Medical documentation for Filipino seafarers

The liabilities of the employer when the seafarer suffers work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract include medical treatment apart from disability benefits and sickness allowance. A medically repatriated seafarer, either due to an injury or an illness, should remember that there are three basic medical documentations that will play vital roles in availing benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA- SEC), to wit:

1. Pre -Employment Medical Examination (PEME)

2. Accident or illness report while on board the vessel

3. Post-medical reporting within three (3) working days upon arrival in the Philippines

1. Pre -Employment Medical Examination (PEME)

According to the International Labor Organization (ILO),  the aim of the PEME  is to ensure that the seafarer being examined is medically fit to perform his or her routine and emergency duties at sea and is not suffering from any medical condition likely to be aggravated by service at sea, to render him or her unfit for service or to endanger the health of other persons on board. 

The POEA contract states that a seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness or condition in the PEME shall be liable for misrepresentation and shall be disqualified from any compensation and benefits. This is likewise a just cause for termination of employment and imposition of appropriate administrative sanctions.

In one case, the Supreme Court noted that neither is it necessary, in order to recover compensation, that the seafarer  must have been in perfect condition or health at the time he contracted the disease. Every workingman brings with him to his employment certain infirmities and while the employer is not the insurer of health of the seafarers, he takes them as he finds them and assumes the risk of liability. If the disease is the proximate cause of the seafarer’s death for which compensation is sought, the previous physical condition of the seafarer  is unimportant and recovery may be had therefore independent of any pre-existing disease (Wallem Maritime Services Inc vs. NLRC, 318 SCRA 623) 

On the other hand, the Supreme Court pointed out that the PEME is not exploratory and does not allow the employer to discover any and all pre-existing medical condition with which the seafarer is suffering and for which he may bepresently taking medication. The PEME is nothing more than a summary examination of the seafarer’s physiological condition (DOHLE-PHILMAN Manning Agency, Inc. v. Cabanban, 702 SCRA 467). it merely determines whether one is "fit to work" at sea or "fit for sea service" and it does not state the real state of health of an applicant. The "fit to work" declaration in the PEME cannot be a conclusive proof to show that he was free from any ailment prior to his deployment.(Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. NLRC, 616 SCRA 362, 378-379.

II. Accident or illness Report

A seafarer must present evidence or report  that he complained of any medical condition while  working  on board the vessel during the term of his contract . This is  to give the  company or insurance authorities the basis for evaluating whether the personal injury or illness in question can be recognized as an occupational injury or  disease. A work-related Illness  is  any sickness as a result of an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this Contract with the conditions set therein satisfied. A work-Related Injury  is an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. 

Otherwise,  he will be disqualified  for disability benefits since  he disembarked due to a  finished contract.  There must be a showing that he suffered the illness or injury within the effectivity of POEA contract,    from departure from the point of hire until return to the point of hire (i.e.  Airport to Airport ). The employment of the seafarer shall cease when the seafarer completes his period of contractual service aboard the ship, signs-off from the ship and arrives at the point of hire..

In some decided cases,the Supreme Court opined that the seafarer work for the same company for a  continuous period , the working nature must took a toll on the seafarer’s body, thus he could not contracted his illness elsewhere but during the employment. However, in another case, the Court   noted that  such an ailment, if there is a break, in any case,  could have another source. 

III. Three (3) day reportorial requirement 

The post-employment medical examination has two (2) requisites: (1) it is done by a company-designated physician, (2) within three (3) working days upon the seafarer’s return. 

The only exception thereto is physical incapacity of the seafarer to undergo said post employment medical examination, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance.  

Another exception is  when the employer refuses to refer the seafarer to a company-designated physician (Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Remo  (622 SCRA 237) 

The law specifically declares that failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in the seafarer’s forfeiture of his right to claim benefits.  The rationale for the rule is that reporting the illness or injury within three days from repatriation fairly makes it easier for a physician to determine the cause of the illness or injury. Ascertaining the real cause of the illness or injury beyond the period may prove difficult.

It is the company-designated physician who is initially  entrusted with the task of assessing the seafarer's disability, whether total or partial, due to either injury or illness, during the term of the latter's employment.  This does not mean that the assessment of said physician is final, binding or conclusive on the claimant, the labor tribunal or the courts. Should he be so minded, the seafarer has the prerogative to request a second opinion and to consult a physician of his choice regarding his ailment or injury, in which case the medical report issued by the latter shall be evaluated by the labor tribunal and the court, based on its inherent merit.