In Avior Marine, Inc. v. Turreda, the Supreme Court affirmed that a seafarer, Arnaldo R. Turreda, was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits due to an incomplete and questionable medical assessment by the company-designated physician. The court emphasized the importance of a final, definitive, and scientifically supported disability assessment to protect seafarers’ rights, especially when their health conditions are uncertain. This ruling underscores the legal responsibility of employers to ensure thorough and unbiased medical evaluations, and to actively participate in resolving disputes regarding a seafarer’s fitness for duty.

Navigating Murky Waters: Can a Hasty ‘Fit to Work’ Certification Sink a Seafarer’s Disability Claim?

Arnaldo R. Turreda, a Chief Cook employed by Avior Marine, Inc., experienced severe headaches while aboard the vessel Water Phoenix. After being repatriated due to his condition, he underwent medical examinations by the company-designated physician. While initially diagnosed with several health issues, including hypertension and heart-related conditions, he was abruptly declared fit to work just three weeks later. Concerned about his persistent symptoms, Turreda sought a second opinion from his own doctor, who deemed him unfit for sea duty. This divergence in medical opinions led to a legal battle over Turreda’s entitlement to disability benefits, with the core question being whether the company-designated physician’s assessment was sufficient to deny his claim.

The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) governs the rights and obligations of seafarers and their employers. According to the POEA-SEC, a work-related illness is defined as “any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this Contract with the conditions set therein satisfied.” This definition highlights the importance of determining whether a seafarer’s illness is linked to their work environment and conditions.

Notably, the Supreme Court has previously recognized hypertensive cardiovascular disease as an occupational disease under certain circumstances, as elucidated in Bautista v. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc., et al. The Court stipulated that for a seafarer to claim compensation for hypertensive cardiovascular disease, they must demonstrate that the disease was contracted under specific conditions, such as an acute exacerbation due to unusual strain from their work or the onset of symptoms during work performance. In this case, Avior Marine argued that Turreda’s illness was merely a simple migraine, not a work-related condition. However, the Court found compelling evidence suggesting otherwise.

The court noted that the prompt repatriation and subsequent medical tests conducted by the company-designated physician indicated a more serious underlying condition than a simple migraine. The fact that Turreda was prescribed medications for high blood pressure and underwent cardiac evaluations suggested that he was indeed suffering from hypertensive cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Turreda had been declared fit for sea duty prior to his employment, implying that his cardiovascular issues arose during his time aboard the Water Phoenix. This aligns with the POEA-SEC provision recognizing a causal relationship between the disease and the seafarer’s job when symptoms manifest during employment.

“A party in whose favor the legal presumption exists may rely on and invoke such legal presumption to establish a fact in issue. The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created thereby which, if no contrary proof is offered, will prevail.”, Bautista v. Elburg Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc. et al. In disability claims, the POEA-SEC outlines a specific procedure for resolving disputes regarding medical assessments. If the seafarer’s doctor disagrees with the company-designated physician’s assessment, the parties may jointly agree to consult a third doctor, whose decision shall be final and binding. This process ensures an impartial resolution based on expert medical opinion.

The case of INC Navigation Co. Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Rosales, clarifies that the burden of initiating the third doctor provision lies with the company once the seafarer challenges the company doctor’s assessment. The Court emphasized that the company must actively respond by setting into motion the process of choosing a third doctor. In Ilustricino v. NYK-FIL Ship Management, Inc., et al., the Court further underscored the importance of the employer’s response to the seafarer’s request for a third-doctor referral. The court highlighted that the burden to refer the case to a third doctor shifts to the respondents upon being notified of the petitioner’s intent to dispute the company doctors’ findings.

In Turreda’s case, he notified Avior Marine of the conflicting medical assessments and requested a third-doctor referral, but the company failed to initiate the process. While Avior Marine argued that the request was made after the case had already been filed, the Court clarified that the POEA-SEC does not specify a timeframe for seeking a third opinion, allowing it even during labor tribunal proceedings. Since no third doctor was appointed, the Court proceeded to evaluate the medical reports, emphasizing the importance of a final, complete, and definitive disability assessment. To be conclusive, the medical assessment or report of the company-designated physician should be complete and definite to provide the appropriate disability benefits to seafarers.

The court found the company-designated physician’s assessment to be lacking in several respects. First, the physician issued a certificate of fitness to work just three weeks after advising Turreda to continue medication for high blood pressure and related conditions. Second, the assessment lacked supporting documentation, such as laboratory results and specialist reports. Third, the medical reports were unsigned, further casting doubt on their validity. Clear bias on the part of the company-designated physician may be shown if there is no scientific relation between the diagnosis and the symptoms felt by the seafarer, or if the final assessment of the company-designated physician is not supported by the medical records of the seafarer.

Because of the incomplete, questionable, and unsubstantiated nature of the company-designated physician’s assessment, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that Turreda was entitled to total and permanent disability benefits. This case reinforces the importance of a thorough and unbiased medical evaluation in determining a seafarer’s fitness for duty and entitlement to disability benefits. The court emphasized that employers must ensure that medical assessments are complete, definitive, and supported by sufficient medical evidence.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the company-designated physician’s assessment was sufficient to deny the seafarer’s claim for total and permanent disability benefits, considering the incomplete and questionable nature of the assessment.
What is a work-related illness under the POEA-SEC?	A work-related illness is any sickness resulting in disability or death as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, provided the conditions set therein are satisfied. This definition requires a clear link between the illness and the seafarer’s work.
Under what conditions is hypertensive cardiovascular disease considered an occupational disease for seafarers?	Hypertensive cardiovascular disease is considered an occupational disease if it was known to be present during employment and an acute exacerbation was clearly precipitated by the unusual strain of the seafarer’s work, the strain of work brought about an acute attack followed within 24 hours by clinical signs, or if a person was asymptomatic before work and showed signs during work.
What happens when the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s doctor disagree on the medical assessment?	The POEA-SEC provides that a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer, and the third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties. The burden of initiating the third doctor provision lies with the company once the seafarer challenges the company doctor’s assessment.
What are the requirements for a valid disability assessment by the company-designated physician?	A valid disability assessment must be final, complete, and definitive, reflecting the true extent of the seafarer’s illness or injuries and their capacity to resume sea duties. It must also be supported by sufficient medical evidence and free from bias.
What happens if the company fails to initiate the process of choosing a third doctor?	If the company fails to initiate the process of choosing a third doctor after being notified of the disagreement, the assessment of the company-designated physician is not binding. The court will then evaluate the medical reports and evidence presented by both parties.
Why was the company-designated physician’s assessment in this case considered insufficient?	The assessment was considered insufficient because it was issued hastily, lacked supporting documentation, and was unsigned, raising concerns about its validity and completeness. The physician also certified Turreda as fit to work despite ongoing health issues and medication.
What is the significance of a seafarer being declared fit for duty during the pre-employment medical examination?	If a seafarer is declared fit for duty during the pre-employment medical examination, it creates a presumption that any subsequent illness developed during employment is work-related. The burden then shifts to the employer to prove otherwise.

This case demonstrates the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting the rights of seafarers and ensuring fair and thorough medical evaluations in disability claims. The ruling emphasizes the importance of employers fulfilling their obligations under the POEA-SEC and acting in good faith when assessing a seafarer’s fitness for duty.

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: AVIOR MARINE, INC. VS. ARNALDO R. TURREDA, G.R. No. 250806, September 29, 2021