5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 3. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; and 4. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer. As to the second type of illness — one that is not listed as an occupational disease in Section 32-A — Magsaysay Maritime Services v. Laurel,[35] instructs that the seafarer may still claim provided that he suffered a disability occasioned by a disease contracted on account of or aggravated by working conditions. For this illness, "[i]t is sufficient that there is a reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very; least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had".[36] Operationalizing this, to prove this reasonable linkage, it is imperative that the seafarer must prove the requirements under Section 32-A: the risks involved in his work; his illness was contracted as a result of his exposure to the risks; the disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; and he was not notoriously negligent. In effect, the table of illnesses and the corresponding nature of employment in Section 32-A only provide the list of occupational illnesses. It does not exempt a seafarer from providing proof of the conditions under the first paragraph of Section 32-A in order for the occupational illness/es complained of to be considered as work-related and, therefore, compensable. Further, in both types, to determine the amount of compensation, the seafarer must show the resulting disability following as guide the schedule listed in Section 32. To illustrate the first type: Assuming that the seafarer seeks disability benefits for cancer of the epithelial of the bladder that manifests itself after the term of the contract, which is listed in Section 32-A as follows: OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT 1 . Cancer of the epithelial of the bladder (Papilloma of the bladder) Work involving exposure to alphanapthylamine, betanaphathylamin, or benzidine of any part of the salts; and auramine or magenta this alone does not mean that the seafarer is automatically entitled to disability benefits. He must still show compliance with the conditions — that is, he must still prove that the nature of his work involved exposure to alphanapthylamine, betanaphathylamin, or benzidine of any part of the salts, and auramine or magenta, that the disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it, and that he was not notoriously negligent. Once such proof is adduced, then the illness is considered work-related and compensable. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66256 11/17