8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly This provision thus placed the burden on the seafarer's heirs to establish that: (a) the seafarer's death was work-related; and (b) the death occurred during the term of employment. These are proven by substantial evidence, or such level of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion.[20] While the POEA-SEC does not expressly define what "work-related death" means, it could be deduced that such term refers to the seafarer's death resulting from workrelated injury or illness. Hence, contrary to what petitioners insist, the principle that those illnesses not listed in Section 32 of the POEA SEC are disputably presumed as work-related shall stand. Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC provides for the conditions in determining whether an illness of a seafarer is work-related. Thus, 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 other factors necessary to contract it; 4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer. In Nonay v. Bahia Shipping Services, Inc., Fred Olsen Lines and Mendoza,[21] the Court held that: Settled is the rule that 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. It is sufficient 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.[22] (Citation omitted) The disputable presumption that a seafarer's sickness is work-related does not mean that he would only sit idly while waiting for the respondent to dispute the presumption. What the law requires is for the seafarer to show a causal connection between the illness and the work for which he was contracted. Here, Timoteo was shown to have been inevitably exposed to iron dusts, diesel fumes and other toxic substances because of the nature of his work as a fitter.[23] More than 30 years of being exposed to these will definitely take a toll on his health. It was undisputed that since 1997 until his last assignment in 2007 as a fitter or in the last ten years prior to his demise, Timoteo was deployed by respondent Jebsen Maritime Inc. as his manning agency. In a study by Siew, Kauppinen, Kyyronen, Heikkila and Pukkala (2008),[24] it was found that the relative risks for lung cancer increased as the cumulative exposure to iron and welding fumes increased. Even in the medical certificate issued by Dr. Salvador, he did https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65354 4/8