4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly following GROUNDS I. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Decision of the NLRC, awarding total and permanent disability compensation to Respondent. Respondent is not entitled to any disability compensation as his illness is not work-related. The POEA Standard Employment Contract clearly states that only those work-related illnesses or injuries which were suffered during the term of the employment contract are compensable. II. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that Petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of compensability. The Supreme Court has consistently held that it is the complainant (herein Respondent) who has the burden to prove entitlement to disability benefits. III. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not upholding the findings and assessment of the company-designated physician. The POEA Standard Employment Contract states that it is the companydesignated physician who is tasked to assess a seafarer’s condition and determine his disability, if any. Thus, the company-designated physician’s declaration concerning Respondent’s state of health binds him.[19] Petitioners’ Argument The petitioners argue that the CA erred in affirming the award of disability benefits to Laurel because his illness was not work-related as convincingly proven through the expert opinion of the company-designated physician. They insist that their doctor’s assessment should have been accorded weight and credence considering his detailed knowledge of, and his familiarity with, Laurel’s condition and the extensive medical attention given to him. They aver that hyperthyroidism is not among those listed in the POEA-SEC as an occupational disease, hence, not compensable. They emphasize that Laurel’s illness was essentially genetic and was not caused by his employment. Citing jurisprudence, the petitioners assert that the burden is placed upon the seafarer to substantiate his claim that the illness is work-related and to prove that there is a connection between his employment and his illness. Laurel presented no substantial proof that his hyperthyroidism was caused or aggravated by the working conditions on elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55780 4/15