6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly argues that every workman brings with him certain infirmities in health, and that the employer – while not the insurer of the employee's health – assumes the risk of having an employee with a weakened condition aggravate his injury during employment that would not have bothered a perfectly normal, healthy person.[45] Moreover given the uncertainty as to the cause of cancer even by the standards of medical science, it would be unfair for the courts to require that an employee prove that the disease was caused by or aggravated by the conditions of employment.[46] She also cites United States jurisprudence to the effect that throat cancer is compensable for a fire-fighter who is exposed to heavy smoke, gases, and fumes,[47] and further argues that occupational or industrial diseases could be procured even within a short time.[48] Finally, Doroteo's sister argues that assuming the cancer was pre-existing, the requirement of the law for compensability is that the disease was aggravated by working conditions such that its presence was work related.[49] In support of this, she cited the American doctrine of "last injurious exposure," which allegedly assigns liability to the last employer whose conditions last contributed to the totality of the disease.[50] She also disputed the statements of the CA and NLRC that alluded to Dorotea's smoking habit as the cause of his cancer, stating that there are several risk factors involved and that creating that presumption violated the constitutional mandate to protect labor.[51] In response, Philimare reiterates its arguments before the CA that throat cancer is not listed in the occupational diseases clause in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration standard contract,[52] that the additional conditions for diseases not listed to be compensable were not satisfied,[53] and that there was no reasonable proof that the work of Doroteo increased his risk of contracting throat cancer.[54] In sum, the case will live or die upon one question: did the work of Doroteo for Philimare result in or aggravate the throat cancer of which he died? It appears that both parties are well aware of this crucial issue, and have presented their own evidence in support of their conclusions: Doroteo's evidence explicitly states that working in an engine room exposes the worker to harmful conditions, including but not limited to chemical exposure and heat. Apart from this is the allegation that the engine room had poor exhaust which increased the heat therein, and most importantly the constant refusal of Philimare's ship master to allow Doroteo medical attention. Philimare's evidence is broader and lists the risk factors for throat cancer: genetics, age, tobacco use, and alcohol consumption. It also relies on the diagnosis of the physician in Denmark that the cancer most likely existed for more than 3 months prior to the time of the check-up, such that it was a pre-existing illness. Contending with Doroteo's claims about the engine room, it presented a ship assessment that listed the engine room as compliant with safety standards. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62954 4/13