to Respondent's Position Paper, or Opposition to Complainant's Appeal. The Court sees no reason to disturb this factual finding. Moreover, petitioners were remiss in providing continuous treatment for respondent in accordance with the recommendation of their company physician that respondent should undergo a two-week confinement and physical therapy and, if his condition does not improve, then he would have to be subjected to surgical decompression to alleviate the pain on his right foot. Respondent's ailment required urgent medical response, thereby necessitating him to seek immediate medical attention, even at his own expense. The CA enumerated the medical expenses of respondent for which petitioner would be liable. Thus,   [w]hile we agree substantially with the NLRC’s decision in allowing the reimbursement of P13,579.76, we disagree with its findings that the receipts for medicines were not covered by prescriptions. Dr. Irene Igual recommended the continued use of neo-pyrozon, ne[u]robin, and myonal [and], thus, respondent should accordingly be reimbursed for the purchase of these medicines. The records disclose the following purchases:   1. Mercury Drug Receipt No. 535112 (Annex “F”) Myonal - P97.50 Neo-pyrozon - 71.50 P169.00 2. Mercury Drug Receipt No. 532746 (Annex “F-1”) Ne[u]robin - P76.00 Myonal - 97.50 P173.50 3. Mercury Drug Receipt No. 533708 (Annex “F-2”) Neo-pyrazon - P71.50 Neurobin - 76.00 Myonal - 97.50 P244.00 4. Mercury Drug Receipt No. 251929 (Annex “F-3”) Pyrazon - P71.50 P71.50 5. Mercury Drug Receipt No. 251931 (Annex “F-4”) Myonal - P97.50 P97.50