1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly c. If a person who was apparently asymptomatic before being subjected to strain at work showed signs and symptoms of cardiac injury during the performance of his work and such symptoms and signs persisted, it is reasonable to claim a causal relationship d. if a person is a known hypertensive or diabetic, he should show compliance with prescribed maintenance medications and doctor-recommended lifestyle changes. The employer shall provide a workplace conducive for such compliance in accordance with Section 1(A) paragraph 5. e. in a patient not known to have hypertension or diabetes, as indicated on his last PEME. (Emphasis supplied) The Court gives emphasis to paragraph (c) of the foregoing conditions. Prior to assuming his duties as Master of "Genco Bay" on March 26, 2013, petitioner was declared fit to work after PEME with the company-designated doctors. Clearly, petitioner was asymptomatic before being subjected to strain at work. He only showed signs and symptoms of hypertension and heart ailment while already performing his work aboard "Genco Bay" on May 21, 2013 where he experienced dizziness, vomiting, chest pain, shortness of breath, and cold sweat. These symptoms persisted way beyond the time he was medically repatriated. In fact, according to the report made by the company-designated doctors themselves, as of October 24, 2013 or five (5) months after repatriation, petitioner was still suffering from episodes of palpitation and skip beats.[34] Considering that petitioner was asymptomatic prior to boarding and that his symptoms persisted, it is reasonable to claim a causal relationship between petitioner's illness and his work. As vessel Master, petitioner was constantly exposed to strenuous work, such as commanding the ship in its transport of passengers and cargo, setting the course of the ship, inspecting the ship for safe and efficient operation, coordinating the activities of other crew members concerned for signaling devices, and calculating landfall sighting. [35] Private respondents have not disputed this. Such strenuous activities could have led to or at least aggravated petitioner's heart ailment, thus making it a compensable work-related illness. Petitioner, however, is not entitled to permanent and total disability benefits but only to Grade 12 disability benefits as found by the company-designated doctors. This is because petitioner inexplicably failed to comply with the POEA-SEC's mandated procedure for referral to a third doctor. This case is similar to Generato M. Hernandez v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, et al.,[36] In that case, the NLRC, the Court of Appeals, and the Court invariably found that Hernandez was not guilty of material and fraudulent misrepresentation. But the Court only sustained the Grade 11 rating given him by the company-designated doctor, thus: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65965 11/19