6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly c. The employer shall pay the beneficiaries of the seafarer the Philippines [sic] currency equivalent to the amount of One Thousand US dollars (US$1,000) for burial expenses at the exchange rate prevailing during the time of payment. Petitioner also points out that prior to embarkation, Eduardo was given a “fit to work” certification. Yet, he was repatriated due to hypertension. Therefore, his illness was contracted on board the vessel, and his death should be compensated by his employer even though he died after the term of his contract.[35] On the other hand, respondents argue that the Court of Appeals’ ruling was correct since Eduardo died after the term of his contract.[36] His illness, diabetic polyneuropathy secondary to diabetes, is not included in the list of occupational diseases.[37] Petitioner failed to show the causation between Eduardo’s work and illness leading up to his death.[38] Petitioner did not even refute the findings of the company-designated physician.[39] The Court of Appeals found that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission when it denied the claim for death benefits since Eduardo died after the term of his contract. The Court of Appeals also explained that: [u]nder the Amended POEA Contract, the important requirement of workrelatedness was incorporated. The incorporation of the work-related provision has made essential causal connection between a seafarer’s work and the illness upon which the claim of disability is predicated upon. .... It should be emphasized that it is petitioner who has the burden of evidence to prove that the illness for which she anchors her present claim for her husband’s disability benefits is work-related.[40] In this case, petitioner does not dispute the fact that her husband died after the term of his contract. Instead, she emphasizes that her husband died due to a work-related illness. Petitioner also argues that: [she] was not merely faking [her] husband’s disability. The Medical Records cannot lie and he was seen by a doctor abroad regarding his illness which eventually [brought] about his death.[41] Petitioner cites Section 20(A), paragraphs (1) and (4) to support her claim for death benefits. She also cites the second paragraph of Section 20(B) to support her claim for elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59159 5/12