7/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly fail. He failed to substantially satisfy the prescribed requirements to be entitled to disability benefits. First, this Court agrees with respondent that he developed several illnesses while onboard the vessel. This is supported by the medical certificates from the doctors in Rotterdam, Netherlands and China. To recall, in Rotterdam, he was informed, after medical evaluation, that his condition - body pain and nausea, were triggered by stress. He was then diagnosed with Costen Syndrome. Meanwhile, in China, he was diagnosed with urethritis and kidney stones. This, notwithstanding, his illnesses are not deemed compensable for they neither rendered him unfit for any sea duty nor disabled him in any way. This is evident in the fact that despite being diagnosed of having kidney stones and urethritis, respondent, as records show, did not seek immediate repatriation. In fact, respondent was able to fulfill his sea duties and finish his employment contract with petitioners. It, thus, seems that his condition is neither severe nor complicated. Moreover, records show that after repatriation, respondent failed to report to petitioners for a post-employment medical examination as prescribed by the rules in cases of repatriation due to a medical condition. Even assuming that such ailments disabled respondent and made him unfit for sea duty, respondent failed to prove that they were work-related. To reiterate, while there is a disputable presumption that respondent's illnesses, kidney stones and urethritis, which led to the removal of one of his kidneys, were work-related considering that they are not among those enumerated as occupational diseases, he is still required to discharge his own burden of proving compliance with the first three (3) 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. In the case at bench, respondent averred that his ailments were caused and aggravated by his exposure to several factors on board the vessel, such as: drinking dirty and salty water, and long exposure to heat in the kitchen where he was working as a cook causing dehydration. This Court disagrees. While drinking salty and dirty water, and dehydration may indeed cause kidney stones, respondent failed to prove that he and the other crew members were made to drink saline and rusty water. Respondent merely made bare allegations without proof to support his claims. On the other hand, records show that petitioners sufficiently proved that there was adequate water supply, mineral water, onboard the vessel for the consumption of the whole crew, not only of the officers. Further, if indeed they were made to drink merely desalinated seawater, not mineral water, why was it that of all the crew members of the ship, only him developed kidney stones and urethritis? Likewise, no other crew member complained of the purported unhygienic drinking water. Finally, as a cook, it is part of his tasks to stay for a longer period of time in the kitchen. It is, thus, his duty to himself to see to it that he regularly hydrates with water. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66977 7/14