8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly from valvular heart disease, severe aortic regurgitation, aneurysm of sinus valsalva, S/P aortic valve replacement, normal coronary arteries and dilated left ventricle with systolic dysfunction. He was then given an impediment grade of VI (50%) and was declared unfit for sea duty.[19] On June 9, 2015, respondent filed a disability complaint against petitioners.[20] He claimed that he was not informed of any assessment by the company-designated physician as to his fitness for sea duty. He alleged that he had told petitioners of the findings of his own private physician but petitioners rejected or avoided his repeated requests for referral to a third doctor. Respondent sought full disability benefits (US$60,000.00), moral damages (Php1,000,000.00), exemplary damages (P200,000.00) and attorney's fees (10% of total claims).[21] Petitioners countered that respondent was informed of the assessment made by the company-designated physician on July 30, 2014, at a meeting with Gilbey Jane A. Endaya and Jennifer M. Magsino, claims officers of Pandiman Philippines, Inc. (Pandiman) that were assigned to coordinate with the representative of petitioner Norbulk. The causes and risk factors of his illness (aortic valve stenosis) having been explained to him, respondent seemed to have understood that his ailment was not work-related and that petitioners shall continue to pay for his medical expenses until the I 30th day or up to August 27, 2014, after which his treatment would be discontinued. Respondent did not protest the assessment but only requested petitioners to shoulder the cost of his coronary angiogram, which was granted.[22] About five (5) months later, petitioners received a letter dated January 5, 2015,[23] from respondent's counsel stating that since respondent was not informed of the medical assessment by the company-designated physician, he obtained a second opinion from his chosen doctor, Dr. Vicaldo. Said doctor declared him "unfit to work as seaman in any capacity" with an impediment grade of 6 (50% disability). Respondent thus demanded payment of US$60,000.00 as permanent total disability benefit. After a conciliation-mediation conference before the NLRC-SENA Unit failed to settle the dispute, the proceeding was ordered closed and terminated. On April 13, 2015, petitioners again received a letter from respondent's counsel requesting referral to a third doctor for a final evaluation of respondent's disability.[24] Petitioners replied[25] to the counsel of respondent, refuting the allegation of respondent that he was not informed of the medical assessment of the companydesignated physician, and also manifested their willingness to refer respondent to a third doctor for a final determination of whether his condition was work-related. On June 1, 2015, respondent's counsel sent another letter denying petitioners' assertion that respondent was duly informed of the company-designated physician's medical assessment.[26] As per respondent's account, he was merely told that he still had to undergo an angiogram and his medical treatment would stop after 120 days.[27] Petitioners further claimed that respondent's counsel even personally conferred with their own counsel on the possible terms and conditions for the appointment of a third doctor, during which the former promised to send an e-mail containing their proposal. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65335 3/24