6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly designated physician merely state or claim that the illness is not work-related, or that the seafarer is fit for sea duties. He must justify said assessment using the medical findings he had gathered during his treatment of the patient-seafarer. Surely, the POEA-SEC requires a medical assessment, not a bare claim. An unsubstantiated assessment, even if made by the company-designated physician, is tantamount to a bare claim which must be rejected by the courts. Considering that the company-designated physician effectively failed to make an assessment, Dedace is deemed totally and permanently disabled as of the date of the expiration of the 120-day period counted from his repatriation to the Philippines. Consequently, there could no longer be any issue on whether his illness is work-related or not. The Court is not oblivious of the pronouncements made in several cases to the effect that notwithstanding the presumption in favor of compensability, on due process grounds, the claimant-seafarer must still prove by substantial evidence that his work conditions caused or, at least, increased the risk of contracting the disease.[26] Indeed, in Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. NLRC,[27] the case invoked by the petitioners, it was held that the claimant-seafarer has the burden of presenting substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion that there is a causal connection between the nature of his employment and his illness, or that the risk of contracting the illness was increased by his working conditions. A careful analysis of these cases would reveal, however, that the pronouncements made therein do not apply to the present case. For instance, in Magsaysay, the company-designated physician was able to give a full, complete, and categorical medical assessment on the illness of the seafarer. It was noted therein that: While it is true that medical reports issued by the company designated physicians do not bind the courts, our examination of Dr. Ong Salvador's Initial Medical Report leads us to agree with her findings. Dr. OngSalvador.was able to sufficiently explain her basis in concluding that the respondent's illness was not work-related: she found the respondent not to have been exposed to any carcinogenic fumes, or to any viral infection in his workplace. Her findings were arrived at after the respondent was made to undergo a physical, neurological and laboratory examination, taking into consideration his (respondent's) past medical history, family history, and social history. In addition, the respondent was evaluated by a specialist, a surgeon and an oncologist. The series of tests and evaluations show that Dr. Ong-Salvador's findings were not arrived at arbitrarily; neither were they biased in the company's favor.[28] (emphasis supplied) Unfortunately for the petitioners, the same could not be said in this case. As already shown, the statement that Dedace's illness is not work-related was not sufficiently explained. The aforesaid statement was unsubstantial to support respondents' position that Dedace's illness is not compensable. All told, the Court finds that the petitioners elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64366 9/13