6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Court accorded greater weight to the assessments of the company designated physician and the consulting medical specialist which resulted from an extensive examination, monitoring and treatment of the seafarer's condition, in contrast with the recommendation of the private physician which was "based only on a single medical report . . . [outlining] the alleged findings and medical history . . . obtained after . . . [one examination]." (Emphasis supplied) In the recent case of Dalusong v. Eagle Clare Shipping Philippines, Inc., we ruled that "the findings of the company-designated doctor, who, with his team of specialists . . . periodically treated petitioner for months and monitored his condition, deserve greater evidentiary weight than the single medical report of petitioner's doctor, who appeared to have examined petitioner only once."[52] In the second substantive issue, petitioner insists that in order to be compensable, the worker is only burdened to prove the probability, and not absolute certainty, that the nature of his employment had caused or contributed, even to a small degree, in the development or aggravation of his illness and the deterioration of his health. Petitioner asserts that, since he was found to be fit for work prior to his deployment, the only conclusion that can be reached is that his employment with respondent is the primary cause of his hypertension. Petitioner also claims that under the prevailing POEA-SEC all other illnesses suffered by the seafarer on board the vessel, which are not listed as occupational diseases, are presumed work-related. The Court is not persuaded. For disability to be compensable under the above POEA-SEC, two elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract. To be entitled to compensation and benefits under the governing POEA-SEC, it is not sufficient to establish that the seafarer's illness or injury has rendered him permanently or partially disabled; it must also be shown that there is a causal connection between the seafarer's illness or injury and the work for which he had been contracted.[53] In other words, while the law recognizes that an illness may be disputably presumed to be work-related, the seafarer or the claimant must still show a reasonable connection between the nature of work on board the vessel and the illness contracted or aggravated.[54] Thus, the burden is placed upon the claimant to present substantial evidence that his work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the disease.[55] In this case, however, petitioner relied on the presumption that his illness is workrelated but he was unable to present substantial evidence to show that his work conditions caused or, at the least, increased the risk of contracting his illness. Neither was he able to prove that his illness was pre¬existing and that it was aggravated by the nature of his employment. Thus, the LA and the CA correctly ruled that he is not entitled to any disability compensation. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63251 10/14