1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly any of the enumerated medical test results. Petitioner's physician, Dr. Vicaldo, did not subject him to any tests. He concluded that petitioner was permanently unfit to resume work as a seaman in any capacity, without stating the basis for his prognosis other than an elevated blood pressure. On the contrary, petitioner's ECG tracing showed no significant findings[43] and his coronary angiogram gave negative results for vessel abnormalities.[44] Having failed to satisfy the requisites under Section 32(A)(20) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, petitioner's hypertension is not compensable. Finally, We reject petitioner's argument that respondents are estopped from denying him disability benefits because he passed his PEME. A "fit to work" declaration in the PEME is not a conclusive proof that a seafarer is free from any disease prior to his/her deployment. Status Maritime Corporation v. Spouses Delalamon[45] is instructive, viz.: The fact that Margarito passed his PEME cannot excuse his willful concealment nor can it preclude the petitioners from rejecting his disability claims. PEME is not exploratory and does not allow the employer to discover any and all pre-existing medical condition with which the seafarer is suffering and for which he may be presently taking medication. The PEME is nothing more than a summary examination of the seafarer's physiological condition; it merely determines whether one is "fit to work" at sea or "fit for sea service" and it does not state the real state of health of an applicant. The "fit to work" declaration in the PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment.[46] (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.) II. Petitioner also cannot claim disability benefits because he committed medical abandonment. In C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Orbeta,[47] We held that a seafarer commits medical abandonment when he fails to complete his treatment before the lapse of the 240-day period, which prevents the company physician from declaring him fit to work or assessing his disability.[48] Section 20(D) of the 2000 POEA-SEC provides that "[n]o compensation and benefits shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death of the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act or intentional breach of his duties. x x x"[49] A seafarer is duty-bound to complete his medical treatment until declared fit to work or assessed with a permanent disability rating by the company-designated physician.[50] In this case, after undergoing several tests, petitioner was placed under observation. Dr. Gonzales advised him to return for his medical clearance on October 23, 2009, or 71 days from his repatriation, but petitioner did not do so. He argues that he could still feel the symptoms of his ailment despite having been cleared by respondents' cardiologist from coronary arterial disease on October 15, 2009. Hence, he was https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65565 6/10