Timeliness of the third doctor referral in seafarer’s cases

The POEA Contract does not require a specific period within the parties in a case involving a seafarer’s disability claims may seek the opinion of a third doctor.  They may do so even during the mandatory conference before the labor tribunals.

          This was the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Ilustricimo vs. NYK-Fil Shipmanagement (G.R. No. 237487 June 27, 2018) that involved a seafarer that was diagnosed with bladder cancer.

          The court ruled that the company-designated doctors’ assessment is not always binding in cases of non-referral to a third doctor of disability claims of seafarers.

          Legal issues on compliance with the third doctor referral procedure is based on Section 20(A) (3) of the POEA-Standard Employment Contract which provides that if a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated doctor, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer, and the third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.

          Referral to a third doctor became a mandatory procedure as a consequence of the POEA contract provision that the company-designated doctor’s assessment should prevail in case of non-observance of the third doctor referral provision in the contract.  Stated otherwise, the company can insist on its disability rating even against the contrary opinion by another doctor, unless the seafarer expresses his disagreement by asking for a referral to a third doctor who shall make his or her determination and whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties.

          The Supreme Court downplayed the employer’s argument that the seafarer’s failure to communicate his separate medical certification prior to the filing of the complaint not only constitutes a breach of his contractual obligations under the POEA contract, but also renders the complaint premature and is a ground for the dismissal of his claim for disability benefits.

          The Court in said case held that the employers do not deny receiving the seafarer’s letter despite their insistence that he failed to activate the third doctor provision.

          Infact, employers repeatedly insisted that the letter was not meant to dispute the company-designated doctor’s assessment, but rather to inform them that petitioner needed continued medical assistance.  On the assumption that the seafarer indeed “belatedly” informed the employer of the opinion of his second doctor and his intent to refer his case to a third doctor, the fact remains that they have been notified of suchintent.

          The instant Ilustricimo vs. NYK-Fil case emphasized that the POEA Contract does not require as specific period within which the parties may seek the opinion of a third doctor, and they may do so even during the mandatory conference before the labor tribunals.   

          Accordingly, upon being notified of the seafarer’s intent to dispute the company doctor’s findings, whether prior or during the mandatory conference, the burden to refer the case to a third doctor has shifted to the respondents.

          Informerly Inc. Shipmanagement Incorporated vs. Rosales (438 SCRA 30) reiterated that when the seafarer challenges the company doctor’s assessment made by his own doctor, the seafarer shall so signify and the company thereafter carries the burden of activating the third doctor provision:

          This, the employers failed to do so, and the seafarer cannot be faulted for the non-referral.

          Consequently, the company-designated doctors’ assessment is not binding.

          (Atty. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan Law Offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 0917-502-5808 or 0908-866-5786).

sickness allowance

A medically repatriated   seafarer would normally result in depriving him of compensation income due to his inability to perform his sea duties.

Away from his family and working on board vessels sailing non-stop for weeks or months the world’s oceans, the Filipino seafarer is physically, mentally and emotionally stressed. Constantly exposed to fluctuating temperatures caused by variant weather changes of extreme hot and cold as the ships cross ocean boundaries, not to mention harsh weather conditions, the risks of his getting killed, injured or ill are high.

The employer  is liable for  three separate and distinct  kinds of liabilities under the  Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) for any work-related illness or injury that the seafarer may have suffered during the term of the contract. 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 employer is liable for the full wage, while the seafarer is still on board, and the cost of medical treatment in foreign ports. The employer also has  to bear the cost of repatriation and treatment, and the seafarer is entitled to an additional sickness allowance.

To address the contingency of his  repatriation  to undergo treatment,   the POEA contract  imposes on the employer the obligation to provide the seafarer with sickness allowance that is equivalent to his basic wage until the seafarer is declared fit to work or the degree of his permanent disability is determined by the company-designated physician. The period for the declaration should be made within the period of 120 days or 240 days, as the case may be. The number of days under medication is a significant element in determining the disability benefits of  a seafarer who was a medically repatriated.  

The amount of sickness allowance is the basic wage of the seafarer, counting from the day he signed off from the ship until the time he is declared fit to work or disability grading assessed by the company-designated physician.

The company is liable for the sickness allowance at the time when he is under treatment and waiting for the company-designated doctor to decide if the injury or illness is work-related.

 If the seafarer is declared fit for duty after the medical treatment, the sickness allowance is the only benefit he could get. If the seafarer is further assessed disability  grading due to irreperable  physical damage, he could receive the said sickness allowance plus  the disability benefits  based  on the  grading system.

 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)

Accident or illness report while on board the vessel

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

One who claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should not only comply with the procedural requirements of law but must also establish his right to the benefits by substantial evidence.The burden, therefore, rests on theseafarer to show that he   suffered or contracted his illness or injury, while still employed as a seafarer, which 

resulted in his permanent disability.

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 the recent case of the  Veronico Tagud vs. BSM Crew Service Center Phils  (G.R. No. 219370. December 6, 2017), the Supreme Court ruled that the seafarer  failed to discharge this burden. He  only presented an x-ray report dated 21 October 2008 taken in Wynnum, Queensland, where the Kota Pemimpin vessel docked three days after he lost his balance due to the tilting of the ship which hurt his right elbow region. But even findings in the x-ray result stated that there was no fracture and no abnonnality except for a small olecranon spur. This finding is therefore not conclusive and can lead to many other assumptions. Also, after the x-ray procedure was taken, the seafarer could have immediately requested for a follow­ up check-up or demonstrated that he was in need of urgent medical attention. But he did not. Thus, the reasonable conclusion is that at the time of his repatriation, the seafarer was not suffering from any physical disability requiring immediate medical assistance and that his employment was terminated due to a finished contract. It is also well noted that many other incidents could have occurred in the duration of four months from the time he was repatriated until he consulted a private physician which could have triggered the pain in his upper right extremities and that such illness or injury could not have been work-related at the time he was still employed by respondents

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,  )

*