On 3 November 2010, F.J. Lines, Inc. Panama, through its agent, Eastgate Maritime Corporation, hired the seafarer on board the vessel MV Corona Lions to work as a Chief Cook. The seafarer underwent the requisite Pre-Employment Medical Examination and was found fit for sea duty. Thereafter, he boarded the vessel on 4 December 2010.
Sometime in November 2011, while in the performance of his duties, the seafarer experienced pain in his right leg radiating to his lower extremities. He reported the matter to the Master of the vessel who, in turn, brought him to a hospital in Reihoku, Japan on 14 November 2011. There, he was diagnosed to be suffering from urinary stone in his right urinary tract and was prescribed pain reliever drugs. Due to persistent back and leg pains, he was again taken to a hospital in Newcastle, England on 16 December 2011 where the doctor recommended his medical repatriation for further management and treatment.
Upon arrival in Manila on 19 December 2011, the seafarer was given medical attention by the company-designated physician. He was subjected to rigorous medical examinations, was prescribed medications and was put on therapy to address his condition. On 19 April 2012, the company-designated physician issued a medical opinion stating, among others, that the seafarer’s lumbar spondylosis will require further treatment. As such, he gave an interim assessment of Grade 8. Thereafter, the seafarer continuously received medical treatment from the company-designated physicians. However, on 8 May 2012, the seafarer filed a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits and asserted that his illness was a result of an accident that occurred while he was performing his duties as chief cook.
Question:
Will the complaint prosper?
Answer:
No. The complaint should be dismissed for lack of cause of action.
Jurisprudence dictates that a seafarer may have basis to pursue an action for total and permanent disability benefits in any of the following conditions:
- the company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120-day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment would address his temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of the period to 240 days;
- 240 days had lapsed without any declaration as to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability being issued by the company-designated physician;
- the company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case may be, but his physician of choice and the third doctor chosen under Section 20 (A) (3) of the Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships1Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2010 are of a contrary opinion;
- the company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly with his employer, believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as well;
- the company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading;
- the company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable or work-related but his doctor-of-choice and the third doctor selected under Section 20 (A) (3) of the Amended Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships2Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2010 found otherwise and declared him unfit to work;
- the company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and
- the company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of the said periods.3Emphasis supplied.
In the present case the seafarer filed his complaint on 8 May 2012, or 141 days from his medical repatriation on 19 December 2011. It was premature for him to invoke his claim for permanent total disability benefits at this time. As such, the complaint should have been dismissed as the seafarer had no cause of action.
Further Reading:
- Torillos v. Eastgate Maritime Corp., G.R. Nos. 215904 & 216165, January 10, 2019.
