substantial evidence, we cannot just presume that respondent’s job caused his illness or aggravated any pre-existing condition he might have had.         The fact that respondent passed the company’s PEME is of no moment.  We have ruled that in the past the PEME is not exploratory in nature. It was not intended to be a totally in-depth and thorough examination of an applicant’s medical condition. The PEME merely determines whether one is “fit to work” at sea or “fit for sea service,” it does not state the real state of health of an applicant.[27] In short, the “fit to work” declaration in the respondent’s PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment.  Thus we held in NYK-FIL Ship Management, Inc. v. NLRC:[28]   While a PEME may reveal enough for the petitioner (vessel) to decide whether a seafarer is fit for overseas employment, it may not be relied upon to inform petitioners of a seafarer’s true state of health. The PEME could not have divulged respondent’s illness considering that the examinations were not exploratory.   The respondent was declared fit to resume sea duties   Another factor that further militates against the respondent’s claim for permanent and total disability benefits is Dr. Ong-Salvador’s Medical Progress Report declaring him to be “fit to resume sea duties.” The relevant portions of this report are hereunder reproduced:   MEDICAL PROGRESS REPORT   x  x  x  x                   CT Scan of the abdomen   -                    Comparison is made with the previous examination dated November 29, 2005 -                    The previously noted irregular soft tissue module inferior to the pancreatic is no longer evident -                    There is no gross lymph node enlargement -                    Fatty changes in the liver and gallstones are again demonstrated -                    The rest of the findings are stationary -                    Impression: Further disease regression since November 2005.