6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly “It is beyond cavil that it is the company-designated physician who is entrusted with the task of assessing the seaman’s disability.”[43] It is the company-designated physician’s findings which should form the basis of any disability claim of the seafarer. Such assessment is arrived at after the seafarer submits himself to the companydesignated physician for a post employment medical examination within three days from his repatriation. It is significant to note, however, that courts are not bound by the assessment of the company-designated physician.[44] While the company-designated physician must declare the nature of a seafarer’s disability, the former’s declaration is not conclusive and final upon the latter or the court.[45] Its inherent merit will still be weighed and duly considered. In Racelis v. United Philippine Lines, Inc.,[46] the medical opinion presented by the employer stating that the seafarer’s ailment is congenital in origin was discarded by the Court because the opinion came from a physician who did not personally attend to the seafarer in the course of the latter’s medical treatment and for being unsubstantiated by any medical findings. The ailment which caused the seafarer’s death was held by the Court to be work-related for failure of the employer to overcome the statutory presumption of work-relatedness. Similarly, in Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Babol,[47] the Court did not give probative weight on the company doctor’s opinion that the seafarer’s condition is not work-related as the wordings used in the doctor’s report did not make a categorical statement confirming the total absence of work relation but only a mere probability. Again, the Court upheld the presumption of work-relation. In Magsaysay Mitsui Osk Marine, Inc. v. Bengson,[48] the Court disregarded the company-designated physician’s categorical declaration that the seafarer’s illness is not work-related for being self-serving. As the facts of the case clearly showed the contributory factor of the seafarer’s daily working conditions to the illness suffered, even in the absence of a contrary opinion of other doctors, the Court sustained the illness’ work-connection. Also, in Teekay Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. Jarin,[49] the Court ruled that it was unnecessary for the seafarer therein to consult and provide a contrary opinion from his own doctors since the causal connection between the illness and the work for which he had been contracted was clearly detailed and convincingly established by him. Here, while petitioners were quick to point out that Dr. Banaga is a companydesignated physician, the latter, however, could not have possibly arrived at a reliable diagnosis of Gazzingan’s condition. His assessment, based merely on Gazzingan’s PEME, did not reflect the true state of health of the seafarer. As the Court has previously ruled, a PEME is not exploratory in nature and cannot be relied upon to arrive at a seafarer’s true state of health.[50] The NLRC erred in stating that this opinion can be relied upon as an accurate assessment of Gazzingan’s illness on the sole reason that no contrary opinion was rendered. The fact that there was no contrary opinion of another physician is of no moment. To repeat, Dr. Banaga’s opinion is not an accurate appraisal of the extent of Gazzingan’s disability. It was not based on the postemployment medical examination conducted on Gazzingan after his medical repatriation. In the absence of reasonable findings, diagnostic tests and procedures to support the assessment, the same cannot be simply taken at face value. Moreover, Dr. Banaga hastily concluded that aortic dissection is hereditary without necessarily considering other varied factors that can contribute to the development of the disease. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60638 10/14