Tag: Work-Related Injury

Navigating Permanent Disability Claims: Key Insights from a Landmark Philippine Supreme Court Ruling
Understanding the Criteria for Permanent and Total Disability in Seafarer Cases

Magsaysay Maritime Corp. and Keymax Maritime Co., Ltd. v. Jose Elizalde B. Zanoria, G.R. No. 233071, September 02, 2020

Imagine being a seafarer, dedicated to the safety of your ship and crew, only to find your vision blurring while on duty. This was the reality for Jose Elizalde B. Zanoria, whose case against his employers, Magsaysay Maritime Corp. and Keymax Maritime Co., Ltd., reached the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The central question was whether Zanoria’s condition constituted a permanent and total disability, entitling him to substantial benefits. This case sheds light on the complexities of disability claims in the maritime industry and the legal standards that govern them.

In essence, Zanoria was hired as a Chief Mate on the vessel Brilliant Sky, where he developed vision problems that led to his medical repatriation and subsequent disability claim. His employers contested the extent of his disability, arguing for a lower grade of disability and challenging the awarded benefits. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case provides crucial insights into the legal framework surrounding seafarer disability claims in the Philippines.

Legal Context: Understanding Disability in Maritime Law

The Philippine legal system, particularly in the context of maritime law, has established clear guidelines for assessing seafarer disabilities. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) outlines the conditions under which a seafarer may be considered permanently and totally disabled. According to the POEA-SEC, a disability is considered permanent and total if it renders the seafarer incapable of resuming his former work or engaging in any gainful employment for more than 120 days.

Key to this case is the concept of permanent and total disability, which is defined as a condition that prevents a seafarer from returning to their previous occupation or any similar work. This definition is crucial because it determines the level of benefits a seafarer is entitled to receive. The POEA-SEC also mandates that if the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s chosen doctor cannot agree on the disability assessment, a third doctor must be consulted to resolve the dispute.

For example, if a seafarer suffers an injury that prevents them from working for over 120 days, even if they eventually recover, they may still be entitled to permanent and total disability benefits under the POEA-SEC. This principle was emphasized in the case of Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad, where the Supreme Court ruled that the inability to work for more than 120 days due to illness or injury constitutes permanent and total disability.

Case Breakdown: The Journey of Jose Elizalde B. Zanoria

Jose Elizalde B. Zanoria was hired by Magsaysay Maritime Corp. and Keymax Maritime Co., Ltd. in March 2013 as a Chief Mate on the vessel Brilliant Sky. His responsibilities included overseeing the safety and security of the ship, crew, and cargo. However, in March 2014, Zanoria began experiencing vision problems, which led to his medical repatriation to the Philippines.

Upon his return, Zanoria was examined by the company-designated physician, Dr. George C. Pile, who diagnosed him with a macular hole, senile cataract, and other eye conditions. Despite undergoing surgery, Zanoria was declared unfit for work, leading him to file a grievance with the Association of Marine Officers and Seaman’s Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP).

The case progressed through various stages, including a deadlock in negotiations, leading Zanoria to file a Notice to Arbitrate with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators eventually ruled in Zanoria’s favor, awarding him permanent disability benefits based on the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) provisions.

The employers appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the Panel’s decision but modified the amount of benefits. The CA noted the inconsistency in Dr. Pile’s assessment, which declared Zanoria unfit for his position despite a partial disability grading. This led the CA to conclude that Zanoria was entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.

The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing that the absence of a clear explanation for the partial disability assessment was akin to a declaration of permanent and total disability. The Court’s reasoning included:

“In the absence of a definite assessment of respondent’s fitness or disability, or failure to show how the partial disability assessment was arrived at, or without any evidence to support the assessment, then this is akin to a declaration of permanent and total disability.”

The Court also addressed the employers’ argument that Zanoria had worked on another vessel, stating that the ability to work again does not negate the fact that he was unable to work for over 120 days due to his condition.

Practical Implications: Navigating Future Disability Claims

This ruling has significant implications for seafarers and their employers in the Philippines. It reinforces the importance of clear and comprehensive medical assessments when determining the extent of a seafarer’s disability. Employers must ensure that their designated physicians provide detailed explanations of their assessments to avoid disputes over disability grading.

For seafarers, this case underscores the need to seek independent medical evaluations if they disagree with the company’s assessment. It also highlights the importance of understanding the POEA-SEC provisions and the potential benefits available under the CBA.

Key Lessons:
- Seafarers should be aware of their rights under the POEA-SEC and the CBA.
- Employers must ensure thorough and transparent medical assessments to avoid legal disputes.
- The inability to work for over 120 days due to a work-related condition can be considered permanent and total disability, regardless of subsequent recovery.
Frequently Asked Questions

What constitutes permanent and total disability for seafarers?

Permanent and total disability is when a seafarer cannot return to their previous job or engage in any gainful employment for more than 120 days due to a work-related illness or injury.

Can a seafarer still claim disability benefits if they recover and work again?

Yes, as long as the seafarer was unable to work for over 120 days due to their condition, they may still be entitled to permanent and total disability benefits.

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

Seafarers should seek an independent medical evaluation and, if necessary, request a third doctor’s opinion as per the POEA-SEC provisions.

How can employers ensure fair disability assessments?

Employers should ensure that their designated physicians provide detailed and clear assessments of a seafarer’s condition and disability grading.

What role does the Collective Bargaining Agreement play in disability claims?

The CBA can provide additional benefits beyond the POEA-SEC, so seafarers should review their CBA to understand their full entitlements.

ASG Law specializes in maritime law and labor disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.
September 2, 2020
Navigating Seafarer Disability Claims: Understanding Work-Related Aggravation and Compensation
Seafarer’s Rights to Disability Benefits: The Importance of Timely and Definitive Medical Assessments

Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc. v. Villaflor, G.R. No. 225425, January 29, 2020

Imagine a seafarer, miles away from home, performing his duties on a vessel when suddenly, an injury or illness strikes. This scenario is all too common in the maritime industry, where workers face unique occupational hazards. The case of Franklin J. Villaflor against Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc., and others sheds light on the critical issue of disability benefits for seafarers, particularly when a pre-existing condition is aggravated by work. The central question in this case was whether Villaflor was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits despite a prior claim for a similar condition with a different employer.

Villaflor, a Third Engineer, was hired by Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc. in 2012. During his tenure, he suffered severe back pain while performing maintenance work, leading to his medical repatriation. Despite a Grade 8 disability rating from the company-designated physician, Villaflor’s condition remained unresolved, prompting him to seek a second opinion, which declared him totally and permanently disabled. This led to a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court, which ultimately affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision granting Villaflor total and permanent disability benefits.

The Legal Framework for Seafarer Disability Claims

The legal landscape governing seafarer disability claims is multifaceted, involving statutes, employment contracts, and medical assessments. Under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), a seafarer’s disability is compensable if it is work-related and occurred during the term of the contract. The POEA-SEC defines a work-related injury as one “arising out of and in the course of employment.”

However, the interpretation of these provisions has evolved through jurisprudence, recognizing that pre-existing conditions can be compensable if aggravated by the seafarer’s work. As the Supreme Court explained, “Common sense dictates that an illness could not possibly have been ‘contracted as a result of the seafarer’s exposure to the described risks’ if it has been existing before the seafarer’s services are engaged. Still, pre-existing illnesses may be aggravated by the seafarer’s working conditions.”

The entitlement to disability benefits is further governed by the Labor Code, the employment contract, and the medical findings. The Labor Code stipulates that temporary total disability lasting more than 120 days is considered permanent and total, except as otherwise provided in the rules. The POEA-SEC also specifies that disability ratings should be based on the disability gradings provided in the contract, not merely on the duration of treatment.

The Journey of Franklin J. Villaflor’s Case

Franklin J. Villaflor’s journey began with his employment as a Third Engineer on the vessel MIV NOCC Puebla. Despite disclosing his previous back injury during his pre-employment medical examination (PEME), he was declared fit to work. His duties involved lifting heavy engine and generator spare parts, which eventually led to his severe back pain in March 2013.

Upon repatriation, Villaflor was diagnosed with SIP Laminotomy, L4 Bilateral Interspinous Process Decompression Coflex, and was advised to continue treatment. Despite a Grade 8 disability rating from Dr. William Chuasuan, Jr., the company-designated physician, Dr. Robert D. Lim, continued to advise ongoing treatment, indicating an unresolved condition.

Villaflor, seeking a second opinion, consulted Dr. Manuel C. Jacinto, Jr., who declared him totally and permanently disabled. This led to a complaint for disability benefits, which was initially dismissed by the labor arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on the grounds that his condition was a recurrence of a previous injury.

However, the Court of Appeals overturned these decisions, ruling that Villaflor’s condition was work-aggravated and that the company-designated physician failed to provide a final and definite disability assessment within the required period. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, stating:

“A final and definite disability assessment within the 120-day or 240-day period under the rules is necessary in order to truly reflect the true extent of the sickness or injuries of the seafarer and his capacity to resume to work as such.”

The Court further emphasized the importance of timely and definitive medical assessments, noting that without them, the disability grading cannot be seriously appreciated.

Practical Implications for Seafarers and Employers

This ruling has significant implications for both seafarers and employers in the maritime industry. Seafarers with pre-existing conditions must understand that they can still claim disability benefits if their condition is aggravated by their work. Employers, on the other hand, must ensure that their company-designated physicians provide timely and definitive medical assessments to avoid disputes over disability ratings.

Key Lessons:
- Seafarers should disclose any pre-existing conditions during their PEME but can still claim benefits if these conditions are aggravated by work.
- Employers must ensure that medical assessments are final and complete within the prescribed periods to avoid automatic classification of disabilities as total and permanent.
- Seafarers have the right to seek a second medical opinion if they disagree with the company-designated physician’s assessment.
Frequently Asked Questions

Can a seafarer claim disability benefits for a pre-existing condition?
Yes, if the pre-existing condition is aggravated by the seafarer’s work, it may be compensable.

What happens if the company-designated physician fails to provide a final assessment within the required period?
The seafarer’s disability may be deemed total and permanent if no final assessment is provided within 120 or 240 days, depending on the circumstances.

Can a seafarer seek a second medical opinion?
Yes, seafarers have the right to consult a physician of their choice if they disagree with the company-designated physician’s assessment.

What are the implications of a ‘guarded’ prognosis?
A guarded prognosis indicates uncertainty about the outcome of the illness, which may affect the determination of disability benefits.

How can employers avoid disputes over disability ratings?
Employers should ensure that their company-designated physicians provide timely and definitive medical assessments within the prescribed periods.

ASG Law specializes in maritime law and labor disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation and protect your rights as a seafarer or employer.
January 29, 2020

Work-Related Injury and Disability Benefits: Protecting Seafarers’ Rights under the CBA

The Supreme Court held that a seafarer’s injury, sustained during employment and contributing to a disability, is compensable even if the exact accident details are unrecorded, provided there’s substantial evidence linking the condition to the work. The court emphasized the importance of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in providing superior benefits to seafarers, overriding standard POEA-SEC terms when the CBA offers more favorable compensation. This ruling protects seafarers by ensuring that work-related injuries are compensated, reinforcing the State’s policy of providing maximum aid and full protection to labor.

When a Slip Leads to a Claim: Proving Work-Related Disability at Sea

Emerito E. Sales, a pumpman for Centennial Transmarine Inc., experienced lower back pain during his employment aboard the M/V Acushnet. Sales claimed that he slipped while transferring a portable pump, leading to persistent pain. Upon repatriation, he was diagnosed with degenerative changes in his lumbar spine. The central legal question was whether Sales’ condition was work-related and thus compensable, especially given the lack of specific accident records and his refusal to undergo surgery.

The case hinges on whether Sales’ injury was attributable to his work environment. The Supreme Court sided with Sales, highlighting that his prolonged employment with Centennial Transmarine, coupled with the physical demands of his job as a pumpman, supported the conclusion that his back pain was work-related. Even without detailed records of a specific accident, the court found sufficient evidence to link his condition to his job. This ruling underscores that a direct, documented accident is not always necessary to prove a work-related injury. Instead, a constellation of factors—nature of work, length of service, and onset of symptoms during employment—can establish the causal link.

The court considered Section 20(D) of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), which typically governs compensation and benefits for seafarers. However, the court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the employer to demonstrate that the injury is directly attributable to the seafarer’s willful or criminal act. In this case, Centennial Transmarine failed to provide such evidence, further bolstering Sales’ claim.

Section 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

x x x x

D. No compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect or any injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of his duties, provided however, that the employer can prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly attributable to the seafarer.

The court also addressed the issue of Sales’ refusal to undergo surgery, an argument raised by Centennial Transmarine to deny compensation. The court noted that despite Sales’ refusal, the company continued to provide medical treatment and physical rehabilitation. This implied that the company did not initially view the refusal as a breach of duty that would forfeit his disability benefits. Moreover, the court found that the company had multiple opportunities to inform Sales that his refusal would affect his benefits but failed to do so. This reinforces the principle that employers must act in good faith and clearly communicate the consequences of medical decisions to their employees.

A key aspect of the case involves the 120/240-day rule, which typically determines when a seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total. The Supreme Court clarified that non-observance of this rule does not automatically entitle a seafarer to such benefits. The circumstances of the case, including adherence to contractual duties outlined in the POEA-SEC or CBA, must be considered. Here, although Sales remained unfit for sea duty beyond 120 days, he was still undergoing medical treatment, rendering a final disability assessment premature. This highlights that the 120/240-day rule is not a rigid benchmark but a flexible guideline dependent on ongoing medical circumstances.

The differing disability assessments from the company-designated physician and Sales’ chosen physician also played a role. While both assessments indicated partial disability, the court favored the assessment of the company-designated physician, citing their more extensive monitoring and treatment of Sales over a five-month period compared to the eight-day evaluation by Sales’ physician. This underscores the importance of the length and depth of medical evaluation in determining the credibility of disability assessments. It also reflects the court’s preference for assessments made by physicians who have had prolonged engagement with the patient’s care.

However, the most significant aspect of the decision lies in the application of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The court emphasized that the special clauses within the CBA prevail over the standard terms of the POEA-SEC, especially when the CBA provides more generous benefits. This principle is rooted in the constitutional mandate to provide maximum aid and full protection to labor. The court referenced Section 20.1.4.1 of the CBA, which stipulates compensation for permanent disability resulting from work-related illness or injury, regardless of fault.

20.1.4 COMPENSATION FOR DISABILITY

20.1.4.1 A seafarer who suffers permanent disability as a result of work related illness or from an injury as a result of an accident regardless of fault by excluding injuries caused by a seafarer’s willful act, whilst serving on board including accidents and work related illness occurring whilst travelling to or from the ship, and whose ability to work is reduced as a result thereof, shall in addition to sick pay, be entitled to compensation according to the provisions of this Agreement. In determining work-related illness, reference shall be made to the Philippine Overseas Employees Compensation Law and/or Social Security Law.

The court interpreted Sales’ slip and fall as an accident, aligning with the definition of an accident as an unexpected and unforeseen event. Consequently, the court applied the CBA’s schedule of impediment grading and corresponding monetary award, granting Sales $11,757.00. This application of the CBA demonstrates a commitment to upholding the enhanced benefits negotiated on behalf of seafarers, reinforcing their rights to compensation for work-related injuries.

The court, however, did not award permanent and total disability benefits, as the company-designated physician’s assessment did not indicate a disability of 50% or more, nor did it certify Sales as permanently unfit for sea service. This distinction highlights the importance of specific medical assessments in determining the extent of disability benefits. The court also denied moral and exemplary damages, finding no evidence of bad faith on the part of Centennial Transmarine. This aspect of the decision underscores that damages are not automatically awarded but require proof of malicious or grossly negligent conduct.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the compensability of work-related injuries sustained by seafarers, even in the absence of detailed accident records. It emphasizes the primacy of CBAs in providing superior benefits and reinforces the State’s commitment to protecting labor rights. This case provides valuable guidance on the factors considered in determining work-relatedness and the application of CBA provisions in awarding disability compensation.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Emerito Sales’ lower back pain was work-related, entitling him to disability benefits, despite the lack of a clear accident record and his refusal to undergo surgery. The Court also considered whether the CBA should prevail over POEA-SEC provisions.
What evidence supported the claim that Sales’ injury was work-related?	Sales’ long-term employment with Centennial Transmarine, the physically demanding nature of his job as a pumpman, and the onset of back pain during his tour of duty, all supported the conclusion that his injury was work-related. The company-designated physician also acknowledged that Sales’ condition was work-related.
Why did the court consider the CBA in determining Sales’ benefits?	The court emphasized that CBAs provide superior benefits compared to the standard POEA-SEC terms. Section 20.1.4.1 of the CBA stipulated compensation for permanent disability resulting from work-related injuries, regardless of fault, reinforcing Sales’ entitlement to compensation.
How did the court define an ‘accident’ in this context?	The court defined an accident as an event that happens by chance or fortuitously, without intention or design, and is unexpected, unusual, and unforeseen. Sales’ slip and fall while transferring the portable pump fit this definition, making it a compensable event under the CBA.
Why wasn’t Sales awarded permanent and total disability benefits?	The company-designated physician’s assessment did not indicate a disability of 50% or more, nor did it certify Sales as permanently unfit for sea service. The medical assessment only showed partial disability grading.
What was the significance of Sales’ refusal to undergo surgery?	While Sales refused surgery, the company continued to provide medical treatment, implying they didn’t initially consider it a breach of duty forfeiting benefits. The company also failed to clearly communicate that refusal would affect his benefits.
What does the 120/240-day rule typically entail?	The 120/240-day rule determines when a seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total. The Supreme Court clarified that non-observance of this rule does not automatically entitle a seafarer to such benefits and depends on circumstances of the case.
What compensation was ultimately awarded to Sales?	The court awarded Sales $11,757.00 in disability compensation, based on the schedule of impediment grading in the CBA, plus ten percent (10%) attorney’s fees and all amounts shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from the date of filing of claim.

The Centennial Transmarine Inc. v. Sales case sets a significant precedent for seafarers seeking compensation for work-related injuries. It reinforces the importance of CBAs in protecting labor rights and provides clarity on the evidence needed to establish a causal link between work and injury. This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that seafarers receive the benefits they are entitled to under the law and their collective bargaining agreements.

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: Centennial Transmarine Inc., et al. v. Sales, G.R. No. 196455, July 08, 2019

July 8, 2019

Seafarer’s Right to Compensation: Injury During Employment Overrules ‘Accident’ Requirement

In a significant ruling for Filipino seafarers, the Supreme Court has clarified that an injury sustained during employment is compensable under the POEA Standard Employment Contract, even if the injury was not the result of an accident. This decision emphasizes that if a seafarer’s injury is work-related and occurs during the term of their employment, they are entitled to disability benefits, regardless of whether the injury was caused by an intentional act of another person. This ruling protects seafarers from having their disability claims denied based on narrow interpretations of what constitutes a compensable injury, ensuring they receive the support they are entitled to under the law. The court underscored that employers are responsible for ensuring a safe working environment and cannot evade liability when injuries occur due to a failure in this duty.

When Duty Calls, and Harm Befalls: Is Employer Negligence a Just Cause for Compensation?

George M. Toquero, a fitter on board the vessel MV AS VICTORIA, suffered a severe head injury when assaulted by a fellow seafarer. The incident occurred while Toquero was repairing a generator, and despite being given first aid and later undergoing surgery, he continued to experience debilitating symptoms. After being repatriated to the Philippines, Toquero sought disability benefits, arguing that his injury rendered him permanently unfit for work. The company-designated physician declared him fit to work, a finding Toquero contested, presenting medical evaluations from his own physicians asserting his total and permanent disability. The legal battle ensued, focusing on whether Toquero’s injury was compensable, given that it resulted from an intentional assault rather than an accident, and whether the company-designated physician’s assessment should prevail over the opinions of Toquero’s doctors.

The case hinged on the interpretation of the POEA Standard Employment Contract and the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which outline the conditions under which a seafarer is entitled to disability benefits. The central question was whether the requirement for an injury to be work-related and sustained during employment was sufficient for compensation, or if the injury also needed to be classified as an accident. The Court of Appeals had previously ruled against Toquero, asserting that since the injury stemmed from a criminal assault, it could not be considered an accident and, therefore, was not compensable. However, the Supreme Court took a different view, emphasizing that the POEA Standard Employment Contract does not impose an additional prerequisite that the injury must be caused by an accident. The Supreme Court emphasized the two key requirements: that the injury is work-related and that it occurred during the term of employment.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the circumstances surrounding Toquero’s injury, underscoring the significance of the “work-relation” principle. This principle mandates that there must be a reasonable connection between the injury or disease suffered by the employee and their work. In this context, the Court referenced Sy v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., highlighting that an injury arises “in the course of employment” when it occurs within the employment period, at a location where the employee may reasonably be, and while the employee is fulfilling their duties or engaged in activities incidental to those duties. The Court reasoned that Toquero’s injury satisfied these criteria, as it occurred while he was performing his duties on board the vessel. Moreover, the Court noted the findings of the labor tribunals, which held that respondents breached their contractual obligation by hiring another employee who was prone to committing felonious acts, emphasizing that respondents must “take all reasonable precautions to prevent accident and injury to the crew.”

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court addressed the erroneous imposition of an additional requirement by the lower courts, namely, that the injury must be caused by an accident to be compensable. The Court clarified that once Toquero established that his injury was work-related and occurred during his employment, he was entitled to disability compensation under the POEA Standard Employment Contract. The Court rejected the argument that the claim was precluded because the injury was due to the willful acts of another seafarer, emphasizing that the POEA Standard Employment Contract disqualifies claims caused by the willful or criminal act or intentional breach of duties done by the claimant, not by the assailant. Furthermore, the Supreme Court underscored the employer’s responsibility to ensure the discipline of its workers, noting that the law imposes liabilities on employers to ensure they bear the costs of harm should they fail to take precautions. This principle of internalization, as explained by the Court, attributes the consequences and costs of an activity to the party who causes them.

The Supreme Court also delved into the medical assessment procedure outlined in the POEA Standard Employment Contract. It acknowledged the provision stating that if a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician, 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. While the Court recognized that referral to a third doctor is generally a mandatory procedure, it also acknowledged that the company-designated physician’s findings tend to be biased in the employer’s favor. In cases where the company-designated physician’s assessment is not supported by medical records, the courts may give greater weight to the findings of the seafarer’s personal physician. The Court emphasized that disability ratings should be adequately established in a conclusive medical assessment by a company-designated physician, which must be complete and definite to reflect the seafarer’s true condition and provide the correct corresponding disability benefits.

In this case, the Supreme Court found that the medical assessment issued by the company-designated physician could not be regarded as definite and conclusive. The records revealed that the company-designated physician failed to conduct all the proper and recommended tests, particularly a complete neurologic examination, which was recommended to adequately assess Toquero’s disability rating. The Court noted that respondents solely relied on an electroencephalography run by the company-designated physician, and there were no explanations from respondents as to why the recommended medical tests were not conducted. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that the company-designated physician’s assessment was deficient, and it gave more weight to the assessment of Toquero’s chosen physician, who determined a permanent and total disability. This determination was also supported by Dr. Runas’s medical evaluation report which states, “He has a large bone defect which may pose further damage to his brain… Because of the impediment, he is permanently unfit to return to work as a seaman in any capacity and considered for total permanent disability.”

The Court also addressed the issue of the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement and disability rating, upholding the version submitted by Toquero. Respondents contended that a different Collective Bargaining Agreement and a lower disability allowance were applicable to Toquero. However, the Court reiterated the principle that doubts shall be resolved in favor of labor, in line with the policy enshrined in the Constitution, the Labor Code, and the Civil Code, to provide protection to labor and construe doubts in favor of labor. Therefore, in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement submitted by Toquero, he was deemed entitled to a total and permanent disability allowance of US$250,000.00. Finally, the Court awarded Toquero sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage for 55 days, as well as attorney’s fees, which are granted under Article 2208 of the Civil Code in actions for indemnity under workers’ compensation and employers’ liability laws.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a seafarer’s injury, sustained during employment but resulting from an intentional assault rather than an accident, is compensable under the POEA Standard Employment Contract. The Court also addressed if the company-designated physician’s assessment should prevail.
What did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court ruled that Toquero’s injury was compensable, emphasizing that the POEA Standard Employment Contract does not require the injury to be caused by an accident, only that it be work-related and sustained during employment. The Court also determined that the company-designated physician’s assessment was inconclusive.
What is the “work-relation” principle?	The “work-relation” principle requires that there be a reasonable connection between the injury or disease suffered by the employee and their work. This means that the injury must occur while the employee is performing their duties or engaged in activities incidental to those duties.
What is the role of the company-designated physician?	The company-designated physician is responsible for conducting a post-employment medical examination to determine the seafarer’s fitness or unfitness for work. Their assessment is initially given weight, but it must be conclusive and supported by medical records.
What happens if the seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician?	If the seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physician, they can seek a second opinion. If the opinions differ, a third doctor, agreed upon by both parties, can provide a final and binding decision.
What is sickness allowance?	Sickness allowance is a benefit provided to seafarers, equivalent to their basic wage, from the time they sign off work due to illness or injury until they are declared fit to work or the degree of disability has been assessed. This period is capped at 120 days.
Why did the Court favor Toquero’s chosen physician’s assessment?	The Court favored Toquero’s physician because the company-designated physician’s assessment was deemed deficient for lacking a complete neurologic examination. Moreover, the report of Toquero’s physician stated that “He has a large bone defect which may pose further damage to his brain… Because of the impediment, he is permanently unfit to return to work as a seaman in any capacity and considered for total permanent disability.”
What was the amount of the disability allowance awarded to Toquero?	Toquero was awarded a total and permanent disability allowance of US$250,000.00, based on the Collective Bargaining Agreement submitted by him.

This Supreme Court decision reinforces the rights of Filipino seafarers by ensuring they receive just compensation for work-related injuries, even when those injuries result from intentional acts. The ruling emphasizes the employer’s responsibility to provide a safe working environment and to ensure comprehensive medical assessments are conducted to accurately determine a seafarer’s disability. This case serves as a crucial precedent for future claims, safeguarding the welfare and rights of seafarers in the Philippines.

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: GEORGE M. TOQUERO, VS. CROSSWORLD MARINE SERVICES, INC., KAPAL CYPRUS, LTD., AND ARNOLD U. MENDOZA, G.R. No. 213482, June 26, 2019

June 26, 2019

Definite Disability Assessment: Protecting Seafarers’ Rights to Full Compensation

The Supreme Court ruled that a seafarer is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits when the company-designated physician fails to provide a final and definite assessment of their condition within the prescribed period. This decision reinforces the importance of timely and conclusive medical assessments in safeguarding the rights of seafarers to receive just compensation for work-related injuries. It emphasizes the duty of employers to ensure comprehensive medical evaluations and clear communication regarding a seafarer’s fitness for duty.

When a Snap Leads to a Claim: Defining ‘Accident’ and a Seafarer’s Right to CBA Benefits

This case revolves around Danille G. Ampo-on, who worked as an Able Seaman for Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc. While on board M/V APL Barcelona, Ampo-on experienced a debilitating back injury. The central legal question is whether Ampo-on is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) due to this injury, and whether the injury qualifies as an ‘accident’ as defined in the CBA.

Ampo-on’s employment contract stipulated an eight-month term, during which he was declared fit for sea duty after a pre-employment medical examination. However, on October 18, 2014, while performing sanding work, Ampo-on felt a sharp pain in his back, accompanied by a distinct snapping sound. He was later diagnosed with L3-L4 Spondylolisthesis and L3 Pars Fracture upon reaching a port in Taiwan. Following his repatriation, the company-designated physician initiated a series of medical tests and treatments, including a suggestion for back surgery, which Ampo-on declined.

On February 6, 2015, the company-designated physician issued a medical report stating that Ampo-on’s fitness to work within 120 days was unlikely. The report also suggested a disability grading of Grade 8, corresponding to a loss of two-thirds of lifting power in the trunk. Dissatisfied with this assessment, Ampo-on sought a second opinion from an independent physician, Dr. Manuel Fidel M. Magtira, who concluded that Ampo-on was permanently disabled and unfit for work. This divergence in medical opinions became a critical point of contention in the subsequent legal proceedings.

Ampo-on filed a complaint with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), seeking total and permanent disability benefits amounting to US$120,000.00, as stipulated in the CBA. He also claimed moral, exemplary, and compensatory damages, as well as attorney’s fees. The respondents, Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc., contested the claim, arguing that Ampo-on’s condition was not work-related and did not qualify as an accidental injury under the POEA-SEC or the CBA. The company further asserted that Ampo-on’s refusal to undergo surgery constituted notorious negligence, thereby negating his entitlement to compensation. The stage was set for a legal battle centered on the interpretation of disability definitions and the responsibilities of both employer and employee.

The NCMB sided with Ampo-on, ordering the respondents to pay US$120,000.00 in disability compensation, along with 10% attorney’s fees. The NCMB reasoned that Ampo-on’s back injury was sustained while performing his duties and was therefore work-related. Additionally, the NCMB highlighted a suppressed portion of the medical report indicating that the certifying doctor had marked ‘Yes’ in response to the question of whether the illness was due to an accident. This piece of evidence significantly bolstered Ampo-on’s claim that his injury was indeed accidental, thus entitling him to compensation under the CBA. This decision was based on the premise that the company-designated physician did not provide evidence that the injury was not work-related.

The Court of Appeals (CA), however, reversed the NCMB’s ruling, limiting Ampo-on’s disability benefits to Grade 8 under the POEA-SEC. The CA prioritized the assessment of the company-designated physician, stating that the assessment was based on thorough examinations and medical tests. The CA questioned the validity and proof of the assessment given by the independent physician, Dr. Magtira. Undeterred, Ampo-on elevated the case to the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s decision and seeking reinstatement of the NCMB’s ruling.

The Supreme Court’s analysis hinged on several key factors. Firstly, it reiterated that a seafarer’s entitlement to disability benefits is governed by law, contracts, and medical findings, specifically Articles 197 to 199 of the Labor Code, Section 2(a), Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation, the POEA-SEC, and any applicable CBA. The court emphasized that under the POEA-SEC, employers are liable for disability benefits only if the seafarer suffers a work-related injury or illness during their contract. In this case, the Court found no categorical assessment from the company-designated physician that Ampo-on’s injury was not work-related.

The Court scrutinized the medical assessment provided by the company-designated physician. The Court found that the assessment lacked the finality and definiteness required by law. The report used language indicating uncertainty, such as ‘prognosis is guarded’ and ‘if patient is entitled to a disability, his suggested disability grading is Grade 8.’ The court stressed that a conclusive assessment is essential to accurately reflect the extent of the seafarer’s injuries and their ability to resume work. Citing Sharpe Sea Personnel, Inc. v. Mabunay, Jr., the Court highlighted that an interim disability grading does not fully assess a seafarer’s condition and cannot sufficiently support an award of disability benefits.

Moreover, the Court emphasized that Ampo-on’s injury persisted despite the company-designated physician’s declaration of partial disability Grade 8. This persistence, the Court noted, warrants considering the disability as total and permanent under Article 198 (c) (1) of the Labor Code. The Supreme Court in Sunit v. OSM Maritime Services, Inc., underscored that the critical factor in determining total or partial disability is whether the employee can still perform their work despite the injury. A permanent partial disability implies that a seafarer can resume sea duties before the 120/240-day medical treatment period ends, while total disability compensates for the inability to work, regardless of the injury’s physical impact.

The Court also addressed the issue of Ampo-on’s refusal to undergo surgery. It rejected the respondents’ claim that this refusal constituted notorious negligence, which would bar him from claiming compensation. The Court clarified that notorious negligence involves a deliberate act by the employee to disregard their own personal safety. There was no indication that Ampo-on was informed that surgery was the sole remedy for his back injury, nor was he warned about the consequences of choosing physical therapy instead.

Regarding the amount of compensation, the Court referenced Article 25 (1) of the CBA, which mandates compensation for injuries arising from accidents during employment. An accident is defined as an unforeseen and unintended injurious occurrence. The Court agreed with the NCMB that Ampo-on’s sudden back injury while performing sanding work qualified as an accident because he could not have foreseen the unexpected snap in his back from exerting normal force. Adding weight to this conclusion was the respondents’ suppression of a medical report page indicating that the certifying doctor had identified the injury as accident-related.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the seafarer, Ampo-on, was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits under the CBA due to a back injury sustained while working, and whether that injury qualified as an ‘accident’ under the CBA.
What is the significance of a ‘final and definite assessment’ by the company-designated physician?	A ‘final and definite assessment’ is crucial because it determines the extent of the seafarer’s disability and their ability to return to work. Without it, the seafarer’s condition may be considered total and permanent by operation of law, entitling them to maximum benefits.
What happens if the company-designated physician fails to provide a final assessment within the prescribed period?	If the company-designated physician fails to provide a final assessment within the 120/240-day period, the seafarer’s disability is considered total and permanent. This entitles the seafarer to corresponding disability benefits, as the law steps in to protect their rights.
What constitutes ‘notorious negligence’ in the context of a seafarer’s injury?	‘Notorious negligence’ is more than simple negligence; it signifies a deliberate act by the employee to disregard their own personal safety. It is a high standard that must be proven to bar a seafarer from claiming compensation for an injury.
How does the CBA define an ‘accident’ in relation to disability claims?	Under the CBA, an ‘accident’ is defined as an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence. It is something that does not occur in the usual course of events, is not reasonably anticipated, and is not attributable to mistake, negligence, neglect, or misconduct.
Why was the suppressed medical report significant in this case?	The suppressed medical report, which indicated that the certifying doctor had marked the injury as accident-related, served as an admission against the respondents. This admission supported the seafarer’s claim that his injury was indeed accidental and compensable under the CBA.
What is the role of the POEA-SEC in determining disability benefits?	The POEA-SEC sets the minimum standards for the employment of Filipino seafarers. It outlines the conditions under which employers are liable for disability benefits, particularly for work-related injuries or illnesses suffered during the contract term.
What are the implications of this ruling for shipping companies and seafarers?	For shipping companies, this ruling emphasizes the need for thorough and timely medical assessments of injured seafarers. For seafarers, it reinforces their right to just compensation for work-related injuries and ensures that their claims are properly evaluated.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of providing seafarers with comprehensive medical evaluations and ensuring that their rights to disability benefits are protected. By requiring a final and definite assessment from company-designated physicians within a specific timeframe, the Court has strengthened the legal framework that safeguards the well-being of seafarers injured in the course of their employment.

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

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Danille G. Ampo-on vs. Reinier Pacific International Shipping, Inc., G.R. No. 240614, June 10, 2019

June 10, 2019

Burden of Proof in Seafarer Disability Claims: Establishing Work-Relatedness Under POEA-SEC

The Supreme Court has clarified that a seafarer claiming disability benefits must prove their injury or illness is work-related and existed during the employment contract. This ruling underscores the importance of proper medical reporting and documentation for seafarers seeking compensation, highlighting that failure to report an illness during employment can jeopardize their claim, even if the condition manifests later.

When a Seafarer’s Silence Sinks Their Disability Claim: The Case of Pangasian

Angelito Pangasian, a Chief Cook with Falcon Maritime, sought disability benefits after experiencing back pain following his repatriation. Despite a history of employment with the company and a diagnosis of varicocoele during his contract, his claim for back pain disability was denied because he failed to report it during his post-employment medical examination. This case explores the critical link between reporting requirements, work-relatedness, and the seafarer’s right to compensation under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

The legal framework governing seafarer disability claims is composed of several key components. Relevant statutory provisions include Articles 197 to 199 of the Labor Code, as well as Section 2(a), Rule X of the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation (AREC). Contractually, the POEA-SEC is central, being incorporated into every seafarer’s employment agreement. The specific provision at issue here is Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, which details the compensation and benefits for work-related injuries or illnesses suffered during the contract term. This section outlines the employer’s liabilities, including medical treatment, sickness allowance, and disability benefits, but also emphasizes the seafarer’s responsibilities, especially concerning post-employment medical examinations.

For a disability claim to be successful under the 2010 POEA-SEC, three essential elements must converge. First, the seafarer must undergo a mandatory post-employment medical examination. Second, the injury or illness must be proven to be work-related. Third, this work-related injury or illness must have arisen during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract. These elements ensure that claims are legitimate and directly tied to the seafarer’s work environment and contractual obligations.

The post-employment medical examination is a cornerstone of the claim process, subject to specific requirements. It must be conducted by a company-designated physician within three working days of the seafarer’s return. Failure to meet this timeline can lead to forfeiture of the claim, although exceptions exist for cases of incapacitation or employer refusal. This requirement is designed to facilitate timely assessment and determination of work-relatedness, preventing claims based on conditions arising after the employment period.

In Pangasian’s case, while he did undergo a post-employment medical examination, the examination was limited to his testicular pain, neglecting his back pain due to his failure to report it. The court found this omission significant, as it prevented the company-designated physician from assessing the work-relatedness of his back condition. The Supreme Court underscored that the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators’ reliance on Pangasian’s explanation contradicted his own written statements. The letter requesting medical referral mentioned only testicular pain, weakening the argument that his back pain was a known and ongoing issue during his employment.

Respondent’s letter shows that there is no truth that the ship captain failed to include his back pains in the doctor’s referral and that because he was in a state of shock and disbelief upon learning that he will be immediately repatriated that he failed to notice such omission. The truth of the matter was that his back pains was not included in the referral precisely because his written request only asked for a referral for his testicular pain.

Furthermore, the court examined the medical report from the company-designated physician, noting that other complaints were considered beyond the initial referral. This suggested that the physician would have addressed Pangasian’s back pain had it been reported. The court also pointed out that Pangasian had denied experiencing numbness, weakness, or difficulty with ambulation during his examination, further undermining his claim that his back pain was a significant issue at the time. Because Pangasian did not disclose his back pain, he essentially precluded the company physician from determining the work-relatedness of the condition. The Supreme Court reinforced the importance of the mandatory reporting requirement, stating:

The High Court has consistently held that that the three-day mandatory reporting requirement must be strictly observed since within three days from repatriation, it would be fairly manageable for the company-designated physician to identify whether the illness or injury was contracted during the term of the seafarer’s employment or that his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the ailment.

The court acknowledged that while a company-designated physician’s assessment is not final, it is a critical starting point. Without this assessment, the employer is deprived of the opportunity to investigate the work-relatedness of the condition, making it difficult to defend against unrelated claims. The POEA-SEC is designed to protect Filipino seafarers, but it also requires them to meet procedural requirements and provide substantial evidence of their claims. The court found that Pangasian failed to meet this burden regarding his back pain.

Despite the denial of disability benefits for his back pain, the Court acknowledged Pangasian’s entitlement to sickness allowance for his varicocoele. Because he was complaining of testicular pain and swelling upon repatriation and subsequently diagnosed with varicocoele, he was eligible for allowance during the period he received treatment. However, this allowance was limited to the period until he was declared fit to work, as subsequent medical issues were related to the unproven back pain claim.

The court also denied Pangasian’s claims for medical reimbursement, damages, and attorney’s fees. Since his claim for back pain was deemed not compensable, the expenses associated with physical therapy for that condition could not be reimbursed. Additionally, the court found no basis for damages or attorney’s fees, as the company was justified in refusing to satisfy baseless claims. This case underscores the importance of accurate and timely reporting in seafarer disability claims. While the law aims to protect seafarers, it also requires them to fulfill their obligations and provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. Failure to do so can result in the denial of benefits, regardless of the seafarer’s actual medical condition. Employers are not meant to be oppressed, but the claim must be proven, otherwise it is an injustice to the employer.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a seafarer was entitled to disability benefits for a back condition that he did not report during his mandatory post-employment medical examination.
What is the POEA-SEC?	The POEA-SEC (Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract) is a standard employment contract that sets the minimum terms and conditions for Filipino seafarers working on foreign vessels. It is designed to protect their rights and welfare.
What are the requirements for a seafarer to claim disability benefits under the POEA-SEC?	The seafarer must have submitted to a mandatory post-employment medical examination, the injury or illness must be work-related, and the injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract.
What is the significance of the post-employment medical examination?	The post-employment medical examination is crucial for assessing the seafarer’s condition and determining whether the injury or illness is work-related. It must be conducted by a company-designated physician within three working days of the seafarer’s return.
What happens if a seafarer fails to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement?	Failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement can result in the forfeiture of the seafarer’s right to claim disability benefits, as it deprives the employer of the opportunity to assess the work-relatedness of the condition.
What is a company-designated physician?	A company-designated physician is a doctor chosen by the employer to conduct the post-employment medical examination and assess the seafarer’s medical condition.
Is the assessment of the company-designated physician final and binding?	No, the assessment is not final, binding, or conclusive. The seafarer has the right to seek a second opinion from a physician of their choice.
What is sickness allowance?	Sickness allowance is a benefit provided to seafarers who suffer from an illness that requires medical attention after repatriation. It is equivalent to the seafarer’s basic wage and is computed from the time they sign off until they are declared fit to work, but shall in no case exceed 120 days.
Why was the seafarer denied disability benefits in this case?	The seafarer was denied disability benefits for his back pain because he failed to report it during his post-employment medical examination, thus preventing the company-designated physician from assessing its work-relatedness.

In conclusion, the Falcon Maritime case reinforces the procedural and evidentiary requirements for seafarer disability claims under the POEA-SEC. Seafarers must diligently report all medical conditions during their employment and comply with post-employment examination protocols to ensure their claims are properly assessed and substantiated. Failure to do so can jeopardize their entitlement to disability benefits, regardless of the validity of their medical condition.

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: Falcon Maritime and Allied Services, Inc. v. Pangasian, G.R. No. 223295, March 13, 2019

March 13, 2019

Work-Related Injury: Seafarer’s Claim Denied for Gym-Related Incident

This case clarifies what constitutes a work-related injury for seafarers seeking disability benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of benefits to a casino dealer who claimed a back injury sustained on board was work-related but whose injury was traced to gym workout. The court emphasized that for an injury to be compensable, it must arise out of and in the course of employment, a link the seafarer failed to establish, and the court underscored the importance of proving a direct connection between the job duties and the injury sustained.

Beyond the Casino: When Does a Seafarer’s Injury Qualify for Disability Benefits?

Jose John C. Guerrero, a casino dealer, sought disability benefits from his employers, Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. and Celebrity Cruises, alleging a back injury sustained while assisting an elderly passenger. He claimed that sometime in January 2012, he and other crew members were instructed to assist elderly guests out of the ship using wheelchairs during a gastro-intestinal outbreak, but a sudden motion caused him to lose balance leading to back pains, an injury documented to be lumbar spondylosis. The employers countered that Guerrero’s injury occurred during a workout at the crew gym, an activity unrelated to his job duties. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of Guerrero, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, a reversal that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Guerrero then elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The central legal question was whether Guerrero’s injury was work-related, thus entitling him to disability benefits under the POEA’s Amended Standard Terms and Conditions.

The Supreme Court denied Guerrero’s petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC and CA. The Court reiterated the principle that it is not a trier of facts, and the factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive. Moreover, the Court emphasized that for disability to be compensable, two elements must concur: first, the injury or illness must be work-related; and second, the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract.Work-related injury pertains to injury(ies) resulting in disability or death arising out of, and in the course of, employment, therefore, it becomes imperative to determine the origin or cause of the incident, as well as the time, place, and circumstances surrounding it.

“For disability to be compensable, two elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer’s employment contract.”

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that the burden of proof rests on the claimant, in this case Guerrero, to establish a causal connection between the nature of his employment and his injury. Guerrero failed to provide substantial evidence linking his work as a casino dealer to his lumbar disc injury. His claim of injury while assisting an elderly passenger lacked corroboration. On the other hand, the respondents presented Guerrero’s Crew Injury Statement admitting that his injury resulted from a gym workout. The document also indicated that the injury occurred during his break time. The Supreme Court considered the statement as a substantial evidence against the claim.

“On JAN 22, I went to the gym to do my usual workout after that I felt pain on my lower back. I went to see a doctor on that day and gave me 24 hrs. to rest after that I go back to work, but everytime I bend, I felt something painful on my left buttock so I decided to see the doctor again on March 4 after that the pain keeps coming back ever since.”

The Court noted the inconsistencies in Guerrero’s account of how the injury occurred. Initially, he claimed it was due to assisting a passenger, then later suggested the gym incident was an aggravating factor, and finally alleged a fall during the wheelchair incident. These inconsistencies undermined his credibility and weakened his claim. The Court found that Guerrero’s strenuous physical activity at the gym caused the injury, which was unrelated to his duties as a casino dealer. The Court thus supported the conclusion that Guerrero failed to prove work-causation of the injury.

Moreover, the Supreme Court emphasized that Guerrero’s arguments regarding the failure of the company-designated physician to issue a timely medical certificate and the opinion of his chosen physician were raised for the first time on appeal. Matters not alleged in the pleadings or raised during the proceedings below cannot be ventilated for the first time on appeal. The Court found Dr. Garcia’s assessment, declaring Guerrero unfit for sea service, unsupported by sufficient diagnostic tests and procedures. This assessment, based on a single consultation and lacking adequate justification, could not be taken at face value.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court reiterated that the constitutional policy of protecting labor should not be used to oppress employers. While committed to the cause of labor, the Court must also ensure justice is dispensed fairly, based on established facts, applicable laws, and prevailing jurisprudence. In this case, Guerrero’s failure to prove a work-related injury, coupled with inconsistencies in his claims, led to the denial of his petition, highlighting the importance of providing concrete evidence to support claims for disability benefits.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the seafarer’s back injury was work-related, thus entitling him to disability benefits under his employment contract. The Supreme Court ruled that the injury was not work-related since it resulted from his gym workout.
What does “work-related injury” mean in this context?	A work-related injury is one that arises out of and in the course of employment. This means there must be a causal connection between the nature of the seafarer’s work and the injury sustained.
Who has the burden of proving that an injury is work-related?	The seafarer claiming disability benefits has the burden of proving that their injury is work-related. They must present substantial evidence to support their claim.
What kind of evidence is needed to prove a work-related injury?	Substantial evidence, which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, is required. This may include medical records, incident reports, and witness testimonies.
What happens if a seafarer’s account of how the injury occurred is inconsistent?	Inconsistent statements can undermine the seafarer’s credibility and weaken their claim for disability benefits. The court may view such inconsistencies as a lack of veracity.
Can a seafarer raise new arguments on appeal that were not presented earlier?	No, matters that were not alleged in the pleadings or raised during the initial proceedings cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. This is barred by estoppel.
What role does the company-designated physician play in determining disability?	The company-designated physician is responsible for assessing the seafarer’s medical condition and providing a medical assessment. Failure to issue a timely assessment can have legal implications.
How does the court balance the protection of labor with the rights of employers?	The court is committed to protecting labor but must also ensure fairness and justice for employers. Decisions are based on established facts, applicable laws, and jurisprudence, ensuring that both sides are treated equitably.

In summary, this case highlights the importance of establishing a clear and direct link between a seafarer’s job duties and the injury sustained to qualify for disability benefits. Inconsistencies in the seafarer’s account and failure to provide substantial evidence can be detrimental to their claim.

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

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: JOSE JOHN C. GUERRERO, VS. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., G.R. No. 222523, October 03, 2018

October 3, 2018

Work-Related Injury: Defining ‘Course of Employment’ in Seafarer Disability Claims

In a seafarer’s claim for disability benefits, proving a work-related injury is crucial. The Supreme Court, in this case, clarified the scope of what constitutes an injury sustained ‘in the course of employment.’ This ruling underscores that an injury, to be compensable, must occur within the employment period, at a place where the employee may reasonably be, and while performing duties or incidental tasks. This clarifies the conditions under which a seafarer’s injury is considered work-related, affecting their eligibility for disability benefits under the POEA-SEC.

Slipping Through the Cracks: Determining Disability Benefits When Accident is Unproven

Benedicto O. Buenaventura, Jr., a laundryman on MV Columbus 2, sought disability benefits after injuring his left shoulder. He claimed he slipped and fell, but the incident wasn’t officially reported. The Labor Arbiter (LA) and National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially favored Buenaventura, citing the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, stating that Buenaventura failed to prove that his injury was caused by an accident and did not comply with the procedure of consulting a third doctor. The Supreme Court had to determine whether Buenaventura was entitled to disability benefits, even if the accident wasn’t proven, focusing on whether his injury was work-related under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).

The Supreme Court clarified that even without proof of a specific accident under the CBA, the POEA-SEC still applies. The POEA-SEC governs the employment relationship between seafarers and their employers. It outlines the minimum requirements for Filipino seafarers working on foreign vessels. The Court emphasized that the POEA-SEC and CBA act as the ‘law’ between the parties, particularly when determining liability for disability benefits.

To receive disability compensation under Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC, two conditions must be met. First, the injury or illness must be work-related. Second, this work-related injury or illness must occur during the seafarer’s employment contract. The POEA-SEC defines a work-related injury as one ‘resulting in disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment.’ Similarly, 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.’

The Supreme Court, citing Sy v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., et al., explained the concept of a work-related injury in detail.

The two components of the coverage formula — ‘arising out of’ and ‘in the course of employment’ — are said to be separate tests which must be independently satisfied; however, it should not be forgotten that the basic concept of compensation coverage is unitary, not dual, and is best expressed in the word, ‘work-connection,’ because an uncompromising insistence on an independent application of each of the two portions of the test can, in certain cases, exclude clearly work-connected injuries. The words ‘arising out of’ refer to the origin or cause of the accident, and are descriptive of its character, while the words ‘in the course of’ refer to the time, place and circumstances under which the accident takes place.

As a matter of general proposition, an injury or accident is said to arise ‘in the course of employment’ when it takes place within the period of the employment, at a place where the employee reasonably may be, and while he is fulfilling his duties or is engaged in doing something incidental thereto.

In Buenaventura’s case, the Court found his ‘superior labral tear’ to be work-related. As a laundryman, Buenaventura’s duties required him to work in the laundry area. His injury occurred during his employment, five months into his contract. He was performing his duties, which included climbing ladders to collect laundry and check equipment. The Court determined that these circumstances met the definition of ‘arising out of and in the course of employment.’

Having established that the injury was work-related, the Court then addressed the issue of disability benefits. The company-designated physician assigned disability grades of 11 for Buenaventura’s shoulders and 12 for his neck. Independent physicians, however, declared him unfit for sea duty. Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC outlines the procedure for resolving conflicting medical assessments.

SEC. 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS

3. x x x

For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. In the course of the treatment, the seafarer shall also report regularly to the companydesignated physician specifically on the dates as prescribed by the company-designated physician and agreed to by a seafarer. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.

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

The POEA-SEC clearly states that if the seafarer’s doctor disagrees with the company doctor’s assessment, both parties must agree on a third doctor. This third doctor’s decision is final. In Buenaventura’s case, he did not follow this procedure. Because he didn’t consult a third doctor, the company-designated physician’s assessment prevailed. The Court therefore reversed the CA’s decision, but only awarded benefits corresponding to the disability gradings provided by the company-designated physician. The award of attorney’s fees was also deleted.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The main issue was whether Buenaventura was entitled to disability benefits, even if he couldn’t prove a specific accident, and whether his injury was work-related under the POEA-SEC.
What does ‘arising out of and in the course of employment’ mean?	‘Arising out of’ refers to the cause of the injury, while ‘in the course of employment’ refers to the time, place, and circumstances under which the injury occurred. Essentially, the injury must happen during work hours, at the workplace, and while performing job-related duties.
What is the POEA-SEC?	The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) is a standard contract for Filipino seafarers working on foreign vessels. It sets the minimum terms and conditions of employment, including disability benefits.
What happens if the company doctor and the seafarer’s doctor disagree?	If there is disagreement, the POEA-SEC requires both parties to agree on a third doctor whose decision will be final and binding. Failure to follow this procedure means the company-designated physician’s assessment prevails.
Why was Buenaventura not awarded total and permanent disability benefits?	Buenaventura did not follow the POEA-SEC procedure for resolving conflicting medical opinions. Therefore, the disability grading by the company-designated physician was upheld, not the assessment of permanent disability by his own doctor.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and ordered the respondents to pay Buenaventura disability benefits. The amount was based on the disability gradings provided by the company-designated physician.
Was the claim for attorney’s fees granted?	No, the Supreme Court deleted the award of attorney’s fees. There was no showing that the respondents acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy Buenaventura’s demands.
What is the significance of this case for seafarers?	This case highlights the importance of understanding and following the procedures outlined in the POEA-SEC when claiming disability benefits. It also clarifies what constitutes a work-related injury in the context of a seafarer’s employment.

This case clarifies the application of the POEA-SEC in seafarer disability claims, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures for medical assessments and dispute resolution. While the absence of a proven accident does not automatically negate a claim, compliance with the POEA-SEC, particularly the third-doctor rule, is crucial for 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: Benedicto O. Buenaventura, Jr. v. Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc., G.R. No. 224127, August 15, 2018

August 15, 2018

The Indefinite Assessment: Seafarer’s Right to Disability Benefits Despite ‘Third Doctor’ Rule

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed that the ‘third doctor rule’ does not apply when the company-designated physicians fail to provide a final and definitive assessment of a seafarer’s medical condition. This means that if the company doctors do not issue a clear assessment within the prescribed period, the seafarer’s right to claim disability benefits is not hindered, even if they did not seek a third opinion. This decision protects seafarers from indefinite medical evaluations that could delay or deny their rightful compensation for work-related injuries or illnesses.

Slipped, Injured, and Undecided: How Long Can a Seafarer Wait for a Medical Assessment?

Michael Paderes Atraje, working as a Second Cook aboard the vessel Carnation Ace, suffered a workplace accident when he slipped and fell, hitting his head. After being repatriated to the Philippines, he underwent a series of medical evaluations by company-designated physicians. However, Atraje never received a final and definite assessment of his condition within the 120-day period, extendable to 240 days, as required by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). This lack of a conclusive assessment led Atraje to seek an independent medical opinion, which declared him permanently unfit for sea duties. Magsaysay Mol Marine, Inc. and Mol Ship Management (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Atraje’s employers, contested his claim for permanent total disability benefits, arguing that his illnesses were not work-related and that he failed to comply with the ‘third doctor rule’. This rule mandates that if a seafarer’s doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, a third doctor should be jointly agreed upon to provide a final and binding decision.

The core legal question was whether Atraje’s failure to seek a third medical opinion invalidated his claim for disability benefits, especially considering the absence of a final and definitive assessment from the company-designated physicians. The Supreme Court, siding with Atraje, emphasized the importance of a timely and conclusive medical assessment from the company-designated physicians. The Court highlighted that the ‘third doctor rule’ is triggered only when there is a clear disagreement between the seafarer’s doctor and the company-designated physician regarding the assessment, which refers to the declaration of fitness to work or the degree of disability.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court scrutinized the medical reports and certifications presented by both parties. The Court found that the certification from the ship’s logbook, submitted by the employers, lacked probative value because it was not properly authenticated and the actual logbook, the best evidence, was not presented. Quoting Haverton Shipping Ltd. v. NLRC, the Court reiterated that entries in the vessel’s logbook are considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, provided they are made by a person performing a duty required by law. However, the Court stressed that the logbook itself or authenticated copies must be presented, not merely excerpts.

entries made in the vessel’s logbook, when “made by a person in the performance of a duty required by law[,] are prima facie evidence of the facts stated [in it].”

Furthermore, the Court emphasized the employer’s responsibility to provide a final and definite disability assessment within the prescribed period. The Court cited Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code, which states that temporary total disability lasting continuously for more than 120 days shall be deemed total and permanent. Rule X, Section 2(a) of the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation further elaborates on this, stating that the income benefit shall not be paid longer than 120 consecutive days except where the injury or sickness still requires medical attendance beyond 120 days but not to exceed 240 days.

Section 2. Period of entitlement. – (a) The income benefit shall be paid beginning on the first day of such disability. If caused by an injury or sickness it shall not be paid longer than 120 consecutive days except where such injury or sickness still requires medical attendance beyond 120 days but not to exceed 240 days from onset of disability in which case benefit for temporary total disability shall be paid.

In the absence of a timely and conclusive assessment from the company-designated physicians, the Court ruled that Atraje’s disability became permanent and total by operation of law. The Court, referencing Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, stated that the seafarer’s compliance with the third doctor rule presupposes that the company-designated physician came up with an assessment as to his fitness or unfitness to work before the expiration of the 120-day or 240-day periods.

Absent a certification from the company-designated physician, the seafarer had nothing to contest and the law steps in to conclusively characterize his disability as total and permanent.

The Court also addressed the argument that Atraje’s illnesses were not work-related. After examining the evidence, the Court affirmed the findings of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and the Court of Appeals that Atraje’s injuries were indeed work-related. The Court noted that reasonable proof of work-connection, not direct causal relation, is sufficient for compensation. In this case, the Court found substantial evidence that Atraje suffered a fall while on board the ship, which caused injury to his neck area and wrist.

This decision clarifies the obligations of employers and company-designated physicians in assessing a seafarer’s medical condition. It emphasizes that the primary responsibility lies with the company-designated physicians to provide a final and definite assessment within the prescribed period. Failure to do so can result in the seafarer’s disability being considered permanent and total by operation of law, regardless of whether the seafarer sought a third medical opinion.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a seafarer’s failure to seek a third medical opinion, as per the POEA-SEC, invalidated their claim for disability benefits, particularly when the company-designated physicians did not provide a final and definitive assessment within the prescribed period.
What is the ‘third doctor rule’?	The ‘third doctor rule’ states that if a seafarer’s personal doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, a third, mutually agreed-upon doctor’s decision will be final and binding. However, this rule only applies when the company-designated physician has issued a valid assessment.
What is the responsibility of company-designated physicians?	Company-designated physicians have the primary responsibility to provide a final and definite assessment of a seafarer’s medical condition within 120 days, extendable to 240 days under certain circumstances. This assessment must clearly state the seafarer’s fitness to work or the degree of disability.
What happens if the company-designated physicians fail to provide a timely assessment?	If company-designated physicians fail to provide a final assessment within the prescribed period, the seafarer’s disability may be deemed permanent and total by operation of law. This means the seafarer is entitled to disability benefits regardless of the lack of assessment.
What kind of evidence is needed to prove a work-related injury?	To prove a work-related injury, reasonable proof of work-connection is sufficient, not necessarily a direct causal relationship. This can include witness statements, medical records, and the circumstances of the injury.
What constitutes permanent total disability?	Permanent total disability does not require a state of absolute helplessness. It refers to the inability to perform substantially all material acts necessary for a gainful occupation without serious discomfort or pain, or without significant risk to one’s life.
Does the ‘third doctor rule’ apply to the determination of whether a disability is work-related?	No, the ‘third doctor rule’ only applies to disagreements regarding the declaration of fitness to work or the degree of disability. It does not extend to determining whether the disability is work-related.
What is the significance of the ship’s logbook in proving an accident?	The ship’s logbook is the official repository of daily transactions and occurrences on board. Entries in the logbook, when properly authenticated, serve as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

This ruling reinforces the rights of seafarers to receive just compensation for work-related injuries and illnesses. It places the onus on employers and company-designated physicians to conduct timely and conclusive medical assessments, ensuring that seafarers are not unduly delayed or denied their rightful benefits. The Supreme Court’s decision upholds the principle that the law protects the vulnerable and ensures fairness in the maritime industry.

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

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Magsaysay Mol Marine, Inc. vs. Michael Paderes Atraje, G.R. No. 229192, July 23, 2018

July 23, 2018

Seafarer’s Duty: Strict Compliance with Reporting Requirements for Disability Claims

The Supreme Court has affirmed that a seafarer’s failure to comply with the mandatory three-day reporting requirement for post-employment medical examination results in the forfeiture of their right to claim disability benefits. This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in maritime employment contracts, particularly concerning work-related injuries or illnesses. It underscores that while the law aims to protect seafarers, they must also fulfill their obligations to substantiate claims for disability compensation.

The Case of the Ailing Seaman: Reporting Requirements vs. Right to Compensation

This case revolves around Veronico O. Tagud, a seafarer who claimed disability benefits after an injury sustained while working on a vessel. The central legal question is whether Tagud’s failure to undergo a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three days of his repatriation forfeits his right to claim disability benefits, despite his claim that the injury was work-related and occurred during his employment.

The facts indicate that Tagud was employed as an Able Bodied Seaman. He was injured on October 18, 2008, when he lost his balance due to the ship tilting, and his elbow struck a hard object. He underwent an x-ray which revealed no fracture, only a small olecranon spur. After disembarking in Singapore, he was repatriated to Manila. He alleged that he was not assisted by his manning agency or referred to a company-designated physician. Months later, he sought medical attention for pain in his upper right extremities, eventually leading to a diagnosis of neuritis and a claim for permanent disability benefits.

However, the respondents, BSM Crew Service Centre Phils., Inc. and Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement (Cyprus), denied liability, asserting that Tagud was repatriated on a “finished contract” and did not comply with the mandatory three-day reporting requirement. The Labor Arbiter initially granted Tagud’s complaint, but the NLRC reversed this decision, a reversal that was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The Supreme Court then reviewed the CA’s decision.

The legal framework for this case is primarily based on the 2000 POEA-SEC, which governs the employment of Filipino seafarers on ocean-going vessels. Section 20(B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC outlines the compensation and benefits a seafarer is entitled to in case of work-related injury or illness. Crucially, it also stipulates the mandatory post-employment medical examination. The provision states:

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

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to this requirement, citing Heirs of the Late Delfin Dela Cruz v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc.. The Court stated that the three-day mandatory reporting requirement is essential to determine whether the illness or injury was contracted during the seafarer’s employment or if working conditions increased the risk of contracting the ailment. Without this examination, employers would face difficulties in determining the cause of a claimant’s illness, potentially leading to unrelated claims.

The Court found that Tagud failed to comply with the three-day reporting requirement and did not provide evidence of any attempt to submit himself to a company-designated physician within the prescribed period. He also failed to present a letter stating he was physically incapacitated, which would have served as an exemption to the rule. It took him four months to seek medical attention, and that was at a private clinic. These actions were deemed insufficient to substantiate his claim for disability benefits. In this case it cannot be determined by the evidence presented if it happened during the contract or after.

Furthermore, the Court addressed Tagud’s argument that his non-compliance should be excused due to the respondents’ inadvertence or deliberate refusal. The Supreme Court was not persuaded by this argument. The Court reasoned that the POEA standard employment contract is designed for the protection of Filipino seafarers. However, claimants must still comply with procedural requirements and provide substantial evidence to establish their right to benefits.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the pro-seafarer inclination of the POEA-SEC. However, it ultimately sided with a strict interpretation of the post-employment medical examination requirements. The ruling underscores the need for seafarers to diligently follow the procedural guidelines set forth in their employment contracts to successfully claim disability benefits for work-related injuries or illnesses.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a seafarer’s failure to comply with the three-day post-repatriation medical examination requirement forfeits his right to disability benefits.
What is the three-day reporting requirement?	The three-day reporting requirement mandates that a seafarer must submit to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days of their return, unless physically incapacitated.
What happens if a seafarer fails to meet this requirement?	Failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement results in the forfeiture of the seafarer’s right to claim sickness allowance and disability benefits.
What if the seafarer is physically unable to report within three days?	If physically incapacitated, the seafarer must provide written notice to the agency within the same three-day period to be considered compliant.
What evidence did the seafarer present in this case?	The seafarer presented an x-ray report taken after the injury, but it did not conclusively prove a work-related disability during his employment.
Why did the Supreme Court deny the seafarer’s claim?	The Court denied the claim due to the seafarer’s failure to comply with the three-day reporting requirement and lack of substantial evidence proving a work-related injury during the employment term.
What does the POEA-SEC aim to protect?	The POEA-SEC aims to protect and benefit Filipino seafarers in their overseas employment, but claimants must still meet the necessary procedural and evidentiary requirements.
What is the significance of the company-designated physician?	The company-designated physician plays a crucial role in determining whether the seafarer suffered a permanent disability due to illness or injury during their employment.

In conclusion, this case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in employment contracts, particularly for seafarers seeking disability benefits. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that while the law aims to protect seafarers, they must also fulfill their obligations to substantiate their claims within the prescribed timelines.

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: Veronico O. Tagud v. BSM Crew Service Centre Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 219370, December 06, 2017

December 6, 2017

Tag: Work-Related Injury

Understanding the Criteria for Permanent and Total Disability in Seafarer Cases

Magsaysay Maritime Corp. and Keymax Maritime Co., Ltd. v. Jose Elizalde B. Zanoria, G.R. No. 233071, September 02, 2020

Legal Context: Understanding Disability in Maritime Law

Case Breakdown: The Journey of Jose Elizalde B. Zanoria

Practical Implications: Navigating Future Disability Claims

Frequently Asked Questions

Seafarer’s Rights to Disability Benefits: The Importance of Timely and Definitive Medical Assessments

Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc. v. Villaflor, G.R. No. 225425, January 29, 2020

The Legal Framework for Seafarer Disability Claims

The Journey of Franklin J. Villaflor’s Case

Practical Implications for Seafarers and Employers

Frequently Asked Questions

When a Slip Leads to a Claim: Proving Work-Related Disability at Sea

FAQs

When Duty Calls, and Harm Befalls: Is Employer Negligence a Just Cause for Compensation?

FAQs

When a Snap Leads to a Claim: Defining ‘Accident’ and a Seafarer’s Right to CBA Benefits

FAQs

When a Seafarer’s Silence Sinks Their Disability Claim: The Case of Pangasian

FAQs

Beyond the Casino: When Does a Seafarer’s Injury Qualify for Disability Benefits?

FAQs

Slipping Through the Cracks: Determining Disability Benefits When Accident is Unproven

FAQs

Slipped, Injured, and Undecided: How Long Can a Seafarer Wait for a Medical Assessment?

FAQs

The Case of the Ailing Seaman: Reporting Requirements vs. Right to Compensation

FAQs