In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the critical importance of timely and proper communication from employers to seafarers regarding medical assessments of their work-related injuries. The court held that employers must ensure seafarers are fully informed of their medical condition, including examination results, treatments, diagnoses, and disability grading, within the prescribed periods. Failure to provide this information promptly can result in a seafarer’s disability being deemed total and permanent by operation of law, potentially entitling them to greater compensation. This decision underscores the employer’s duty to uphold due process and the seafarer’s right to be informed, ensuring fair handling of disability claims.

From Ship to Shore: Ensuring Fair Disability Assessments for Seafarers

Arnel Gere, a Filipino seafarer, suffered an injury while working aboard the vessel “MV JENNY N.” After an accident on January 4, 2014, he was repatriated to the Philippines and underwent medical examinations. The crux of the legal battle arose from conflicting accounts regarding the issuance and communication of Gere’s disability grading. Gere claimed the company-designated physician failed to provide a timely assessment within the 240-day period, leading him to consult his personal physician, who offered a different opinion. The central legal question became whether the company fulfilled its obligation to inform Gere of his medical assessment, and the consequences if they failed to do so.

The Supreme Court addressed the procedural requirements for disability claims under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-board Ocean-going Ships (POEA Contract). This contract outlines a specific process when a seafarer suffers a work-related injury. According to Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA Contract, the company-designated physician’s medical assessment is initially controlling. However, the seafarer has the right to contest this assessment. Here’s the exact provision:

Section 20 [B]. Compensation and Benefits for Injury or Illness

2. x x x x

However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the employer until such time as he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the company-designated physician.

3. Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of his permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician, but in no case shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.

For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post­-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.

If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that the company-designated physician must not only issue a final medical assessment but also “give” the assessment to the seafarer. This means the seafarer must be fully and properly informed of their medical condition. The Court stated:

In this regard, the company-designated physician is mandated to issue a medical certificate, which should be personally received by the seafarer, or, if not practicable, sent to him/her by any other means sanctioned by present rules. For indeed, proper notice is one of the cornerstones of due process, and the seafarer must be accorded the same especially so in cases where his/her well-being is at stake.

The Court highlighted that this process is mandatory and can only begin from the moment of proper notice to the seafarer of the medical assessment. “To require the seafarer to seek the decision of a neutral third party physician without primarily being informed of the assessment of the company­-designated physician is a clear violation of the tenets of due process, and shall not be countenanced by the Court.”

The Court found that the evidence presented by the respondents failed to prove that Gere was actually given a copy of the medical assessment. The respondents presented letters between Dr. Bernal, the orthopedic surgeon, and Dr. Lim, the company-designated physician, suggesting disability ratings. However, the Court noted that these were merely suggested ratings and internal communications, not proof that Gere was properly informed. The Court also pointed to the communication between the respondents’ representative and Gere’s counsel, which occurred only after Gere had initiated action against the respondents.

The Court emphasized that without proper notice, the 120-day and 240-day rules come into effect. Elburg Shipmanagement Phils., Inc. establishes that if the company-designated physician fails to provide a final assessment within 120 days (extendable to 240 days with sufficient justification), the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total. In Gere’s case, there was no justification for extending the 120-day period, and the respondents failed to provide Gere with a copy of his medical certificate within this timeframe. Because Gere was not informed of the assessment, the mandatory referral to a neutral third doctor could not have been applicable.

The Court rejected the respondents’ reliance on the conflict-resolution procedure, stating it was a self-serving invocation of a rule they had disregarded. Considering the respondents’ failure to inform Gere of the company-designated physician’s assessment, the Court determined that Gere’s disability grading was, by operation of law, total and permanent.

While Gere’s disability was deemed total and permanent, the specific benefits he was entitled to were determined by the POEA contract rather than the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The CBA required a disability assessment of 50% or more, or a certification from the company-designated physician that the seafarer was medically unfit to continue work. Gere’s personal physician assessed him at a Grade 8 disability, which translates to 33.59% under the POEA Contract. The company-designated physician did not certify Gere as medically unfit. Therefore, the Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision to award Gere benefits based on the POEA contract, which provides for US$60,000.00 for total and permanent disability.

The Court’s decision reinforces the importance of procedural due process in seafarer disability claims. It clarifies the employer’s responsibility to ensure seafarers are promptly and properly informed of their medical assessments. Failure to meet this obligation can have significant consequences, potentially leading to a declaration of total and permanent disability by operation of law, regardless of the actual degree of disability assessed by the company-designated physician. This decision underscores the need for transparency and fairness in handling seafarer disability claims, protecting the rights and welfare of Filipino seafarers.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the employer properly informed the seafarer of the medical assessment by the company-designated physician within the prescribed period, and the consequences of failing to do so.
What is the 120/240-day rule?	The 120/240-day rule refers to the period within which a company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment. It begins from the time the seafarer reports to the company-designated physician.
What happens if the company-designated physician fails to issue an assessment within the timeframe?	If the company-designated physician fails to provide an assessment within 120 days without justification, or within 240 days with justification, the seafarer’s disability becomes permanent and total by operation of law.
Is referral to a third doctor mandatory in disability claims?	Referral to a third doctor is mandatory only when the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician. This disagreement must be communicated to the employer.
What is the employer’s responsibility regarding the medical assessment?	The employer must ensure that the seafarer is fully informed of their medical condition, including examination results, treatments, diagnoses, and disability grading, as assessed by the company-designated physician.
What is the consequence of failing to properly inform the seafarer?	Failure to properly inform the seafarer can result in the seafarer’s disability being deemed total and permanent by operation of law, regardless of the actual disability grading.
What benefits are seafarers entitled to for total and permanent disability?	The benefits for total and permanent disability are determined by the POEA contract or the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), depending on the specific provisions and the circumstances of the case. In this case, the POEA Contract was applied which provides US$60,000.00.
What if the seafarer’s personal physician disagrees with the company-designated physician?	If the seafarer’s personal physician disagrees, the seafarer can request a referral to a third, neutral doctor. The decision of the third doctor is final and binding on both parties.

This case highlights the importance of clear communication and adherence to procedural requirements in seafarer disability claims. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the employer’s responsibility to properly inform seafarers of their medical assessments ensures that seafarers are afforded due process and have the opportunity to protect their rights.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ARNEL T. GERE v. ANGLO-EASTERN, G.R. No. 226656 & 226713, April 23, 2018