and the seaman with due regard to the provisions of the Constitution on the due process and equal protection clauses.   Petitioner points out that his illness is work-related simply because had it been a land-based employment, petitioner would have easily gone home and attended to the needs of his family.27[27]   The Court cannot submit to this argument. This is not the “work-related” instance contemplated by the provisions of the employment contract in order to be entitled to the benefits. Otherwise, every seaman would automatically be entitled to compensation because the nature of his work is not land-based and the submission of the seaman to the company-designated physician as to the nature of the illness suffered by him would just be an exercise of futility. The fact is that the petitioner failed to establish, by substantial evidence, that his brief psychotic disorder was caused by the nature of his work as oiler of the company-owned vessel. In fact, he failed to elaborate on the nature of his job or to specify his functions as oiler of respondent company. The Court, therefore, has difficulty in finding any link between his position as oiler and his illness.   27[27] Rollo, p. 123.