4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly that: Upon the records, this Office is more than convinced that [Medel] is entitled to a [sic] disability benefits which is equivalent to 120% of US$50,000.00 or US$60,000.00 or its peso equivalent at the [e]xchange rate prevailing at the time of its payment. As held by [petitioners] to be an undisputed fact, [Medel] suffered injury that was sustained by him during the effectivity of his shipboard employment contract and while engaged in the performance of his contracted duties. Upon [Medel’s] arrival, [petitioners] referred [him] to the company designated physician at Metropolitan Hospital on March 13, 1999, with impression, “Head Injury with Open Fracture of the Left Frontal Bone: S/P Open Reduction & Internal Fixation of Frontal Bone and Sinus; Cerebral Concussion; Vitreous Hemorrhage, left eye secondary to trauma.” Suggested procedure was Ultrasound of the left eye. Subsequently, [Medel] was referred to a neuro-surgeon. His cranial CT scan showed “Minimal Pneumocephalus; Inferior Frontal Region; Comminuted Fracture, Frontal Bone; Post craniotomy Defect, Left Frontal Bone; changed within the Sphenoid which may relate to previous hemorrhage and Negative for Mass effect nor Intracranial Intracerebral Hemorrhage.” His ultrasound of the left eye confirmed the presence of Vitreous Hemorrhage. Suggestion was Vitrectomy, Left eye. On June 28, 1999, [Medel] was re-evaluated, however, the ophthalmologist [s]uggested Argon Laser Retinopexy since he was noted to have Wrinkled Macula and Areas of weakness in the Retina secondary to Trauma. He was then seen July 14, 1999 when he underwent first session of Argon Laser Retinopexy and for re-evaluation on July 19, 1999 for second session. On July 23, 1999, he was seen by the neurosurgeon who advised him [to undergo the procedure of] cranioplasty to cover the bony defect of the skull to be done [i]n October 1999. With the foregoing, we are persuaded by [Medel’s] arguments that the claim for disability benefits is not solely premised on the extent of his injury but also on the consequences of the same to his profession as a seafarer which was his only means of livelihood. We could imagine the nature of these undertakings of seafarers where manual and strenuous activities are part of the days work. Moreso, with the position of [Medel] being an ordinary seaman which primarily comprises the vessel manpower and labor. Thus, to us, we are convinced that [Medel] is entitled to the benefits under Section 20 B of the POEA Memorandum Circular No. 55 and Section 30 A thereof which was deemed incorporated to his POEA approved employment contract. Further, the claim for attorney’s fees is justified considering the above discussed circumstances which in effect has constrained [Medel] to hire the services of a legal counsel to protect his interest.[23] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55119 4/14