11/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In the case at bar, the petitioner did not make use of this remedy since, at the pain of reiteration, he immediately filed the complaint without even informing the respondents as to his physician's contrary findings. As a consequence, despite the divergence in opinion between the company physician and the petitioner's own, the parties were not able to address the same due to the lack of knowledge of the respondents and the lack of action on the part of the petitioner, which should stand as another reason to deny the latter's claim. In Veritas Maritime Corporation v. Gepanaga, Jr.:[45] Gepanaga failed to observe the prescribed procedure of having the conflicting assessments on his disability referred to a third doctor for a binding opinion. xxxx Thus, while petitioner had the right to seek a second and even a third opinion, the final determination of whose decision must prevail must be done in accordance with an agreed procedure. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not avail of this procedure; hence, we have no option but to declare that the company-designated doctor's certification is the final determination that must prevail. x x x.[46] Paralleling Gepanaga, Jr., the Court has no option but to hold the respondents' assessment of the petitioner's disability as final and binding, in the absence of a third and binding opinion. This especially, as a perusal of the company-designated physician's findings will show that the same is complete and without any apparent infirmity. The petitioner was unable to proffer any counter-evidence showing that the company-designated physician was unable to come up with an indefinite and unarbitrary ruling on the petitioner's medical status. Considering it was the petitioner's inaction in securing a third physician and his lack of proof in assailing the respondents' own medical report, the Court finds that the CA did not err in ruling in favor of the respondents. At the basic core of the matter, it was incumbent on the petitioner to show through substantial evidence proof that his condition was aggravated by his work, and not just merely rely on the presumption that his illness is work-related. While the law recognizes that an illness may be disputably presumed to be work-related, the seafarer or the claimant must still show a reasonable connection between the nature of work on board the vessel and the illness contracted or aggravated.[47] Thus, the burden is placed upon the claimant to present substantial evidence that his work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease.[48] As explained in Espere v. NFD International Manning Agents, Inc., et al.,[49] another case involving hypertension: In other words, while the law recognizes that an illness may be disputably presumed to be work-related, the seafarer or the claimant must still show a reasonable connection between the nature of work on board the vessel and the illness contracted or aggravated. Thus, the burden is placed upon the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65376 9/15