6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly obtained his treatment.[76] Moreover, since petitioner's prostatitis was shown to have been treated in 2011 with no indication that he was required to undergo further medical attention or maintenance medication for the same, he cannot be faulted into believing that he was completely cured and no longer suffering from said illness. This is further bolstered by the fact that he was rehired by respondents the following year in 2012 and no longer found to be suffering from prostatitis during his PEME. Evidently, petitioner's non-disclosure of the same in his PEME in 2013 did not amount to willful concealment of vital information and he was in fact, truthful in answering "no" to the query on whether or not he was "suffering" from any medical condition likely to be aggravated by sea service or render him unfit for such service on board the vessel. Be that as it may, the CA is nevertheless correct in holding that petitioner's illnesses, Cystitis with Cystolithiases and BPH, were not work-related, hence, not compensable. Section 20 (A) of the 2010 POEA-SEC is explicit that the employer is liable for disability benefits only when the seafarer suffers from a work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract. Thus, work-relation must be established. As a general rule, the principle of work-relation requires that the disease in question must be one of those listed as an occupational disease under Section 32-A thereof. Nevertheless, should it not be classified as occupational in nature, Section 20 (A) paragraph 4[77] thereof provides that such diseases are disputably presumed as work-related. However, the presumption does not necessarily result in an automatic grant of disability compensation. The claimant still has the burden to present substantial evidence that his work conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the illness.[78] In this case, records reveal that petitioner was repatriated after having been diagnosed with prostatitis. Prostatitis is the swelling and inflammation of the prostate gland[79] and among its risk factors are: (a) a catheter or other instrument recently placed in the urethra, (b) an abnormality found in the urinary tract, or (c) a recent bladder infection. Upon further examination, the company-designated physician found petitioner to have cystitis, or inflammation of the bladder, which is commonly caused by a bacterial infection known as urinary tract infection (UTI),[80] and BPH, an enlargement of the prostate gland that is common among aging men[81] which can block the flow of urine out of the bladder and cause bladder, urinary tract or kidney problems.[82] Although the foregoing illnesses became manifest only while petitioner was on board the vessel, such circumstance alone is not sufficient to entitle him to disability benefits. It bears stressing that for a disability to be compensable, the seafarer must show a reasonable link between his work and his illness in order for a rational mind to determine that such work contributed to, or at least aggravated, his illness. It is not enough that the seafarer's injury or illness rendered him disabled; rather, he should be able to establish a causal connection between his injury or illness, and the work for which he is engaged. [83] Here, petitioner's general averments that he was exposed to stressful demands of his duties and responsibilities and subjected to hazardous condition of his station are mere allegations couched in conjectures. There was no evidence presented to establish how and why petitioner's working conditions increased the risk of contracting his illness. In the absence of substantial evidence, the Court cannot just presume that petitioner's job elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63721 6/13