5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly appeared to have examined petitioner only once.”[75] Regardless of who the doctor is and his or her relation to the parties, the overriding consideration by both the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission should be that the medical conclusions are based on (a) the symptoms and findings collated with medically acceptable diagnostic tools and methods, (b) reasonable professional inferences anchored on prevailing scientific findings expected to be known to the physician given his or her level of expertise, and (c) the submitted medical findings or synopsis, supported by plain English annotations that will allow the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission to make the proper evaluation. The Court of Appeals in a petition for review should be limited to determining whether there was grave abuse of discretion committed by the National Labor Relations Commission. In this case, the company-designated physician and her associated specialists provided petitioner with extensive medical attention and treatment from January 31, 2007 to August 2007.[76] These are supported by medical reports. In Dr. Ong-Salvador’s initial medical report dated January 31, 2007, she provided a chronological history of petitioner’s present illness, mentioning that he had a family history of hypertension on his paternal side, and smoked a pack a day for 30 years.[77] She then outlined the results of petitioner’s physical examination and neurological examination.[78] Under “Working Impression,” the initial medical report states “Hypertension Stage II, ASHD, CAD at risk, S/P Stroke.”[79] Under “Plan of Management,” the initial medical report states that petitioner was “admitted at the Santo Tomas Hospital today for further evaluation and management” and that he was “under the care of our specialists.”[80] These specialists included neurologist Dr. Generoso D. Licup and cardiologist Dr. Glenn A. Mana-ay who both diagnosed petitioner and provided medical reports on their findings.[81] In Dr. Ong-Salvador’s reply to medical query dated February 19, 2007, she discussed that “patient’s condition is regarded as non-work related, as the disease is mainly of a heredofamilial etiology that is enhanced by a number of modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors.”[82] Dr. Ong-Salvador, having access to all of petitioner’s medical records, was in the best position to make this conclusion. Nevertheless, despite the non-work-related nature of respondents continued providing him with medical assistance. petitioner’s condition, In Dr. Ong-Salvador’s medical progress report dated April 30, 2007, she discussed that petitioner “has continued with his medical treatment in his province in Iloilo . . . has been under physical therapy sessions to help him recover muscular functions and strength . . . [and] [c]ontinuous physical improvements were noted.”[83] Dr. Ong-Salvador continued to issue progress reports on petitioner’s examinations with the company-designated cardiologist in Iloilo, and scheduling him for more reevaluation by their specialists. The medical progress report dated August 21, 2007 elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58809 9/17