5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly from pre-identified diseases including Diabetes mellitus. This is a point, however, that we have considered in other rulings. In Nisda v. Sea Serve Maritime Agency,[58] we noted that it is an accepted rule that PEMEs are usually not exploratory in nature. The tests conducted are not intended to be an in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant’s medical condition. They merely determine whether the examinee is “fit to work” at sea or “fit for sea service”; they do not describe the real state of health of an applicant.[59] Thus, Simbajon cannot rely on his PEME results alone to support his claim that his disease only developed after embarkation. This is particularly true since several points during his treatment, his DM Type II was found to be asymptomatic, i.e, as symptomless or presenting no subjective evidence of disease.[60] Thus, it is probable that Simbajon’s disease was already pre-existing even before he boarded NCL’s vessel; his diabetes was not detected because it was asymptomatic. For failure to prove that his disease was contracted within his six days of service because of factors necessary to contract it, we cannot support Simbajon’s assertion that his DM Type II was a work-related disease that should merit compensation from the petitioners. Fit-to-work assessment of the company-designated physicians versus the unfit-to-work findings of Simbajon’s physician We now resolve the issue of the conflicting findings of the petitioners’ designated physicians and Simbajon’s own physician. The company-designated physicians have declared Simbajon as “fit to work” after 172 days of treatment from his disembarkation on August 15, 2004. On the other hand, Simbajon’s chosen physician, Dr. Vicaldo, came out with the findings that Simbajon’s illness had rendered him “unfit to resume work as a seaman in any capacity,” with a Grade VI (50%) disability rating. In Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. v. Dumadag,[61] we have ruled that the POEA-SEC is the law between the parties and as such, its provisions bind both of them. Under the POEA-SEC, the applicable provision to resolve the issue of conflicting medical findings is Section 20-B (3), which states: Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days. xxx If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57289 7/16