8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly conditions of compensability under Section 32-A of the 2000 POEA-SEC, i.e., that (1) the seafarer's work must involve the risks described herein; (2) the disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described risks; and (3) the disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it. Thus, when the presumption of work-relatedness is contested by the employer, the factors which the seafarer needs to prove to rebut the employer's contestation would necessarily overlap with some of the conditions which the seafarer needs to prove to establish the compensability of his illness and the resulting disability. In this regard, the seafarer, therefore, addresses the refutation of the employer against the workrelatedness of his illness and, at the same time, discharges his burden of proving compliance with certain conditions of compensability. On the other hand, when an employer does not attempt to discharge the burden of disputing the presumption of work-relatedness, the seafarer must still discharge his own burden of proving compliance with the conditions of compensability, which does not only include the three (3) conditions abovementioned, but also, the distinct fourth condition, i.e., that there was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer. Thereafter, the burden of evidence shifts to the employer to now disprove the veracity of the information presented by the seafarer. The employer may also raise any other affirmative defense which may preclude compensation, such as concealment under Section 20 (E) of the 2000 POEA-SEC or failure to comply with the third-doctor referral provision under Section 20 (B) (3) of the same Contract. Subsequently, if the work-relatedness of the seafarer's illness is not successfully disputed by the employer, and the seafarer is then able to establish compliance with the conditions of compensability, the matter now shifts to a determination of the nature and, in turn, the amount of disability benefits to be paid to the seafarer.[85] (Emphasis, italics, and underscoring in the original) In this case, Tiquio's illness, hyperthyroidism secondary to Graves' Disease, is an autoimmune disorder which causes over activity of the thyroid gland leading to the production and release of excess amounts of thyroid hormone into the blood.[86] Medical literature defines "autoimmune disorder" as a condition that occurs when the immune system mistakenly attacks healthy tissue.[87] The exact cause of Graves' Disease is not certain, however, certain risk factors are known to increase the chances of developing it, i.e., genetics, weight, certain medications, and smoking,[88] as well as ethnicity and gender,[89] including age, emotional or physical stress, and other autoimmune disorders.[90] Graves' Disease is a known common cause of hyperthyroidism.[91] As records show, the CDP, after due assessment of Tiquio's condition, found that his hyperthyroidism was primarily caused by the autoimmune disorder, Graves' Disease, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65357 9/20