6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly or disclose his illness because such examination is not at all fool-proof or thoroughly exploratory.[45] Here, stock can be taken of the fact that the company-designated doctor treated Demetrio from his repatriation until the time that he was undergoing chemotherapy. Even then, the company-designated physician categorically stated that Demetrio's medical condition was not work-related or work-aggravated. Indeed, in her October 9, 2009 Medical Report,[46] Dr. Salvador enumerated the causes of stomach cancer to wit: 1. Diet (nitrates, nitrites, cured or picked foods) 2. Environmental factors (smoke, dust, cigarettes and alcohol) 3. Chronic gastritis (atrophic, hypertrophic gastritis, gastric ulcers, achlorhydia, pernicious anemia, and prior gastric resection) 4. Genetic factors (blood group A) 5. H. pylori infection 6. Previous gastric surgery 7. Obesity 8. Radiation exposure[47] The company-employed physician opined that stomach cancer "[may be] more often multifactoral in origin involving both inherited predisposition and environmental factors."[48] She concluded that in the case at bench, Demetrio's stomach cancer was not work-related. In the absence of a second opinion from Demetrio's own physician of choice, this Court may not arbitrarily disregard the finding of the company-designated doctor, Dr. Salvador. If anything, we hew close to the jurisprudential teaching that the seafarer is not entitled to disability benefits if he does not adduce substantial evidence of a medically-established connection between his work and his illness.[49] This is as it should be. For, unopposed and uncontradicted by equally credible and trustworthy countervailing substantial evidence from herein respondents-spouses who, as the original suitors-at-law in this indemnity-recovery suit, had the onus to establish their suit by the presentation of such specie of substantial evidence called for by this case: this Court is not at liberty to reject, with no show of reason, the unopposed and uncontradicted testimony of the company-designated physician. All told, this Court finds that the CA erred in setting aside the NLRC Decision which affirmed the Decision of the LA dismissing the Complaint for lack of merit. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61244 7/10