6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly (POEA-SEC). Thus, without the second doctor's certification and the non-referral of the case to a third doctor, the CA ruled that petitioner's disability benefits must be based on the final disability assessment made by the company-designated doctor. Petitioner moved for, but was denied, reconsideration by the CA. Hence, this petition. Petitioner claims that the CA's reliance on the Grade 7 disability rating given by the company-designated doctor is based on the flawed finding that he failed to secure the opinion of a second doctor. He likewise faults the respondents for the non-referral of the case to a third doctor as required under Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC since the latter ignored his request to undergo another medical examination to prove the extent of the disability being claimed. Respondents, for their part, insist that petitioner's illness is not compensable since it is not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC. Assuming that petitioner's condition is disputably presumed to be work-related, the burden lies upon him to prove that his work contributed/aggravated his illness, a burden which, according to the respondents, he failed to discharge. And even if petitioner's illness is compensable, respondents maintain that the disability rating of Grade 7 given by its doctor should prevail in view of his failure to prove that he sought a second medical opinion and to seek for the opinion of a third doctor, as provided for in the POEA-SEC. Issue The sole issue for the consideration of the Court is whether or not the CA erred in ruling that petitioner is not entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. Our Ruling We grant the petition. Petitioner's illness is work-related For disability to be compensable under Section 20(A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, two elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the workrelated injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract.[12] The same provision defines a work-related illness is "any sickness as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of [the] Contract with the conditions set therein satisfied." Meanwhile, illnesses not mentioned under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC are disputably presumed as work-related.[13] Notwithstanding the presumption of work-relatedness of an illness under Section 20(A) (4), the seafarer must still prove by substantial evidence that his work conditions caused or, at least, increased the risk of contracting the disease.[14] Settled is the rule that for illness to be compensable, it is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and only reason for the illness suffered by the seafarer. [15] It is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had.[16] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64175 4/12