This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-07-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Recently, in INC Shipmanagement, Incorporated v. Rosales[30] (INC Shipmanagement), the Court held that it was the doctor's findings which should prevail over the simple lapse of the 120-day period. It added that the extent of a seafarer's disability was determined, not by the number of days that he could not work, but by the disability grading the doctor recognized based on his resulting incapacity to work and earn his wages. Further, the Court stated:It is the doctor's findings that should prevail as he/she is equipped with the proper discernment, knowledge, experience and expertise on what constitutes total or partial disability. His declaration serves as the basis for the degree of disability that can range anywhere from Grade 1 to Grade 14. Notably, this is a serious consideration that cannot be determined by simply counting the number of treatment lapsed days. | |||||
|
2015-06-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We had in several cases upheld the findings of the company-designated physician due to the non-referral by the seafarer to a third doctor. In Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency v. Dumadag,[17] we considered the filing of the complaint by the seafarer as a breach of his contractual obligation to have the conflicting assessments of his disability referred to a third doctor for a binding opinion. The case of Formerly INC Shipmanagement v. Rosales[18] was categorical in stating that non-referral to a third physician, whose decision shall be considered as final and binding, constitutes a breach of the POEA-SEC. | |||||
|
2015-04-15 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In the absence of any request from him (as shown by the records of the case), the employer-company cannot be expected to respond. As the party seeking to impugn the certification that the law itself recognizes as prevailing, Constantino bears the burden of positive action to prove that his doctor's findings are correct, as well as the burden to notify the company that a contrary finding had been made by his own physician. Upon such notification, the company must itself respond by setting into motion the process of choosing a third doctor who, as the POEA-SEC provides, can rule with finality on the disputed medical situation.[53] | |||||