ASG Law

Tag: Third Doctor Assessment

  • Navigating Seafarer Disability Benefits: Understanding the 120/240-Day Rule and Third Doctor Assessment

    The Importance of Timely and Proper Disability Assessment for Seafarers

    Esplago v. Naess Shipping Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 238652, June 21, 2021

    Imagine a seafarer who, after years of braving the open seas, suffers a debilitating injury that threatens his livelihood. The journey to recovery is fraught with medical assessments, legal battles, and the looming uncertainty of financial stability. This is the reality for many seafarers, as illustrated by the case of Juan S. Esplago, who sought disability benefits after a boiler room incident left him with severe vision impairment. The central legal question in his case was whether he was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits, given the disagreement between his private physician and the company-designated doctor.

    Esplago’s case underscores the critical need for clear guidelines on disability assessments for seafarers, particularly the 120/240-day rule and the requirement for a third doctor’s assessment in cases of conflicting medical opinions.

    Understanding the Legal Framework for Seafarer Disability Benefits

    The rights of seafarers to disability benefits are governed by a complex interplay of laws and regulations, including the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), the Labor Code, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). These legal instruments aim to protect seafarers while also ensuring fairness for employers.

    Permanent disability is defined as the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days (or 240 days, as the case may be), regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body. Total disability, on the other hand, refers to the disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work or similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform.

    The POEA-SEC sets out a detailed schedule of disability or impediment for injuries, diseases, or illnesses that a seafarer may suffer or contract during employment. Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC outlines the employer’s liabilities when a seafarer suffers a work-related injury or illness, including the provision of medical attention and sickness allowance until the seafarer is declared fit to work or the degree of disability is established.

    The 120/240-day rule is a crucial aspect of this framework. According to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc., 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 the physician fails to do so without justifiable reason, the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total. However, if the seafarer requires further medical treatment or is uncooperative, the period may be extended to 240 days, subject to the employer’s right to declare a permanent disability within this period.

    The Journey of Juan S. Esplago: From Injury to Legal Battle

    Juan S. Esplago was employed as a motorman on the vessel “Arabiyah” when, on October 11, 2011, he was exposed to excessive smoke in the engine boiler room, leading to severe eye irritation. Initially, Esplago thought it was a minor issue, but his vision deteriorated, leading to a diagnosis of cataracts in both eyes.

    Upon repatriation, Esplago sought treatment and underwent surgery on his left eye on January 6, 2012. Despite continuous treatment and the fitting of prescription lenses, his condition did not improve to his satisfaction. He consulted a private physician, Dr. Gina Abesamis Tan-Perez, who assessed him as unfit to work due to the unoperated right eye.

    The disagreement between Esplago’s private physician and the company-designated physician, Dr. Robert D. Lim, led to a legal battle. The company argued that Esplago’s condition was age-related and not work-related, and that he was declared fit to resume sea duties on May 7, 2012, within the 240-day period. Esplago, however, claimed that the delay in his disability assessment should entitle him to total and permanent disability benefits.

    The case proceeded through various labor tribunals, with the Labor Arbiter initially awarding Esplago total and permanent disability benefits. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, citing Esplago’s failure to comply with the POEA-SEC rule on referral to a third doctor in case of conflicting medical assessments.

    The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing the importance of the third doctor’s assessment:

    “In a plethora of cases involving claims for disability benefits, the Court has consistently recognized and repeatedly upheld the right of a seafarer to consult with a physician of his choice… However, in the event that the findings of the company-designated physician is in conflict with the findings of the seafarer’s private physician, both parties must come to an agreement and consult with a third doctor or physician in order to validate the claim for permanent and total disability benefits.”

    The Court also highlighted the significance of the 240-day extended period, noting that Esplago’s continuous treatment and surgery justified the extension:

    “Here, the boiler room incident which was the proximate cause of the injury and petitioner’s untimely repatriation, transpired on October 11, 2011… Although the records show that more than six (6) months have lapsed from the time of his repatriation (to receive medical treatment) until May 7, 2012 when the company-designated physician declared him fit to resume sea duties, the continuous treatment he received, coupled with the surgery performed on his left eye, sufficiently warrants the application of the 240-day extended period.”

    Practical Implications and Key Lessons for Seafarers and Employers

    The Esplago case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements set out in the POEA-SEC, particularly the 120/240-day rule and the third doctor assessment. Seafarers must be proactive in seeking medical attention and documenting their treatment, while employers must ensure that their designated physicians provide timely and justified assessments.

    Key Lessons:

    • Seafarers should report to the company-designated physician within three days of repatriation and comply with all medical follow-ups to ensure eligibility for benefits.
    • If there is a disagreement between the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s private physician, both parties must agree to consult a third doctor to resolve the conflict.
    • Employers must justify any extension of the 120-day period to 240 days with evidence of ongoing medical treatment or the seafarer’s uncooperativeness.
    • Seafarers should be aware that failure to comply with the POEA-SEC procedures can result in the denial of disability benefits.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is the 120/240-day rule for seafarers?

    The 120/240-day rule specifies that the company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer’s disability within 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him. If the physician fails to do so without justifiable reason, the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total. The period can be extended to 240 days if further medical treatment is required or the seafarer is uncooperative.

    What happens if the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s private physician have conflicting assessments?

    In case of conflicting assessments, both parties must agree to consult a third doctor whose decision will be final and binding. Failure to do so can result in the denial of disability benefits.

    Can a seafarer be declared fit to work after the 120-day period?

    Yes, a seafarer can be declared fit to work at any time during the 120-day period or the extended 240-day period if their medical condition justifies such a declaration.

    What should seafarers do to ensure they receive their disability benefits?

    Seafarers should report to the company-designated physician promptly, comply with all medical follow-ups, and seek a third doctor’s assessment if there is a disagreement with the company’s physician.

    How can employers protect themselves from unjust disability claims?

    Employers should ensure that their designated physicians provide timely and justified assessments and document any extensions of the 120-day period with evidence of ongoing medical treatment or the seafarer’s uncooperativeness.

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

  • Navigating Disability Claims: Understanding the Importance of Timely Medical Assessments for Seafarers

    Timely Medical Assessments Are Crucial for Seafarers Seeking Disability Benefits

    Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc., et al. v. Gatchalian, Jr., G.R. No. 207507, February 17, 2021

    Imagine you’re a seafarer, miles away from home, when an accident leaves you injured and unable to work. Your future hinges on a medical assessment that will determine whether you receive the disability benefits you need. This is the reality for many seafarers, and the Supreme Court of the Philippines recently clarified the critical role of timely medical assessments in their case against Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. The central question was whether a seafarer, Jose Gatchalian, Jr., was entitled to disability benefits after a knee injury sustained on board a ship.

    In this case, Gatchalian suffered a knee injury while working as a Chief Cook on a vessel. After undergoing treatment and being declared fit to work by the company-designated doctor, he later sought disability benefits based on a different medical assessment. The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements set forth in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) for seafarers seeking disability benefits.

    Understanding the Legal Framework for Seafarer Disability Claims

    The legal landscape governing seafarer disability claims in the Philippines is primarily defined by the POEA-SEC, a contract that outlines the rights and obligations of seafarers and their employers. Key provisions include Articles 197 to 199 of the Labor Code, which deal with disability benefits, and Section 20-B of the POEA-SEC, which details the process for claiming disability benefits.

    Disability benefits refer to financial compensation provided to seafarers who suffer work-related injuries or illnesses that result in disability. The POEA-SEC stipulates that a seafarer must report to a company-designated physician within three days of returning from a voyage for a medical assessment. This assessment is crucial as it determines whether the seafarer is fit to work or eligible for disability benefits.

    Section 20-B of the POEA-SEC states that if the seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, they may seek a second opinion. In case of a disagreement between the two assessments, a third doctor, mutually agreed upon by both parties, must be consulted, and their decision is final and binding. This process ensures a fair and objective evaluation of the seafarer’s condition.

    For example, if a seafarer suffers a back injury while working on a ship, they must undergo a medical assessment upon returning home. If the company doctor declares them fit to work, but the seafarer feels otherwise, they can consult their own doctor. If the assessments differ, a third doctor’s evaluation will determine the final outcome.

    Jose Gatchalian, Jr.’s Journey Through the Courts

    Jose Gatchalian, Jr., a seasoned Chief Cook, had been working for Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. and its principal, Doehle (IOM) Ltd., since 2002. In December 2006, he suffered a severe knee injury while on board the M/V Independent Endeavor. After receiving medical treatment in Belgium and being repatriated to the Philippines, Gatchalian underwent further treatment and therapy under the care of company-designated doctors.

    On February 14, 2007, the company-designated doctor declared Gatchalian fit to work, within the 120-day period prescribed by the POEA-SEC. However, nearly two years later, in February 2009, Gatchalian filed a complaint for disability benefits, supported by a medical certificate from his own doctor, Dr. Angel Chua, diagnosing him with traumatic arthritis and assessing him with permanent partial disability.

    The case progressed through the labor tribunals, with the Labor Arbiter initially dismissing Gatchalian’s claim, finding the company-designated doctor’s assessment more credible. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed it, granting Gatchalian permanent total disability benefits.

    The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the CA’s ruling. The Court emphasized that Gatchalian did not comply with the mandatory procedure of seeking a second opinion and referring the dispute to a third doctor before filing his complaint. The Court noted:

    “He did not timely secure and disclose to petitioners the contrary assessment of his doctor, and signify his intention to refer the dispute to a third doctor.”

    The Court also highlighted the importance of the company-designated doctor’s assessment, stating:

    “In this regard, it is the company-designated doctor’s findings that should prevail as he is equipped with the proper discernment, knowledge, experience, and expertise on what constitutes total or partial disability.”

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court reinstated the NLRC’s decision, denying Gatchalian’s claim for disability benefits due to his failure to follow the required procedure.

    Implications for Future Seafarer Disability Claims

    This ruling has significant implications for seafarers and their employers. It reinforces the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements of the POEA-SEC, particularly the timely reporting to a company-designated physician and the mandatory referral to a third doctor in case of a dispute.

    For seafarers, this decision underscores the need to act promptly and follow the prescribed procedures when seeking disability benefits. Delaying the process or failing to consult a second doctor before filing a complaint can jeopardize their claim. Employers, on the other hand, must ensure that they provide adequate medical care and follow the POEA-SEC guidelines to avoid disputes and potential liabilities.

    Key Lessons:

    • Seafarers must report to a company-designated physician within three days of returning from a voyage to initiate the disability assessment process.
    • If a seafarer disagrees with the company-designated doctor’s assessment, they must seek a second opinion and, if necessary, refer the dispute to a third doctor.
    • Failure to comply with these procedures can result in the forfeiture of disability benefits.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What should a seafarer do immediately after returning from a voyage with an injury?

    A seafarer should report to a company-designated physician within three days of their return to initiate the medical assessment process for disability benefits.

    Can a seafarer seek a second medical opinion if they disagree with the company-designated doctor’s assessment?

    Yes, a seafarer can consult a doctor of their choice. If the assessments differ, the dispute must be referred to a third doctor, whose decision is final and binding.

    What happens if a seafarer fails to follow the POEA-SEC procedures for disability claims?

    Failure to comply with the mandatory procedures can result in the forfeiture of the right to claim disability benefits.

    How long does a seafarer have to file a disability claim after being declared fit to work?

    A seafarer should file a claim promptly if they believe they are still disabled. Delaying the claim, especially without a second medical opinion, can weaken their case.

    Can a seafarer’s non-reemployment be used as evidence of disability?

    No, the Supreme Court has ruled that non-reemployment by the same employer does not necessarily indicate that a seafarer is disabled.

    ASG Law specializes in labor and employment law for seafarers. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation and ensure your rights are protected.

  • Navigating Seafarer Disability Claims: Understanding the POEA-SEC Procedure

    The Importance of Following POEA-SEC Procedures in Seafarer Disability Claims

    Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. and/or Industria Armamento Meridionale and/or Capt. Amador P. Servillon v. Roger P. Solacito, G.R. No. 217431, February 19, 2020

    Imagine a seafarer, far from home, who suddenly faces a debilitating injury that threatens his livelihood. The journey to secure disability benefits is fraught with legal complexities, as illustrated in the case of Roger P. Solacito. This case underscores the critical importance of adhering to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) procedures when seafarers seek disability benefits.

    Roger P. Solacito, an able seaman, was employed by Pacific Ocean Manning, Inc. to work on the M/V Eurocardo Salerno. While on duty, he suffered from a painful ear infection that led to his medical repatriation. Solacito’s subsequent claim for total and permanent disability benefits sparked a legal battle that traversed various levels of the Philippine judicial system, highlighting the intricacies of seafarer disability claims.

    Legal Context: Understanding the POEA-SEC and Disability Assessments

    The POEA-SEC is a crucial document governing the rights and obligations of Filipino seafarers and their employers. It outlines specific procedures for assessing and claiming disability benefits, which are essential for seafarers to understand and follow.

    Under the POEA-SEC, when a seafarer suffers a work-related injury or illness, they are entitled to a medical assessment by a company-designated physician. This assessment must be timely and state the seafarer’s fitness to work or the degree of disability. If the seafarer disagrees with this assessment, they can consult their own doctor. Should the assessments conflict, a third doctor, jointly chosen by the employer and the seafarer, will make a final and binding decision.

    Key provisions of the POEA-SEC relevant to this case include:

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

    This provision sets the timeline within which the company-designated physician must assess the seafarer’s condition. Failure to comply with these procedures can significantly impact the seafarer’s claim for disability benefits.

    Case Breakdown: The Journey of Roger P. Solacito

    Roger P. Solacito’s ordeal began on the night of June 10, 2009, when an insect entered his left ear during pirate watch duty, causing severe pain and dizziness. Despite attempts to remove it, the pain persisted, leading to his medical repatriation on July 3, 2009. Upon his return, the company-designated physician diagnosed him with chronic otitis media and recommended surgery, which was performed on October 13, 2009.

    On January 7, 2010, the company-designated physician declared Solacito fit to work. However, Solacito, feeling his condition was not adequately addressed, consulted his personal physician on March 18, 2010, who declared him unfit for seafaring duties due to hearing loss.

    Solacito filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits on January 2010, before consulting his personal physician. This premature filing was a critical procedural error. The Labor Arbiter initially awarded Solacito total and permanent disability benefits based on his personal physician’s assessment. However, this decision was appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which upheld the Labor Arbiter’s findings but reduced the award to $60,000.00.

    The case then moved to the Court of Appeals (CA), which found that the NLRC had committed grave abuse of discretion by favoring Solacito’s personal physician’s assessment over that of the company-designated physician. The CA awarded Solacito partial and permanent disability benefits instead.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that Solacito’s failure to follow the POEA-SEC procedure—specifically, not referring the conflicting medical assessments to a third doctor—meant that the company-designated physician’s assessment should prevail. The Court emphasized:

    “The duty to secure the opinion of a third doctor belongs to the employee asking for disability benefits. He must actively or expressly request for it.”

    The Supreme Court dismissed Solacito’s complaint, directing him to return the disability benefits and attorney’s fees he had received.

    Practical Implications: Navigating Future Claims

    This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of adhering to the POEA-SEC procedures for seafarers seeking disability benefits. The ruling underscores that the assessment by the company-designated physician is binding unless properly challenged through the third-doctor referral process.

    For seafarers, it is crucial to:

    • Consult with a personal physician promptly if they disagree with the company-designated physician’s assessment.
    • Notify the employer of their intent to seek a third doctor’s opinion within the specified timeframe.
    • Ensure all medical assessments are documented and presented in a timely manner to support their claims.

    Key Lessons:

    • Adherence to POEA-SEC procedures is vital for the success of disability claims.
    • Seafarers must actively engage in the process of securing a third doctor’s opinion if necessary.
    • Employers and seafarers should maintain clear communication and documentation throughout the medical assessment process.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is the POEA-SEC, and why is it important for seafarers?

    The POEA-SEC is the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract, which outlines the rights and obligations of Filipino seafarers and their employers. It is crucial because it provides a standardized framework for handling issues such as disability benefits.

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

    A seafarer should consult their own doctor and, if the assessments conflict, notify their employer of their intent to seek a third doctor’s opinion. This third doctor’s assessment will be final and binding.

    Can a seafarer file a disability claim without following the POEA-SEC procedure?

    Filing a claim without following the POEA-SEC procedure, such as not seeking a third doctor’s opinion when assessments conflict, can lead to the dismissal of the claim, as seen in Solacito’s case.

    How long does a seafarer have to file a disability claim?

    Under the POEA-SEC, a seafarer must be assessed by the company-designated physician within 120 days from sign-off for medical treatment. If no assessment is made within this period, the seafarer may be entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.

    What are the consequences of not adhering to the POEA-SEC procedures?

    Non-adherence can result in the dismissal of the seafarer’s claim, as the company-designated physician’s assessment will prevail in the absence of a third doctor’s opinion.

    Can a seafarer be awarded disability benefits if declared fit to work by the company-designated physician?

    If a seafarer is declared fit to work by the company-designated physician and does not follow the procedure to seek a third doctor’s opinion, they are unlikely to be awarded disability benefits.

    ASG Law specializes in maritime law and labor disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation and navigate your seafarer disability claims effectively.

  • Seafarer’s Disability: Defining ‘Unfit to Work’ Beyond Grading

    In the case of Reynaldo Y. Sunit vs. OSM Maritime Services, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that a seafarer’s disability should be considered total and permanent if they remain unfit to work for more than 240 days after repatriation, irrespective of a partial disability grading issued by a third doctor. This decision emphasizes that the actual impact of the injury on the seafarer’s ability to work is paramount, ensuring fair compensation that reflects their true incapacity and protects their rights under maritime law.

    Beyond the Grade: When Can a Seafarer Claim Total Disability?

    Reynaldo Sunit, working as an Able Body Seaman for OSM Maritime Services, suffered a serious injury onboard when he fell, resulting in a fractured right femur. After repatriation and medical assessments, a company-designated doctor gave him a Grade 10 disability. Dissatisfied, Sunit sought a second opinion, and eventually, both parties consulted a third doctor, Dr. Bathan, who assigned a Grade 9 disability but noted Sunit was “not yet fit to work and should undergo rehabilitation.” The core legal question emerged: Can a seafarer claim total and permanent disability benefits when a third doctor assesses a partial disability grade but acknowledges the seafarer’s continued unfitness to work beyond the allowable medical treatment period?

    The Supreme Court addressed the conflicting interpretations of disability assessments under the POEA-SEC (Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract) and the Labor Code. The court emphasized that while the POEA-SEC provides a schedule of disability gradings, the ultimate determination of whether a disability is total and permanent depends on the seafarer’s ability to resume their usual sea duties. If the injury prevents the seafarer from engaging in gainful employment for more than 240 days, it legally constitutes total and permanent disability, irrespective of the assigned grade.

    The court referenced Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code, stating that a “disability is total and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days, except as otherwise provided for in Rule X of these Rules.” The decision underscores that the 120/240-day period primarily applies to the company-designated doctor’s assessment. However, the assessment from the third doctor must be definite and conclusive to be binding on both parties.

    The Supreme Court clarified that while the parties must mutually agree on the third doctor, the doctor’s assessment must definitively state the seafarer’s disability or fitness to return to work. The court quoted from Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar:

    Moreover, the company-designated physician is expected to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer’s fitness to work or permanent disability within the period of 120 or 240 days. That should he fail to do so and the seafarer’s medical condition remains unresolved, the seafarer shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled.

    In Sunit’s case, Dr. Bathan’s assessment that Sunit was “not yet fit to work and should undergo rehabilitation” indicated an unresolved medical condition, rendering the disability assessment inconclusive. The court also noted that Sunit’s inability to secure gainful employment for 499 days from his repatriation underscored his total and permanent disability.

    The court stated that a final and definite disability assessment is necessary to reflect the true extent of the seafarer’s injuries and their capacity to resume work. This ensures that the disability benefits awarded are commensurate with the prolonged effects of the injuries suffered. The court in this case also highlighted that the primary consideration is the seafarer’s capacity to perform their usual duties.

    Even if there’s a partial disability grade, if the seafarer cannot perform their work for an extended period, they are entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. The court in Kestrel emphasized that if partial and permanent injuries or disabilities would incapacitate a seafarer from performing his usual sea duties for a period of more than 120 or 240 days, then he is, under legal contemplation, totally and permanently disabled. The Court ruled that Sunit was entitled to attorney’s fees because he was forced to litigate to protect his rights.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether a seafarer should receive total and permanent disability benefits when assessed with a partial disability grade, but remains unfit to work beyond the allowable period.
    What is the significance of the 240-day period? The 240-day period is the maximum time allowed for the company-designated physician to assess a seafarer’s condition; if the seafarer remains unfit to work beyond this period, it can indicate total and permanent disability.
    What if the third doctor’s assessment is inconclusive? If the third doctor’s assessment does not definitively state the seafarer’s fitness to work or disability, it is considered inconclusive, and the seafarer’s actual condition is considered.
    How does this case define ‘total and permanent disability’? Total and permanent disability refers to the inability of a seafarer to perform their usual sea duties or any similar work for an extended period, typically beyond 240 days from repatriation.
    What role does the POEA-SEC play in disability claims? The POEA-SEC provides the framework for compensating seafarers for work-related injuries, including a schedule of disability gradings and procedures for medical assessments.
    Can a seafarer challenge the third doctor’s assessment? Yes, a dissatisfied party can challenge the third doctor’s assessment in court, citing reasons such as evident partiality, corruption, fraud, or lack of basis to support the assessment.
    Why was attorney’s fees awarded in this case? Attorney’s fees were awarded because the seafarer was compelled to litigate to protect his rights and interests, recognizing the expenses incurred in pursuing his claim.
    What is the impact of Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar on this ruling? Kestrel emphasizes that if disabilities prevent a seafarer from performing their duties for more than 120 or 240 days, they are legally considered totally and permanently disabled, influencing the court’s decision.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Reynaldo Y. Sunit vs. OSM Maritime Services, Inc. clarifies that the actual incapacity to work, rather than a mere disability grading, should be the primary consideration in determining total and permanent disability for seafarers. This ruling protects the rights of seafarers by ensuring they receive appropriate compensation that reflects their true inability to resume their duties due to work-related injuries.

    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: Reynaldo Y. Sunit, vs. OSM Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 223035, February 27, 2017