CRYSTAL SHIPPING, INC.,
and/or A/S STEIN LINE BERGEN, petitioners, vs. DEO P. NATIVIDAD, respondent
G.R.
No. 154798 | October 20, 2005
FACTS:
Crystal Shipping Inc. employed respondent
Deo Natividad as Chief Mate of M/V Steinfighter for a period of 9 months.
During the contract period, respondent
complained of coughing and hoarseness and was diagnosed with “swelling neck and
lymphatic glands right side in neck”, declared unfit for duty, and advised to
see an ear-nose-throat specialist. He was repatriated to Manila on August 18,
1998.
Shortly after his arrival, respondent was
referred to ClinicoMed Inc., the company-designated clinic, for check-up and
later thoroughly examined at the Manila Doctors Hospital. He was diagnosed with
“papillary carcinoma, metastatic to lymphoid tissue consistent with thyroid
primary” and “reactive hyperplasis, lymph node”. On September 11, 1998, he
underwent a total thyroidectomy with radial neck dissection. After the
operation, respondent developed chest complications and pleural effusion, and
had to undergo a thoracenthesis operation. On the basis of all these, his
attending physician diagnosed him permanently disabled with a grade 9
impediment, with grade 1 as the most serious.
A second opinion by Marine Medical Services
and Metropolitan Hospital attending physician, Dr. Robert D. Lim, likewise
concurred that respondent was disabled with a grade 9 impediment. Under the
care of Dr. Lim, respondent underwent various treatments. While his treatment
with Dr. Lim was ongoing, respondent sought the opinion of Dr. Efren R.
Vicaldo, who opined that he was totally and permanently disabled for labor with
a grade 1 impediment. On February 22, 1999, respondent underwent a whole body
scan which revealed no trace of radio iodine on his body to indicate metastasis
or residual thyroid tissue. The attending physician, Dr. Wilson D. Lim,
confirmed the earlier assessments of disability with a grade 9 impediment.
On June 25, 1999, petitioners offered
US$13,060 as disability benefits which respondent rejected. Respondent claimed
that he deserves to be paid US$60,000 for a grade 1 impediment. Failing to
reach an agreement, respondent filed a complaint for disability benefits
against petitioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is entitled to
disability benefits
RULING:
Permanent disability is the inability of a
worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not
he loses the use of any part of his body. As gleaned from the records,
respondent was unable to work from August 18, 1998 to February 22, 1999, at the
least, or more than 120 days, due to his medical treatment. This clearly shows
that his disability was permanent.
Total disability, on the other hand, means
the disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work of
similar nature that he was trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any kind
of work which a person of his mentality and attainments could do. It does not
mean absolute helplessness. In disability compensation, it is not the injury which
is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting in the
impairment of one’s earning capacity.
Although the company-designated doctors and
respondent’s physician differ in their assessments of the degree of
respondent’s disability, both found that respondent was unfit for sea-duty due
to respondent’s need for regular medical checkups and treatment which would not
be available if he were at sea. There is no question that respondent’s
disability was total.
It is of no consequence that respondent was
cured after a couple of years. The law does not require that the illness should
be incurable. What is important is that he was unable to perform his customary
work for more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total disability. An
award of a total and permanent disability benefit would be germane to the
purpose of the benefit, which is to help the employee in making ends meet at
the time when he is unable to work.
Comments
Post a Comment