Stroke and seafarer's stress

A seafarer who suffered stroke on board the vessel must be compensated due to work-related stress.

 In the case of  Magsaysay Mitsui OSK Marine, Inc, v. Bengson (G.R. No. 198528, October 13, 2014⁾  disregarded the employer’s   claim that the seafarer’s hypertensive cardio-vascular disease is not compensable on the sole basis of its company-designated physician’s declaration that such illness is not work-related.

The Supreme Court ruled that the seafarer’s  illness, which has likewise been diagnosed as intracerebral hemorrhage or hemorrhagic stroke, is a serious condition, and could be deadly.

The Supreme Court noted  that the  seafarer has been working for the company since 1988 and has been serving as Third Mate for twelve (12) years.  

Having worked for the principal  since 1988 under employment contracts that were continuously renewed, it can be said that the seafarer  spent much of his productive years with the principal; his years of service certainly took a toll on his body, and he could not have contracted his illness elsewhere except while working for the principal. 

As Third Mate, he was saddled with heavy responsibilities relative to navigation of the vessel, ship safety and management of emergencies. 

The seafarer  was subjected to physical and mental stress and strain: as Third Mate, he is the ship’s fourth in command, and he is the ship’s safety officer; these responsibilities have been heavy burdens on his shoulders all these years, and certainly contributed to the development of his illness. 

Besides, it is already recognized that any kind of work or labor produces stress and strain normally resulting in wear and tear of the human body.

An overseas worker, having to ward off homesickness by reason of being physically separated from his family for the entire duration of his contract, bears a great degree of emotional strain while making an effort to perform his work well.

The strain is even greater in the case of a seafarer who is constantly subjected to the perils of the sea while at work abroad and away from his family.c

The Court has ruled that the list of illnesses/diseases in Section 32-A of the  POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC) does not preclude other illnesses/diseases not so listed from being compensable. The POEA contract  cannot be presumed to contain all the possible injuries that render a seafarer unfit for further sea duties.   And equally significant, it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one’s earning capacity.

An employee’s disability becomes permanent and total when so declared by the company-designated physician, or, in case of absence of such a declaration either of fitness or permanent total disability, upon the lapse of the 120 or 240-day treatment period while the employee’s disability continues and he is unable to engage in gainful employment during such period, and the company-designated physician fails to arrive at a definite assessment of the employee’s fitness or disability.

In many cases decided in the past, the Supreme  Court has held that cardiovascular disease, coronary artery disease, and other heart-related  ailments (including stroke)  are compensable. 

Thus, in Fil-Pride Shipping Co., Inc. v. Balasta, (G.R. No. 193047, March 3, 2014) severe 3-vessel coronary artery disease which the seaman contracted while serving as Able Seaman was considered an occupational disease.  In Villanueva, Sr. v. Baliwag Navigation, Inc., (702 SCRA 311).  it was held that the 2000 POEA-SEC considers heart disease as an occupational disease. 

 In Jebsens Maritime, Inc. v. Undag (662 SCRA 670) the Court held that hypertensive cardiovascular disease may be a compensable illness, upon proof.  In Oriental Shipmgt. Co., Inc. v. Bastol ( 622 SCRA 352) and Heirs of the late Aniban v. NLRC (347 Phil. 46)  it was held that myocardial infarction as a disease or cause of death is compensable, such being occupational.  Iloreta v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc (607 SCRA 796)  held that hypertensive cardiovascular disease/coronary artery disease and chronic stable angina are compensable.  

Micronesia Resources v. Cantomayor (552 Phil. 130)  stated that a finding of coronary artery disease entitles the claimant – a seaman Third Officer – to disability compensation.  In Remigio v .NLRC (521 Phil. 330) the Court held that the claimant – a musician on board an ocean-going vessel – was entitled to recover for suffering from coronary artery disease.  In Sepulveda v. ECC, (174 Phil. 242) it was declared that the employee’s illness, myocardial infarction, was directly brought about by his employment as schoolteacher or was a result of the nature of such employment.

 (Atty. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the  Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan  law offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786)

Heartache

A job of a seafarer is not exactly a walk in the park. One  with a  heart condition is “a walking time bomb ready to explode towards the end of his employment days.”

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a term to describe conditions of the heart and blood vessels and is the leading cause of death in the country today according to the Department of Health.

Common CVDs include, among others, coronary heart diseases/ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular accident or stroke, and hypertension or elevated blood pressure.

Under Section 32-A(11) of the 2010 POEA Amended Standard Terms and Conditions.  CVD is considered an occupational disease for which a seafarer may claim compensation if it was contracted under working conditions identified therein as follows:  when the heart disease was aggravated by reasons of the nature of the seafarer’s work, the severity of the strain of the work may be sufficient and followed within 24 hours by clinical signs of cardiac insult, and signs and symptoms of cardiac injury appeared during his work and the same persisted.

In several cases, cardiovascular disease, coronary artery disease, as well as other heart ailments were held to be compensable as total permanent disability by the Supreme Court.

Seafarers working for companies  for long period of time is normally saddled with heavy responsibilities relative to navigation of the vessel, ship safety and management of emergencies. (Magsaysay Mitsui OSK Marine, Inc.. vs. Juanito Bengson; G.R. No. 198528, October 13, 2014)

It is beyond doubt that seafarer can be subjected to physical and mental stress and strain; these responsibilities cause heavy burdens on one’s shoulders all these years, and certainly contributed to the development of his illness. Besides, it is already recognized that any kind of work or labor produces stress and strain normally resulting in wear and tear of the human body. 

Notably, it is a matter of judicial notice that an overseas worker, having to ward off homesickness by reason of being physically separated from his family for the entire duration of his contract, bears a great degree of emotional strain while making an effort to perform his work well. The strain is even greater in the case of a seafarer  who is constantly subjected to the perils of the sea while at work abroad and away from his family.

Having worked for the company under several employment contracts that were continuously renewed, it can be said that a seafarer spent much of his productive years with the company; his years of service certainly took a toll on his body, and he could not have contracted his illness elsewhere except while working for the company.

The case of Carlos N. Nisda vs. Sea Serve Maritime Agency, et. al. (G.R. No. 179177, July 23, 2009) made it clear that by showing the reasonable connection between the seafarer’s  work and the development and exacerbation of his CVD, a seafarer may claim for payment of disability benefits under the POEA SEC. The physical discomforts for which he sought medical attention when he was abroad  bear the hallmarks of coronary artery disease that did not develop overnight hence, making it highly possible that he had the disease while he was still onboard during the life of his POEA-SEC, although it went undiagnosed because he had yet to experience the symptoms.

The fact that he was deployed by his employers numerous times, which job was found to be arduous and grueling, showed the reasonable connection between the nature of his job and his heart disease.  Accordingly, he was able to prove that disease was work-related given the difficult nature of his job  that caused his disease or at least, aggravated any pre-existing conditions that he might have had.

Considering the repulsive physical manifestation of the disease, it's chronic nature, lack of long-term cure and the vulnerability of the patient to cardiovascular diseases, a seafarer would no longer be able to perform strenuous activities such as the rigorous duties of a seafarer.

Companies definitely will no longer hire a seafarer  due to his medical condition, especially the high risk of having heart failure or stoke in the future. From the business point of view, it will be risky for them to let him be re-employed since the harsh working environment might only aggravate the  seafarer’s fragile condition and in the end expose the company to more serious insurance liabilities.

The Supreme Court described an employee with a  heart condition as “a walking time bomb ready to explode towards the end of his employment days.” ⁽GSIS vs. Alcaraz, GR. 187474, February 6, 2013)  To be sure, the risks present in his work environment for the entire duration of his employment might precipitate a graver heart condition.

A job of a seafarer is not exactly a walk in the park.  He performs duties and responsibilities as instructed or as necessary. (Heirs of the Late R/O Reynaldo Aniban vs. NLRC, 282 SCRA 377)

 What makes the job more difficult, aside from exposure to fluctuating temperatures caused by variant weather changes, the job obviously entails laborious manual tasks conducted in a moving ship, which makes for increased work-related stress. All these factors may exacerbate private respondent’s heart condition. Prolonged and continued exposure to the same could probably risk him to another attack (Oriental Shipmgt. Co., Inc. vs. Bastol (G.R. 168269 January 29, 2010.)