5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly assistance from the respondent employer but it refused to extend him help. [69] (Citation omitted) In Dionio v. ND Shipping Agency and Allied Services, Inc.,[70] this Court ruled that between a "non-existent medical assessment of a company- designated physician. . . and the medical assessment of [the seafarer's] physicians of choice, the latter evidently stands."[71] As respondents refused to answer the medical treatment of Gil upon his repatriation, contrary to the provisions of the POEA-SEC, Gil was never examined by the company-designated physician. A fortiori, respondents could not present any medical report prepared by the company-designated physician on the medical condition of Gil. They could not state whether Gil was fit to return to work or the specific grading of his disability. .... . . . Absent the company-designated physician's medical assessment, respondents could only present unsupported allegations and suppositions regarding Gil's medical condition. On the other hand, as respondents completely ignored the medical needs of Gil upon his repatriation, he had no choice but to seek medical attention from other physicians at his own expense[.] Between the non-existent medical assessment of a company- designated physician of respondents and the medical assessment of Gil's physicians of choice, the latter evidently stands. Respondents were obliged to refer Gil to a company-designated physician and shoulder the medical expenses, but they reneged on their responsibility and simply ignore the plight of their seafarer.[72] (Citations omitted) In this case, petitioner went to the respondents immediately after arriving in the Philippines. However, when he requested a medical diagnosis of his condition, the respondents refused to subject him to a post-employment medical examination. This compelled petitioner to go to a physician of his choice. Respondents insist that the foreign doctor's assessment is sufficient compliance with the law and that it should be deemed the company-designated physician's diagnosis. We disagree. The law clearly states that the company-designated physician should be the doctor who will diagnose the condition of the seafarer after repatriation. The post-employment medical examination presumes that the company- designated physician will conduct a thorough, final, and definitive assessment of the seafarer's medical condition. Dr. Sevarajah's diagnosis cannot be considered compliance with this requirement. A strict reading of the POEA Standard Employment Contract requires that the companydesignated physician be the one to diagnose the seafarer upon repatriation. Even if the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66521 9/19