8/23/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly of unloading destinations. In fact, it was in one of these loading tasks, or on April 17, 2012, that respondent slipped while carrying a heavy sack of big squid, and then felt a crack at his back and pain thereon. On the other hand, varicocoele develops over time and worsens when the patient is physically exerting himself, standing or sitting. Prolonged exertion is also more likely to bring pain. The Panel rejected the claim of the petitioners that respondent's back pains is not work-related because he did not complain or mention it even to the company-designated physician when he was getting treated for his varicocoele, bilateral since respondent was able to sufficiently explain the absence of any report on his back pains. Given that after continuous medical treatment, respondent remained incapacitated to resume his sea duties despite the lapse of 18 months from the time of repatriation, coupled with the evaluation of medical experts who examined his health condition that he is now unfit to perform his customary work, the Panel held that respondent is entitled to total and permanent disability compensation based on POEA-SEC. Respondent must also be reimbursed of his medical expenses for his physical therapy sessions as evidenced by the medical receipts[43] he presented pursuant to Article 25 of the CB A, and granted sickness allowance under Article 26 of the CBA. The Panel further held that the petitioners cannot validly reject respondent's claims for disability benefits on the ground that he had been declared fit to work by the companydesignated physician as the latter's assessment is not final and conclusive, and does not deprive the seafarer of the right to seek a second opinion. The Panel pointed out that after respondent was declared fit to work by the company-designated physician, he wrote the petitioners the very next day to dispute the said findings, raised concerns about his back and requested for a medical reevaluation and treatment which were all not heeded, thereby prompting the respondent to seek medical attention using his own funds. His medical evaluation, after receiving extensive treatment, showed that he is unfit to work at his previous job. The detailed, comprehensive, extensive and medically-backed up evaluation and assessment of respondent's doctor must prevail over the unsupported fit-to-work declaration of the company-designated physician. Anent the claims of respondent for damages, the Panel ruled that the (a) ship captain's lack of candidness in informing respondent that he will be repatriated upon reaching Bangkok, Thailand and the insensitivity of informing him of his immediate repatriation without giving him a chance to prepare himself for the shocking news; (b) the manner by which the company-designated physician rebuffed his request for inclusion of his lower back pains in his medical referral; (c) his questionable declaration of being fit to work within the 120-day period from his repatriation, notwithstanding the fact that he was still not well; and (d) the consistent cold indifference petitioners treated respondent's three letter requests for medical treatment, medical assistance, and medical reimbursement all show the abusive and fraudulent manner by which petitioners dealt with their moral and legal obligations toward the respondent in order to avoid the payment of disability benefits clearly due him. The actuations of the petitioners which were all prejudicial to the respondent entitled the latter to an award of moral damages. The Panel also found the award of 10% attorney's fees to the respondent justified in view of the fact that respondent was forced to litigate and had incurred expenses to elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65134 6/12