6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Meanwhile, Carcedo consulted orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Alan Leonardo R. Raymundo, who amputated Carcedo’s second toe on 30 November 2009. Dr. Raymundo’s Medical Report[21] dated 16 March 2010 reads: The patient saw me last October 29 and was advised that his condition was still in the healing process. However, in November 30 of the same year, the patient again developed chills and was admitted at the UP-PGH where he underwent an amputation of the 2nd ray of the left foot and was diagnosed with chronic osteomyelitis with a non-healing wound in the said area. On follow-up today, the wound has already completely healed and closed well with no draining sinus noted. He now has absence of the first and second toe which is prompting him to walk on the lateral aspect of his left foot with a cane. He still has some pain on weight bearing but the wound is already completely healed. RECOMMENDATION: I told him that with his present condition right now, he is not fit to return to his previous work duties as a chief mate on board.[22] The Court of Appeals summarized the positions of the parties, thus: In his position paper, Carcedo averred: (1) his injury was work-related because he sustained the wound from his safety shoes at work, hence, his injury was compensable under Section 20(B) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract; (2) his disability was total and permanent; the injury on his leg was so severe that despite medication, there was no certainty that his former physical condition would get restored and he could resume his customary work; he walked with difficulty and not without a cane; his Orthopedic Surgeon, Dr. Alan Leonardo R. Raymundo recommended, viz: “x x x with his present condition right now, he is not fit to return to his previous work duties as a chief mate on board”; (3) he suffered severe depression and anxiety, for which, he was entitled to moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees; his employer’s refusal to pay his disability benefits showed evident bad faith; and, he was denied a better medical treatment because he had to make do with what his depleted resources could afford. Maine posited: there were valid reasons to deny Carcedo’s claims, viz: (1) they were bound by the provisions on disability compensation under the POEA Standard Employment Contract and CBA; the disability compensation schedule under the IBF-JSU/AMOSUP IMMAJ CBA Schedule of Disability and Impediment (Annex 3 of the CBA), provided: Degree of Disability elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59949 Rate of Compensation Senior Officers 3/19