NLRC decisions
on “injury while on shore leave” and “heart disease”
By: Ruben Del Rosario,
Managing Partner, Del Rosario & Del Rosario, October 17, 2005
Injury while on
shore leave held not work-related
On August 24, 2003 while
the MV IINTER PRIDE was anchored at the
Vessel interests argued
that the injury is not compensable as for an injury to be work-related, it must
arise out of and in the course of employment.
In order to be considered as “arising out of the employment”, the injury
must have a casual connection between the work imposed on him and the resulting
injury. In the case at bar, the injury
of the complainant has no causal relation whatsoever to seafarer’s work as
chief cook of the vessel. Hence, such
injury is not compensable.
Seafarer argued “that most
of all, every hour and minute spent by seafarers (on international vessels) for
as long as legit and allowed by the vessel authorities are to be considered as
work-related. It is actually the concept
of social justice that seafarers must be given extra protection for working
away from home and their families.”
The NLRC ruled that the
injury is not work-related as seafarer’s “arguments is without any legal leg to
stand on”. The NLRC sided with vessel's arguments that for an injury to
be work-related, the injury must have a casual connection between the work and
the resulting injury.
Vigil vs. Aqualink Maritime, et. al., NLRC NCR CN. OFW
(M)03-10-2675-00; CA NO> 041526-04, July 29, 2005
Heart disease
ruled not work-related
On December 24, 2001,
seafarer disembarked from the M.V. THEANO K as the vessel was sold. On January 4, 2002, he had a medical checkup
and it was eventually discovered that he was suffering from ischemic heart
disease. Seafarer filed a claim for
disability benefits as he alleged his illness to be work-related. He said he
suffered chest pains while working on board the vessel and his illness was
discovered barely nine days from his disembarkation.
At issue before the NLRC
was whether seafarer’s illness was work-related. The NLRC denied the claim ruling as follows:
1. The conditions under which cardio-vascular
diseases are compensable under the POEA contract (Section 32-A, No. 11) are not
present. The conditions under the
contract are as follows:
a.
If the heart disease was known to have been present during employment, there
must be proof that an acute exacerbation was clearly precipitated by the unsual
strain by reasons of the nature of his work.
b.
The strain of work that brings about an acute attack must be sufficient
severity and must be followed within 24 hours by the clinical signs of a
cardiac insult to continue casual relationship.
c.
If a person who was apparently asymptomatic before being subjected to strain at
work showed signs and symptoms of cardiac injury during the performance of his
work and such symptoms and signs persisted, it is reasonable to claim a casual
relationship.
Seafarer’s
claims that his condition falls under “c” above is not convincing. Other than his bare allegations that he
experienced chest pains while on board the vessel, no other evidence was
presented. Seafarer did not even report
his alleged chest pains to the master or any other responsible officer of the
vessel. His contract ended without any
report of illness.
2. Seafarer claims that his illness was
work-related as it was discovered barely nine days from his
disembarkation. The NLRC ruled that this
is not proof that the illness is work-related.
The conditions set forth above must still be present in order for the
illness to be compensable. None of the
conditions were present.
Catabay vs. Crew Case, Inc. et.al., NLRC
_______________________________