6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Madridejos insists that his sebaceous cyst was work-related and compensable since the risk of acquiring it increased due to his working conditions.[143] NYK-FIL opposes, claiming that Madridejos' cyst was not attributable to the nature of his job.[144] It asserts that Madridejos failed to show "even a single realistic connection" between his illness and his employment.[145] NYK-FIL says that Madridejos never met any accident and there was no medical or accident report to prove its occurrence.[146] A work-related illness is "any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A with the conditions set therein satisfied."[147] Section 32-A provides: Section 32-A. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES For an occupational disease and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following conditions must be satisfied: 1. The seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein; 2. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks; 3. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; 4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer. The following diseases are considered as occupational when contracted under working conditions involving the risks described herein. A sebaceous cyst is not included under Section 32[148] or 32-A[149] of the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment Agency Standard Employment Contract. However, the guidelines expressly provide that those illnesses not listed in Section 32 "are disputably presumed as work[-]related."[150] Similarly, for an illness to be compensable, "it is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and only reason for the illness suffered by the seafarer."[151] It is enough that there is "a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had."[152] The disputable presumption implies "that the non-inclusion in the list of compensable diseases/illnesses does not translate to an absolute exclusion from disability benefits." [153] Similarly, "the disputable presumption does not signify an automatic grant of compensation and/or benefits claim."[154] There is still a need for the claimant to elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63066 12/25