5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly At any rate, the company-designated doctor's report saying that petitioner's illness was not work related should not be given credence as it only pertained to hypertension, not hypertensive cardiovascular disease.[26] Fifth. Petitioner's osteoarthritis was work-related. Petitioner's duties included carrying and lifting heavy materials, forcing him to repeatedly bend and make heavy use of his joints. Petitioner informed respondents of this condition but the latter took no action. [27] Sixth. The clearance for work of the company-designated doctor was not definite. It did not expressly state that petitioner was fit for sea duties. Also, the clearance was only for tuberculosis and diabetes. Petitioner was not cleared from hypertensive cardiovascular disease. Dr. Dalisay also opined that petitioner must complete nine (9) months of anti-tuberculosis medication. When the company-designated doctor issued her report, petitioner had only had six (6) months of this medication.[28] Finally. Petitioner was unable to work for more than 120 to 240 days. The companydesignated doctors even belatedly issued her report only on the 184th day from petitioner's repatriation. This entitled him to the maximum disability benefits.[29] In its Resolution[30] dated January 4, 2016, the NCMB denied respondents' motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals' Ruling By its assailed Decision[31] dated January 6, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed, viz.: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated September 18, 2015 and the Resolution dated January 4, 2016 both rendered by MVA Edgar C. Recina in AC-433-RCMB-NCRMVA-061-06-07-2014 are REVERSED. Private respondent Leonides P. Rillera is declared NOT ENTITLED to the payment of permanent total disability benefits and attorney's fees. SO ORDERED.[32] The Court of Appeals held that petitioner was disqualified from receiving compensation benefits for knowingly concealing his previous diagnosis with hypertensive cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The fact that petitioner passed his PEME cannot excuse his willful concealment of his illnesses. PEMEs are not exploratory and do not allow the employer to discover any and all pre-existing medical conditions of the seafarer. PEMEs are nothing more than a summary examination of the seafarer's physiological condition. The "fit-to-work" declaration in the PEME cannot be considered conclusive proof to show that a seafarer was free from any ailment prior to deployment.[33] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66467 5/17