This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-07-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The CA further explained that it is not necessary that there be proof of causal relation between the work and the illness which resulted in De Castro's disability. Citing GSIS v. Baul,[10] it held that in general, a covered claimant suffering from an occupational disease is automatically paid benefits. While it noted that the exact etiology of hypertension which led to De Castro's cardiovascular ailments cannot be accurately traced, it stressed that medical experiments tracing the etiology of essential hypertension show a relationship between this illness and the nature and conditions of work. The CA found significant the statement in De Castro's Certificate of Disability Discharge that his CAD and hypertensive cardiovascular diseases were aggravated during active service; were not incurred while on AWOL; did not exist prior to entry into service; were incident to service; were not incurred by private avocation; were not due to misconduct; and, were incurred while in line of duty. The appellate court, therefore, brushed aside the findings a quo that De Castro's illnesses might have been caused by his smoking and drinking habits. | |||||