G.R. No. 208215
April 19, 2017
FACTS:
On June 16, 2008, respondent boarded the ship MV Norwegian Sun. While on board the vessel, respondent suffered from difficulty of breathing and had a brief seizure attack.
Repatriated on October 7, 2008, respondent was diagnosed by company-designated physicians to be suffering from cavernoma – declared as idiopathic and congenital; and thus, not work-related.
Respondent filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits, damages, and attorney’s fees.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed respondent’s complaint which was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). These decisions were later reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA).
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
HELD:
No, the respondent is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits.
Entitlement of seamen on overseas work to disability benefits is matter governed, not only by medical findings, but by law and contract (Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, et al. vs. NLRC and Cedol, G.R. 186180). The illness of respondent, cavernoma, is not included in the list of occupational diseases under Section 32-A of the 2000 POEA-SEC. However, Section 20 (B)(4) of the contract provides that those illnesses not listed in Section 32 are disputably presumed as work-related.
Still, for a disability to be compensable under Section 20 (B), it is not sufficient to establish that the seafarer’s illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled; it must also be shown that there is a causal connection between the seafarer’s illness or injury and the work for which he had been contracted (Maersk Filipinas Crewing Inc. vs. Mesina, 710 Phil. 531, 541-542).
The respondent did not adduce proof to show a reasonable connection between his work and his illness. Although respondent’s personal physician issued a medical certificate declaring that the former’s illness is work-aggravated/related, it was replete with details justifying such; not to mention that they met only once.
Therefore, the medical opinion of company-designated physicians, who attended to the respondent since his repatriation up to almost five (5) months and who are familiar with his medical history and condition, deserve more credence as opposed to personal physican’s unsupported conclusions.
In sum, the [Supreme Court] hold that the respondent is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits for his failure to refute the company-designated physicians’ findings that his illness was not work-related.
Sub-issues:
1) To whom should the burden to prove that an illness is work-related belong to?
2) Can the respondent’s clean bill of health from his Pre-employment Medical Examination (PEME) be used as a conducive proof to show that he was free of ailment before deployment? / mmp
No comments:
Post a Comment