagnosed him with a fibular fracture and declared him unfit to work. Cervas attended medical treatments, and although the company doctor confirmed that the bone was growing, he still felt some tenderness. However, Cervas discontinued treatment and filed a claim for total and permanent disability benefits. This led to a legal battle concerning the timeliness of his claim and the impact of his decision to halt medical treatment before a final assessment could be made.

    The central legal question is whether Cervas was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, considering he prematurely filed his claim before the 120-day period for the company-designated physician to issue a final assessment had lapsed, and given that he discontinued medical treatment. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed Cervas’ complaint, citing his premature filing and abandonment of treatment. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, granting Cervas total permanent disability benefits. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC’s ruling, prompting the employer to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized that while labor tribunals possess expertise in resolving factual issues, the Court may re-examine facts in cases of conflicting findings. The Court underscored that for an injury and resulting disability to be compensable, they must necessarily result from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The Court agreed that Cervas’ injury was sustained while performing his duties as a seaman. Therefore, in general, this injury should be compensable.

    The Court then clarified the responsibilities and timelines outlined in Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC. This section stipulates that the company-designated physician has 120 days from repatriation to provide a definitive assessment of the seafarer’s fitness or degree of disability. This period may be extended to a maximum of 240 days if further medical attention is required, with the employer having the right to declare the existence of a permanent partial or total disability within this extended period.

    The Court outlined four critical rules regarding the company-designated physician’s duty:

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

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

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

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

    In this case, the Court found that Cervas filed his claim prematurely, on the 99th day after consulting the company-designated physician, well before the 120-day assessment period had expired. By discontinuing treatment due to financial constraints, Cervas prevented the physician from completing the assessment. The Court emphasized that under Section 20(D) of the POEA-SEC, a seafarer’s intentional breach of duties, such as abandoning medical treatment, can result in the forfeiture of disability benefits.

    The Supreme Court highlighted the seafarer’s duty to comply with the medical treatment prescribed by the company-designated physician. This is because the company-designated physician needs all the help, data, and medical visits to be able to make a final, definitive assessment. Cervas abandoned the process before the 120-day period expired. However, the Court also noted that a seafarer’s financial incapacity to continue treatment may be a valid justification, provided it is supported by clear and convincing evidence. In this instance, Cervas failed to adequately demonstrate his financial incapacity, especially considering the availability of sickness allowance and potential reimbursement for travel and accommodation expenses under the POEA-SEC.

    While the Court acknowledged the importance of a seafarer’s inability to work for more than 120 days in determining entitlement to permanent disability benefits, it stressed that this determination must still occur within the established 120/240-day framework. Cervas failed to provide substantial proof that his injury rendered him unable to work for more than 120 days, nor did he present medical reports from independent physicians to support his claim of permanent disability. Consequently, the Court found Cervas’ claim for total and permanent disability benefits unsubstantiated.

    Despite ruling against the disability claim, the Supreme Court recognized Cervas’s plight and the injury he sustained during his employment. In a gesture of social and compassionate justice, the Court awarded Cervas P200,000.00 as financial assistance. This decision reflects the Court’s attempt to balance the interests of both the employer and the worker, acknowledging the seafarer’s injury while upholding the importance of adhering to contractual and procedural requirements.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a seafarer was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits after prematurely filing a claim and abandoning medical treatment with the company-designated physician.
    What is the 120/240-day rule for seafarer disability claims? The company-designated physician has 120 days from the seafarer’s repatriation to issue a final assessment. This period can be extended to 240 days if further medical treatment is needed.
    What happens if the company-designated physician fails to provide an assessment within the 120/240-day period? If no assessment is provided within the 120-day period without justification, the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total. If justified, the period extends to 240 days; failure to assess within this extended period also results in a permanent and total disability.
    What constitutes medical abandonment by a seafarer? Medical abandonment occurs when a seafarer fails to complete their medical treatment within the 240-day period, preventing the company physician from issuing a final assessment.
    What is the effect of medical abandonment on a seafarer’s disability claim? Medical abandonment can lead to the forfeiture of the seafarer’s right to claim disability benefits, as it is considered an intentional breach of their duties.
    What kind of proof is needed if a seafarer claims financial incapacity to continue treatment? A seafarer must provide clear and convincing evidence of financial incapacity, especially if the manning agency has been providing sickness allowance during the treatment period.
    Are seafarers entitled to reimbursement for travel and accommodation expenses during treatment? Yes, if the treatment is on an out-patient basis, the company should approve the mode of transportation and accommodation, and the seafarer is entitled to reimbursement upon liquidation and submission of receipts.
    What was the outcome of this case? The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, denying the seafarer’s claim for total and permanent disability benefits but awarding him P200,000.00 as financial assistance.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Crown Shipping Services vs. John P. Cervas highlights the importance of adhering to the established procedures and timelines for seafarer disability claims. While the Court acknowledged the seafarer’s injury, it emphasized the need for compliance with medical treatment and assessment protocols to ensure a fair and accurate determination of disability benefits.

    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: Crown Shipping Services vs. John P. Cervas, G.R. No. 214290, July 06, 2021

  • Navigating Seafarer Disability Claims: Understanding Work-Related Illnesses and Compensation Rights

    Key Takeaway: Seafarers can claim disability benefits for work-related illnesses even if not listed in standard employment contracts

    Resurreccion v. Southfield Agencies, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 250085, June 14, 2021

    The life of a seafarer is fraught with challenges, both physical and emotional. Imagine being far from home, navigating the unpredictable seas, and suddenly facing a health crisis that could end your career. This is the reality that Julie Fuentes Resurreccion faced when he was diagnosed with Liver Cirrhosis while working as a Third Engineer. His case, which reached the Supreme Court of the Philippines, highlights the critical issue of whether non-listed illnesses in seafarer employment contracts are compensable as work-related disabilities. The central question was whether Resurreccion’s liver condition, which developed during his service, qualified him for total and permanent disability benefits.

    Legal Context: Understanding Seafarer Disability and Compensation

    Seafarer disability claims are governed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), which outlines the rights and obligations of both seafarers and their employers. Under Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, for a disability to be compensable, it must be work-related and occur during the term of the employment contract. Work-related illness is defined as any sickness resulting from an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, provided the conditions therein are satisfied. For illnesses not listed, Section 20(A)(4) creates a disputable presumption of work-relatedness in favor of the seafarer.

    Key legal terms include:

    • Work-related illness: An illness resulting from an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, with the conditions set therein satisfied.
    • Compensability: The entitlement to receive compensation and benefits upon a showing that the seafarer’s work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease.

    Consider a seafarer who works in the engine room, exposed to harmful chemicals and extreme conditions. If they develop a respiratory condition, the POEA-SEC’s provisions could be crucial in determining whether their illness is compensable. The law states:

    “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.”

    Case Breakdown: The Journey of Julie Fuentes Resurreccion

    Julie Fuentes Resurreccion’s career as a Third Engineer began in 2009 with Southfield Agencies, Inc. and Brightnight Shipping & Investment Ltd. Over nearly seven years, he served on multiple contracts, demonstrating his dedication and skill. However, in March 2015, during his eighth contract, Resurreccion faced his first medical crisis when he was diagnosed with Obstructive Jaundice Secondary to Choledocholithiasis. He underwent treatment and was deemed fit to return to work after eight months.

    Resurreccion’s troubles resurfaced in November 2015 when he was redeployed. Just a few months into his new contract, he began experiencing symptoms of jaundice again, leading to his medical repatriation in February 2016. Diagnosed with Liver Cirrhosis, the company-designated physician assessed his condition as not work-related. However, an independent physician, Dr. Radentor R. Viernes, found otherwise, stating that Resurreccion’s illness was work-related and had rendered him permanently unfit for work.

    The legal battle began when Resurreccion filed a complaint against his employers for total and permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, and damages. The case traversed through the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and the Court of Appeals (CA), each level denying his claim based on the lack of a direct causal link between his work and his illness.

    The Supreme Court, however, overturned these decisions, ruling in favor of Resurreccion. The Court emphasized that:

    “It is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and only reason for the illness suffered by the seafarer. It is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his/her work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his/her work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he/she might have had.”

    The Court also noted that:

    “The company-designated physician failed to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification, and thus, the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total.”

    The procedural steps included:

    1. Resurreccion filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter.
    2. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but awarded financial assistance.
    3. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
    4. The Court of Appeals upheld the NLRC’s ruling.
    5. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the lower courts’ decisions.

    Practical Implications: Navigating Future Claims

    This ruling sets a precedent that can significantly impact future seafarer disability claims. It underscores the importance of the 120-day assessment period by company-designated physicians and the presumption of work-relatedness for non-listed illnesses. Seafarers and their employers must be aware of these legal nuances to ensure fair treatment and compensation.

    For businesses, it’s crucial to:

    • Ensure timely and thorough medical assessments by company-designated physicians.
    • Understand the legal presumption of work-relatedness for non-listed illnesses.
    • Prepare for potential claims by maintaining comprehensive records of seafarers’ health and work conditions.

    Key Lessons:

    • Seafarers should seek independent medical assessments if they disagree with company-designated physicians.
    • Employers must adhere to the 120-day assessment period to avoid automatic permanent disability classification.
    • Both parties should be prepared for legal proceedings, as the burden of proof can shift based on the nature of the illness and the timeliness of assessments.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What qualifies as a work-related illness for seafarers?

    A work-related illness is any sickness resulting from an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, with the conditions set therein satisfied. For non-listed illnesses, there is a disputable presumption of work-relatedness.

    How long does the company-designated physician have to assess a seafarer’s disability?

    The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment within 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him. If this period is extended without justifiable reason, the seafarer’s disability may be considered permanent and total.

    Can a seafarer claim disability benefits if their illness is not listed in the POEA-SEC?

    Yes, under Section 20(A)(4) of the POEA-SEC, there is a disputable presumption of work-relatedness for non-listed illnesses, which the employer must overcome with substantial evidence.

    What should seafarers do if they disagree with the company-designated physician’s assessment?

    Seafarers should seek an independent medical assessment and present this as evidence in their claim for disability benefits.

    How can employers protect themselves from disability claims?

    Employers should ensure timely medical assessments, maintain detailed records of seafarers’ health and work conditions, and be prepared to present substantial evidence if they dispute the work-relatedness of an illness.

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