BENITO
E. LORENZO, petitioner, vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) and
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DepEd), respondents
G.R.
No. 188385 | Oct. 2, 2013
FACTS:
Rosario D. Lorenzo, the deceased spouse of
petitioner, worked as a Elementary Teacher I at DepEd from October 2, 1984 to
Dec. 7, 2001.
On Oct. 1, 2001, Rosario was admitted at the
Medical City Hospital due to Hematoma on the Tongue, Left Inner Lip and Right
Cheek with Associated Gingival Bleeding. Prior to her hospitalization, she was
previously diagnosed by the same hospital for Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia and was in fact confined therein on July 31,
2001 because of Pneumonia which was a result of immuno-compromise secondary to
leukemia.
Petitioner claimed for death benefits with
the GSIS. However, it was denied on the ground that Rosario’s ailements and
cause of death, Cardio-respiratory Arrest Secondary to Terminal Leukemia, is a
non-occupational disease contemplated under PD 626, as amended.
Upon elevation to the CA, the CA ruled
under the present law, leukemia, while listed as an occupational disease, is
compensable only among operating room personnel due to exposure to anesthetics.
Being a school teacher who is not exposed to anesthetics, Rosario’s disease,
though listed under Annex “A” may not be compensable, unless, petitioner could
prove that his wife’s risk of contracting the disease was increased by the
latter’s working conditions. The CA went on to state that petitioner has not
presented any medical information on the cause of his wife’s illness, which
could help in determining the causal connection between Rosario’s ailment and
her alleged exposure to muriatic acid, floor wax and paint — hardly considered
as radiation exposure which may cause chronic myeloid leukemia.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the ailment of the late
Rosario Lorenzo is compensable
RULING:
Sickness, as defined under the Labor Code,
refers to “any illness definitely accepted as an occupational disease listed by
the Employees’ Compensation Commission, or any illness caused by employment,
subject to proof that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working
conditions.
In cases of death, such as in this case,
Section 1(b), Rule III of the Rules Implementing P.D. No. 626, as amended,
requires that for the sickness and the resulting disability or death to be
compensable, the claimant must show: (1) that it is the result of an
occupational disease listed under Annex “A” of the Amended Rules on Employees’
Compensation with the conditions set therein satisfied; or (2) that the risk of
contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions.
For an occupational disease and the
resulting disability or death to be compensable, all of the following
conditions must be satisfied:
(1)
The employee’s work must
involve the risks described herein;
(2)
The disease was contracted as a
result of the employee’s exposure to the described risks;
(3)
The disease was contracted
within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract
it;
(4)
There was no notorious
negligence on the part of the employee.
Rosario’s disease is occupational, however,
it is not compensable in view of the fact that petitioner’s wife was not an
operating room personnel. The coverage of leukemia as an occupational disease
relates to one’s employment as an operating room personnel ordinarily exposed
to anesthetics. In the case of petitioner’s wife, the nature of her occupation
does not indicate exposure to anesthetics nor does it increase the risk of
developing Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia. There was no showing that her work
involved frequent and sufficient exposure to substances established as
occupational risk factors of the disease. Thus, the need for the petitioner to
sufficiently establish that his wife’s job as a teacher exposed her to
substances similar to anesthetics in an environment similar to an “operating
room.”
Petitioner must have at least provided
sufficient basis, if not medical information which could help determine the
causal connection between Rosario’s ailment and her exposure to muriatic acid,
floor wax and paint as well as the rigors of her work. Instead, petitioner merely
insists on the supposition that the disease might have been brought about by
the harmful chemicals of floor wax and paint aggravated by the fact that the
Manggahan Elementary School is just along the highway which exposed Rosario to
smoke belched by vehicles, all contributing to her acquisition of the disease.
At most, petitioner solely relies on a
possibility that the demands and rigors of Rosario’s job coupled with exposure
to chemicals in paint or floor wax could result or contribute to contracting
leukemia. This is but a bare allegation no different from a mere speculation.
Comments
Post a Comment