The findings of the company-designated physician do not always bind the courts in determining the merits of
compensation cases filed Filipino seafarers.
In most
seafarer cases for disability or death benefits claims, one of the arguments
often raised by the companies or the insurance correspondents
is that they are not liable to pay benefits by pointing
to the medical reports of the company-designated physician that the seafarer’s
illness is not work-connected, that he is fit to work or that the compensation
is limited to a lower amount based on a low disability grading. They
point out that the POEA mandated that the seafarer’s
disability can only be assessed by the company-designated physician considering
that the latter had the time and the opportunity to constantly monitor the
health and physical condition of the seafarer
In the recent case of
Magsaysay vs. Oliver Buenaventura ( G.R.
No. 195878. January 10, 2018), the seafarer met an accident
wherein a mooring winch
crushed his right
hand. As a result, he suffered a fracture of the right
first metacarpal bone and open fracture of the right second metacarpal bone, which
required emergency surgical procedures both done in Japan and he was later medically repatriated. After six months, the company
doctor declared him fit to work after undergoing conservative management, continuous
rehabilitation physiotheraphy, and occupational therapy. He filed a case for disability benefits.
The Supreme Court
denied the claims for disability
benefits of the seafarer as it stressed that failure to
refer the conflicting findings between
the company-designated physician and the seafarer's
physician of choice grants the former's
medical opinion more weight and probative value
over the latter.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court noted that it does not mean that the judicial
bodies should
adopt it hook, line and sinker as it may be set aside if it is shown that the diagnosis of the company-designated physician is attended with clear bias, has no scientific basis or are not supported by the medical
records of the seafarer.
.
The Court also pointed out in a case that
“their findings cannot be taken as gospel truth” due to the proliferation of
obviously biased company doctors whose loyalty rests completely upon the
company they serve and these “are palpably self-serving and biased in favor of
petitioners and certainly could not be considered independent”(Wallem vs.NLRC 318 SCRA 623, United Philippine Lines, Inc. and/or
Holland America Line, Inc., vs. Francisco D. Beseril, 487 SCRA 249).
