1/4/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
noted and-complainant complained of right knee pain x x x. As of June 9,
2014[,] the range of motion of complainant's right knee had increased to
115 degrees but there was still mild swelling in his right knee and
complainant still [complained] of intermittent pain in his knee x x x. As of
July 11, 2014, the range of motion of complainant's right knee was already
full and complainant can do one leg squat, but complainant claimed to still
have an on and off pain in his right knee. Complainant was advised to
continue rehabilitation program for strengthening x x x. [A]s of July 25,
2014, the company-designated physician noted that complainant's manual
muscle test was already 5/5 and complainant is ambulatory and can do
activities such as bending his knees x x x. As of August 8, 2014, the
company-designated physician noted that there was neither swelling nor
instability in the joint and that complainant is ambulatory without difficulty
and has no pain on weight bearing x x x. On the same day, the companydesignated surgeon, who further noted that complainant has no calf atrophy
and needed no further physical therapy, declared complainant as fit to work
x x x. Complainant presented a medical certificate dated September 23,
2014 issued by the San Geronimo General Hospital in Morong, Rizal
indicating that complainant was "treated" thereat from "July 9, 2014 up to
present 9/23/2014" with the remarks that complainant needs further
physical therapy, probably another year of intense therapy, because of
muscle atrophy in right lower extremity x x x.[6]
During the conciliation proceedings under the Single-Entry Approach (SEnA) of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), petitioner moved for the referral of the
matter to a third doctor.[7] The conciliator-mediator, however, denied the request
claiming it was not the SEnA's jurisdiction to rule on such matter.[8] As a result of this,
on October 22, 2014, petitioner filed the complaint against respondents Dalisay
Shipping Corporation, Wealth Shipping Limited and Danny Dadila (respondents).[9]
LA Decision
In his Decision dated February 17, 2015, the LA ruled that petitioner is not entitled to
disability benefits.[10] The LA found that respondents provided petitioner with medical
care by addressing his injury through surgical procedures, physical therapy, medical
tests, and monitoring until his range of motion on his right knee was restored to normal
and he became ambulatory without difficulty and with weight-bearing capacity.[11] The
LA also found that the findings of the company-designated physician can be relied upon
because the physician acquired a detailed familiarity with petitioner's medical condition.
The medical treatment provided to petitioner was detailed and the tests conducted and
their results were likewise indicated by the company-designated physician.[12] On the
other hand, petitioner's own doctor failed to indicate the treatment provided to him and
the tests conducted.[13] Given this, the LA relied on the findings of the companydesignated physician that petitioner was already fit to work and was therefore not
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65636
2/10