8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly a consequence of their work or labor. Aside from these, it has been held in several cases that "cardiovascular disease, coronary artery disease, and other heart ailments are work-related and, thus, compensable." xxxx Private respondents are further mistaken in their argument that petitioner is not entitled to receive his disability compensation. It is clear from the records of this case that private respondents' company-designated physician neither gave petitioner a disability rating nor a categorical pronouncement that he is fit to work or is permanently disabled, whether total or permanent. Nevertheless, petitioner's independent physician gave him an Impediment Grade of VI and proclaimed him to be 'unfit to resume work as seaman in any capacity.' In the landmark case of Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar, it was held that injuries with a disability grading from 2-14 under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC may be deemed to be permanent and total if it incapacitates a seafarer from performing his usual duties for a period of more than 120 or 240 days x x x xxxx Here, the company-designated physician refused to give petitioner a disability rating on the premise that his illness is not work-related. Still, it was explicitly stated in the company-designated physician's certification that "maximum medical care has already been reached in this case as the patient already underwent Aortic Valve Replacement." Conspicuously, private respondents' company-designated physician, himself, recommended petitioner to undergo Coronary Angiography because he had dilated left ventricle with severe hypokinesia. After undergoing coronary angiography, the following were found: xxx xxx xxx The coronary angiography showed insignificant coronary artery vessels. It also showed an avanabus oitpin of the right coronary artery from the left coronary cell. xxxx Observably, private respondents' company-designated physician offered no explanation as with regard to petitioner's condition after undergoing coronary angiography. Moreover, the progress report that was issued by private respondents' company-designated physician appears to be misleading. The abovequoted progress report stated that petitioner had an "avanabus oitpin of the right coronary artery from the left coronary cell." It appears after delving into medical literature that there is no such thing as "avanabus oitpin of the right coronary artery from the left coronary cell." To dispel any confusion, private respondents could have https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65335 6/24