6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the burden is shifted to the petitioners to overcome the statutory presumption. However, in the case at bench, petitioners failed to discharge such burden as will be discussed below. First, petitioners insist that Gazzingan’s genetic predisposition has caused his ailment and that his smoking habits hastened its development. We are not persuaded. As stated earlier, the specific cause of aortic dissection is still unknown and the risk factors may only seem to be associated in some way with the disease. Thus, petitioners’ theory cannot be completely correct. Besides, no medical certification was presented by petitioners to substantiate their bare allegation that Gazzingan’s left ventricular hypertrophy and lipoma excision found in his PEME had a causal relation with the disease that caused his death. As aptly held by the CA, there was no evidence to prove the causal connection between Gazzingan’s lipoma, which was already removed, and his dissecting aneurysm. With respect to left ventricular hypertrophy, the same does not automatically suggest the presence of a pre-existing congenital disease. It is not an illness but a mere condition that involves the thickening of the muscle wall of the heart’s left pumping chamber that can be well-managed and usually only develops overtime.[41] Also, smoking, by itself, can neither be a factor that bars compensation for the illness.[42] While smoking may contribute to the development of the disease, it is not the only possible cause. Other factors such as working and living under stressful conditions also contribute to its development. Next, petitioners strongly rely on Dr. Banaga’s opinion that Gazzingan’s condition is not work-related. They insist that Dr. Banaga’s assessment is conclusive in the absence of a contrary opinion rendered by a separate physician. The Court, however, agrees with the CA that such opinion is inconclusive for purposes of determining the compensability of Gazzingan’s illness. Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC provides: Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days. For this purpose, the seafarer shall 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 compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits. If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60638 9/14