5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Clemente moved for reconsideration of the Decision, but it was denied.[30] Thus, he filed this Petition for Review.[31] Petitioner Clemente argues that he did not willfully conceal his medical condition during his pre-employment medical examination. He claims that he merely forgot to disclose his medical history and, being a layman without medical background, thought there was no need to disclose this information.[32] Petitioner further contends that his medical condition should have been detected during the pre-employment medical examination because it is an apparent and external injury. [33] He claims respondents are estopped because they had all the opportunity to screen him for the injury.[34] Moreover, petitioner avers that the Court of Appeals erred in solely relying on the findings of the foreign physician and unverified testimonies of his co-workers.[35] Petitioner questions the lack of diagnosis by a company-designated physician, stressing that the POEA Standard Employment Contract mandates that a company-designated physician must make their own determination as to the medical condition of a seafarer upon repatriation.[36] He argues that failure to make a personal determination renders the assessment invalid.[37] He points out that, Dr. Selvarajah, a foreign doctor, was not a company- designated physician and, therefore, "not qualified to make conclusive findings"[38] for respondents. He avers that the company-designated physician must be a doctor who examines the seafarer after repatriation.[39] Moreover, Dr. Selvarajah's task was merely to give emergency medical attention and not to determine the nature and extent of his injury.[40] Petitioner maintains that the failure of a company-designated physician to give a definite medical finding after the period set under the POEA Standard Employment Contract renders the disability permanent and total.[41] Lastly, petitioner claims that he is entitled to moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, because the respondents grossly breached their duty to grant him disability benefits.[42] In their Comment,[43] respondents argue that petitioner is not entitled to disability benefits because he is guilty of medical concealment,[44] Citing Section 20(E) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, respondents aver that petitioner's failure to disclose his previous shoulder dislocation constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation which disqualifies him from any compensation or benefit.[45] In his pre-employment medical examination, petitioner categorically denied that he had https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66521 4/19