5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly mental strain or event, or undue exposure to noxious gases in industry. b. There must be a direct connection between the trauma or exertion in the course of employment and the worker’s collapse. c. If the trauma or exertion then and there caused a brain hemorrhage, the injury may be considered as arising from work. .... 20. Essential Hypertension Hypertension classified as primary or essential is considered compensable if it causes impairment of function of body organs like kidneys, heart, eyes and brains, resulting in permanent disability; Provided, that, the following documents substantiate it: (a) chest x-ray report, (b) ECG re[p]ort (c) blood chemistry report, (d) funduscopy report, and (f) C-T scan. [57] The POEA contract also states that “illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this contract are disputably presumed as work related.”[58] Petitioner argues that all four conditions for compensability under Section 32-A were satisfied.[59] He discusses the stressful nature of his work considering the changing weather conditions and compounded by being away from loved ones.[60] He mentions that he was declared fit to work after his pre-employment medical examination, thus, he contracted his illness after exposure to the stressful working conditions.[61] Lastly, he alleges that there was no notorious negligence on his part.[62] Both the National Labor Relations Commission and Court of Appeals[63] found that petitioner failed to prove compliance with the conditions under Section 32 of the POEA contract, thus, failing to show a causal connection between his illness and his work. The National Labor Relations Commission discussed as follows: The main issue that would determine complainant-appellee’s entitlement to permanent disability is whether his illness is work-related or not. We rule in the negative. For one, complainant-appellee failed to discharge the burden of proving the conditions set forth in Section 32-A particularly, that his work as ordinary seaman involved the risks of having a stroke; that complainantappellee’s hypertension was contracted as a result of his exposure to his work; that the disease was contracted within the period of exposure and such other factors necessary to contract it and that there was no notorious negligence on complainant-appellee’s part. For another and on the contrary, complainant-appellee admitted that he had a family history of hypertension and that he smoked about one pack a day for thirty (30) years. Further, complainant-appellee also failed to prove that his hypertension can be classified as primary or essential; that he has suffered impairments in his elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58809 6/17