lower courts come up with conflicting positions.23[23] This case constitutes an exception inasmuch as the CA's findings contradict those of the LA and the NLRC.   Section 20(B)1 of the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels made pursuant to POEA Memorandum Circular No. 055-96 and Department Order No. 33, Series of 1996, clearly provides:   The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers injury or illness during the term of his contract are as follows: xxxx 2.         If the injury or illness requires medical and/or dental treatment in a foreign port, the employer shall be liable for the full cost of such medical, serious dental, surgical and hospital treatment as well as board and lodging until the seafarer is declared fit to work or to be repatriated. However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the employer until such time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the company-designated physician.24[24]   For disability claims, the post-employment medical examination is meant to verify the medical condition of the seafarer when he signs off from the vessel.25 [25] On the other hand, in the cases involving death compensation, our rulings in Gau Sheng Phils., Inc. v. Joaquin26[26] and Rivera v. Wallem Maritime Services, 23[23] Pascua v. NLRC, 351 Phil. 48, 61 (1998). 24[24] Emphasis supplied. 25[25] Nisda v. Sea Serve Maritime Agency, G.R. No. 179177, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 668. 26[26] G.R. No. 144665, September 8, 2004, 437 SCRA 608.