The 120/240 day rule on seafarer's disability cases

The number of days under medication is a significant element in determining the disability benefits of  a seafarer who was a medically repatriated.  

The  seafarer's standard employment contract of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)    enumerates under Section 20(A)(3) the three classes of benefits the seafarers are entitled to if the illness or injury is considered as work connected:

  (a)     sickness allowance not to exceed 120 days of  basic wage.

 (b)     medical expenses until such time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been    established by the company-designated physician.

  (c)     compensation in accordance with the    schedule of benefits governed by the rates and the rules        of compensation. 

In many instances, the period within which the company-designated physician  issues a final medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading is a contentious factor  in the determination of compensation due to the seafarer. 

The  Supreme Court  laid down (Elburg Shipmgt.  Phils vs. Ernesto Quiogue, G.R. No. 211882, July 29, 2015)     the following guidelines that shall govern seafarers' claims for permanent and total disability benefits:

1. The company-designated physician must issue a final medical assessment on the seafarer's disability grading within a period of 120 days from the time the seafarer reported to him;
2. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days, without any justifiable reason, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total;
3. If the company-designated physician fails to give his assessment within the period of 120 days with a sufficient justification (e.g. seafarer required further medical treatment or seafarer was uncooperative), then the period of diagnosis and treatment shall be extended to 240 days. The employer has the burden to prove that the company-designated physician has sufficient justification to extend the period; and
4. If the company-designated physician still fails to give his assessment within the extended period of 240 days, then the seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total, regardless of any justification.

Under the prevailing doctrine on disability claims of Filipino seafarers. when the company-designated physician makes an assessment of the seafarer’s disability rating within the period of 120 days from medical repatriation, such assessment becomes final. 

The additional 120 days (or a total of 240 days) from repatriation is given to the company-designated physician to provide further treatment to the seafarer and, “thereafter, make a declaration as to the nature of the latter’s disability.”


Failure to obtain any gainful employment for more than 120 days after his medical repatriation, or inability to continue his work as a seaman for the same period does not mean that a seafarer’s disability should be considered permanent and total.

The  Supreme Court further clarified that for the company-designated physician to avail of the extended 240-day period, he must first perform some significant act to justify an extension (e.g., that the illness still requires medical attendance beyond the initial 120 days but not to exceed 240 days); otherwise, the seafarer's disability shall be conclusively presumed to be permanent and total. (Jebsens Maritime, et.al. v. Florvin Rapiz (G.R. No. 218871. January 11, 2017)

A seafarer is considered as  suffering permanent total disability if the medical statement of the company doctor  is  devoid of any definitive declaration as to the seafarer's  capacity  to return to work or at least a categorical and final degree of disability.

There is no "definitive assessment" where the company-designated physician noted that seafarer's wound was still open and that he was to continue his medications  (Carcedo v. Maine Marine Philippines, Inc G.R. No. 203804, April 15, 2015) If he fails to do so and the seafarer’s medical condition remains unresolved, the latter shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled.(Fil-Pride Shipping Company, Inc. v. Balasta,  G.R. No. 193047, March 3, 2014, 717 SCRA 624, 626) 

Such principle is more apparent in  event that  the seafarer  has remained unemployed as a seafarer for more than 240 days from the time of his repatriation  or he was unable to perform the same physical activities he used to perform prior to his injury.  ( Belchem Phils./UPL  vs. Eduardo  Zafra G.R. No. 204845               June 15, 2015) 

A total disability does not require that the employee be completely disabled, or totally paralyzed. What is necessary is that the injury must be such that the employee cannot pursue his or her usual work and earn from it.   (Fil-Star Maritime Corp., et.al. vs. Hanziel Rosete, G.R. No. 192686, November 23, 2011), Permanent disability is the inability of the worker to perform his job , regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body. (Philimare, Inc./Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd.,  vs. Benedicto Suganob, G.R. No. 168753, July 9, 2008,  )

*

Medical attention on board ship

          The experience of  a Korean seafarer posted by Humans at Sea  focused on inaction  of  the owner after he suffered an accident while on board the vessel during the effectivity of his employment contract. The owner refused to send him to a doctor despite the recommendation of the captain.

       Under the Maritime Labor Convention, specifically Title 4 thereof,  the employment contracts must reflect the shipowners/ employers’ obligations  on  measures providing for health protection and medical care, including essential dental care, for seafarers working on board a ship which include among others:

 (a) ensure the application to seafarers of any general provisions on occupational health protection and medical care relevant to their duties, as well as of special provisions specific to work on board ship;

(b) ensure that seafarers are given health protection and medical care as comparable as possible to that which is generally available to workers ashore, including prompt access to the necessary medicines, medical equipment and facilities for diagnosis and treatment and to medical information and expertise;

(c) give seafarers the right to visit a qualified medical doctor or dentist without delay in ports of call, where practicable;

(d) ensure that medical care and health protection services while a seafarer is on board ship or landed in a foreign port are provided free of charge to seafarers; and

            If on board grievance machinery turned out to be futile, the seafarer   has  the right to report to port authorities such a complaint in order to facilitate a prompt and practical means of redress the  breach of  the shipowner’s obligations towards seafarers’ rights. 

         He can likewise seek the assistance of various seafarer welfare groups in the next port  like Apostleship of the Seas (Aos). Sailor Society , German Seaman Mission, Mission to Seafarers (MtS), North American Maritime Ministry Association (NAMMA),  Biblia Harbour Mission and other groups affiliated with International Christiian Maritime Association (#ICMA)

         These provisions are essentially included in the contract of Filipino seafarers as one of the duties/ obligation of the principal/ employer/ company to provide a workplace conducive to the promotion and protection  of the health of the seafarers in accordance  with the standards and guidelines of MLC2006. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA SEC is designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seafarers in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels.

 If the injury or illness requires medical and/or dental treatment in a foreign port, the employer shall be liable for the full cost of such medical, serious dental, surgical and hospital treatment as well as board and lodging until the seafarer is declared fit to work or to be repatriated. However, if after repatriation, the seafarer still requires medical attention arising from said injury or illness, he shall be so provided at cost to the employer until such time he is declared fit or the degree of his disability has been established by the company-designated physician.

The employer  is liable for  three separate and distinct  kinds of liabilities under the   POEA-SEC for any work-related illness or injury that the seafarer may have suffered during the term of the contract. In other words, employers must: (1) provide   medical treatment to  the seafarer at their cost; (b) pay the seafarer sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage  and (2) compensate the seafarer for his permanent total or partial disability as finally determined by the company-designated physician.

The actuations of the company , gross negligence leading to serious injury or illness or death of the worker, can be considered  a ground for disciplinary action, for which it can be given the maximum penalty of permanent disqualification and delisting from the roster of accredited principals/employers

. 

Disability due to accident

Is the injury suffered by the seafarer the result of an “accident” thereby entitling him to higher disability benefits under the collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)?

This is the question posed in the April 23, 2014 case of “Carlo F. Sunga v. Virjen Shipping Corporation, Nissho Odyssey Ship Management Pte. Ltd., and Capt. Angel Zambrano” which was decided by the Supreme Court under G.R. No. 198640.

The seafarer in this case, a member of the Associated Marine Officers’ and Seamen’s Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP), entered into a contract of employment as Fitter on board an ocean-going vessel for nine (9) months.  His employment was covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) executed between AMOSUP and his employers.

One time, while on board, the seafarer had to lift a 200-kilogram globe valve from the lower floor of the engine room to its installing position.  As it was being positioned, one of the oilers lost his grip of the valve, thus, causing its whole weight to crash on the seafarer.  At that point, he felt his back snap.  Since then, he started to experience pain which led him to request for repatriation which was accordingly granted.

Reporting to the company-designated doctor, the seafarer underwent medical examination and was issued medical certificates: the first, recommending a Grade 8 disability based on the POEA-Standard Employment Employment Contract (SEC), and the second, a disability grading of 25% in accordance with the CBA.  His employers offered the amount of US$16,795.00 as full settlement for his disability benefits based on the POEA-SEC but he rejected it and demanded that his benefits be based on the disability grading of 25% based on the CBA.  His employers claimed that he failed to present any proof that his disability was the result of an accident and it was simply an illness r an anatomical defect.

The arbiter and the NLRC ruled in favor of the seafarer, basing his disability benefits on the CBA.  The Court of Appeals ruled otherwise and applied only the POEA-SEC, noting that the back injury which the seafarer suffered was reasonably anticipated since carrying heavy objects can cause injury and that lifting and carrying heavy objects are part of his duties as Fitter.  There was no mishap, occurrence or fortuitous event when the injury was incurred.

The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the arbiter and the NLRC and found that the seafarer’s injury was the result of the accidental slippage in the handling of the 200-kilogram valve based on circumstantial evidence.  the High Court observed that the seafarer did not incur the injury while solely performing his regular duties but an “intervening event transpired,” i.e., when the oiler lost his grip of the valve, which brought upon the injury on the seafarer.  Such an incident cannot be considered foreseeable nor can it be reasonably anticipated.

The duty of the seafarer here was not to routinely carry a 200-kilogram valve singlehandedly, but only to change the valve.  An “accident” therefore, pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault of negligence attaches to the defendant.  As defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, “accident” is “an unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence; something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated.”  As such, the seafarer’s disability benefits fall within the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) coverage, which provides that “A seafarer who suffers permanent disability as a result of an accident whilst in the employment of the Company shall be entitled to compensation according to the provisions of this Agreement.”   

#Article of Atty. Augusto R. Bundang of SVBB Law orignally published in the Tinig ng Marino July August 2014 issue.