4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly requirements are met in order for a seafarer to be entitled to disability benefits: a. the seafarer suffers an illness or injury during his employment; b. that the illness [or] injury is proven to be work- related; c. that the seafarer is declared disabled because of the illness or injury; d. that the disability of the seafarer is assessed by the company doctor. As borne out by the records, [Taok] filed the present claim for disability benefits on September 19, 2006. On said date, he was still undergoing treatment with the company-designated doctor. More importantly, there was still no assessment or declaration that the seafarer is disabled on said date. Hence, there was still no finding of disability on the part of [Taok]. It is therefore clear that [Taok] has no cause of action at the time that he instituted the present complaint. He was still undergoing treatment with the company-designated physician and there exists no medical finding that he was disabled. The allegation that “[Taok] feels that he is already unfit for sea duty as his condition is rapidly deteriorating” is not sufficient to give him a cause of action to lodge a complaint for disability benefits.[9] LA Salinas also ruled that Taok failed to prove that his illness is work-related: Under the Amended POEA Contract, the important requirement of workrelatedness was incorporated. The incorporation of the work-related provision has made essential the causal connection between a seafarer’s work and the illness upon which the claim for disability is predicated upon. In the case at bar, atrial fibrillation is not work-related since it is not an occupational disease under the Amended POEA Contract. Likewise, [Taok] failed to introduce credible evidence to show that his illness is work-related. It should be emphasized that it is [Taok] who has the burden of evidence to prove that the illness for which he anchors his present claim for disability benefits is work-related. As held in the case of Rosario vs. Denklav, G.R. No. 166906, March 16, 2005: “The burden is on the beneficiaries to show a reasonable connection between the causative circumstances in the employment of the deceased employee and his death or permanent total disability. Here, petitioner failed to discharge this burden.” In the present case, [Taok] has not presented any evidence to prove that his elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55036 3/15