Luisito C. Reyes vs. Jebsens Maritime, Inc. and Alfa Ship & Crew Management GMBH,
G.R. No. 230502, February 15, 2022
Facts:
1. Petitioner was hired by Alfa as Second Officer, through its local manning agent, Jebsens. His employment was covered by a standard employment contract for a period of six months.
2. Halfway through his contract, he allegedly figured in an accident while on board the vessel. He slipped and fell, hitting his buttocks on the floor while releasing the tug line of the ship. He felt pain in his lumbar area, but he continued to work.
3. On March 21, 2014, he was brought to a hospital in Sweden. Radiographs and CT scan of his lumbar spine revealed a L1 vertebra fracture. In view of his medical condition, he was declared unfit to work and was repatriated on March 29, 2014.
4. On April 2, 2014, he underwent an x-ray of his lumbar spine with UPMC Philippines (UPMC), the result of which showed a "compression deformity of the Ll vertebral body," and was advised to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the lumbar area for further evaluation.
5. On April 26, 2014, petitioner was subjected to bone mineral density measurement which found that he had low bone mass density (osteopenia). Thereafter, he had a total of 12 sessions of physical therapy in June and July 2014. Petitioner felt slight relief immediately after said sessions, but the pain returned a few hours after each session.
6. Petitioner was unsatisfied with the findings of the company designated physician. He, thus, sought the opinion of a physician of his choice. He consulted with the Department of Orthopedics at the Armed Forces of the Philippines Medical Center, through Dr. Manuel Fidel Magtira due to recurring lower back pain. Dr. Magtira declared petitioner permanently unfit in any capacity for further sea duties after thorough history taking and physical examination.
Issues:
· Whether or not the injury suffered by petitioner is work related
· Whether or not petitioner's injury is compensable
· Whether or not petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
FIRST ISSUE
Under POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2010, referred to as the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels (MC No. 10) and deemed incorporated in every employment contract of seafarers, work-related illness is defined as any sickness as a result of an occupational disease listed under Sec. 32-A of the contract with the conditions set therein; while work-related injury is an injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
In the same MC No. 10, Sec. 20, par. A(4) categorically provides that those illnesses not listed in Sec. 32 of the contract are disputably presumed as work-related.
SECOND ISSUE
The compensability of an illness or injury does not depend on whether the injury or disease was pre-existing at the time of employment but rather on whether the injury or illness is workrelated or had been aggravated by the seafarer's working condition.
The presumption of work-relatedness does not extend to the matter of compensability. Compensability pertains to the entitlement to receive compensation and benefits upon a showing that work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of the injury or illness.
Petitioner's injury is compensable because it has a causal connection with his work and he suffered the same during the term of his contract.
THIRD ISSUE
A seafarer's entitlement to disability benefits is not automatic simply because of a finding that his illness or injury is compensable. The entitlement of a seafarer on overseas employment to disability benefits is governed by law, by the parties' contracts, and by the medical findings.
Medical findings of the company-designated physician are given weight as such physician is, under the law, obligated to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness or degree of disability within a period of 120 days from repatriation, subject to extension of up to 240 days when further medical attention is necessary.
On the other hand, the law also requires the seafarer to 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.
As corollary, the seafarer may also consult a physician of his choice. The same law expressly provides that in case of disagreement or conflict between the findings of the company-designated physician and the seafarer's physician of choice, a third doctor may be jointly agreed upon by the parties. The findings of the third doctor shall be final and binding on both employer and seafarer.
In the present case, the company-designated physician issued a Final Medical Report on July 14, 2014, within 108 days from petitioner's repatriation, that the latter had healed from compression fracture, after undergoing series of tests, medications, and 12 sessions of physical therapy. He was found to have attained maximal medical improvement and was deemed fit to work. Petitioner's physician of choice, Dr. Magtira, however, issued a Medical Report with the findings that petitioner had lost his pre-injury capacity and was unfit to go back to his previous work due to the said impairment. Dr. Magtira declared petitioner to have permanent disability and permanently unfit in any capacity for further sea duties.
The conflicting findings called for the referral to a third doctor jointly agreed upon by the parties and whose findings shall be final and binding upon them. The initiative for referral to a third doctor should come from the employee, i.e., petitioner himself. He must actively or expressly request for it.
In the present case petitioner expressly proposed the referral to a third doctor. It was respondents who refused this, claiming through their counsel, that they had not been given authority to refer the case to a third doctor.
Respondents clearly failed to abide by the mandatory referral procedure under the law. As a result, the findings of the company-designated physician cannot be automatically deemed conclusive and binding.
The Court give greater weight and credence on the medical report of petitioner's physician; Dr. Magtira, that the former is deemed permanently disabled and unfit for any sea duties.
Petitioner is entitled to the maximum total and permanent disability benefit of $60,000.00 provided under the POEA-SEC.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment