Title
Alexei Joseph P. Grossman vs. North Sea Marine Services Corporation, et al.
Case
G.R. No. 256495
Decision Date
Dec 7, 2022
Seafarer’s Giant Cell Tumor deemed work-related; employer failed to issue timely medical assessment, entitling him to permanent disability benefits.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 256495)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Employment and Contractual Background
    • On February 26, 2016, respondents V. Ships Leisure S.A.M. (through its agent North Sea Marine Services Corporation) hired petitioner Alexei Joseph P. Grossman as a Galley Utility aboard the vessel Silver Whisper for a period of eight (8) months, with a possible variation of plus or minus one (1) month.
    • The petitioner’s employment contract was covered by the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) Cruise TCC-FIT/CISL Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and the standard provisions of the POEA-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).
  • Onset of Medical Condition and Initial Medical Evaluations
    • While on board the vessel in July 2016, petitioner experienced pain in his left knee radiating to his leg and thigh.
    • The ship doctor, upon being notified, referred petitioner for medical attention abroad.
      • On July 20, 2016, he received an initial medical evaluation in Norway.
      • On August 1, 2016, further evaluation was conducted in Russia.
    • A diagnosis was made indicating a “Tumor of distal metaepiphysis of left femur, which damaged the medial condyle with lysis of cortical rim and soft tissue component,” signifying an extremely high risk for a pathological fracture.
  • Repatriation, Treatment, and Subsequent Medical Findings
    • Due to the seriousness of his condition, petitioner was repatriated to the Philippines on August 5, 2016.
    • On August 8, 2016, petitioner reported to respondents' office and was referred to physicians designated by the company, specifically those of Trans Global Health System, Inc.
    • Medical assessments included:
      • Dr. Fidel Chua’s examination, which led to the conclusion of Giant Cell Tumor (GCT).
      • Dr. Tiong Sam Lim’s concurrence with Dr. Chua’s findings and his recommendation for resection of the tumor along with bone grafting.
    • On August 17, 2016, petitioner underwent surgery involving excision of the left femur mass, curettage, and application of bone cement, which resulted in left leg deformity and muscle atrophy.
    • Post-surgical rehabilitation included physical therapy from September 2016 until April 2017.
  • Follow-Up Medical Assessments and Discrepant Evaluations
    • A Notice dated April 11, 2017 required petitioner to report for follow-up treatment; petitioner complied by reporting on May 12, 2017.
    • At the May 12, 2017 re-evaluation, Dr. Chua allegedly declared petitioner unfit for work and opined that his condition was not work-related; however, no formal medical report was issued regarding this assessment.
    • On March 2, 2018, Dr. Lim executed an Affidavit stating:
      • GCT is a benign tumor with unclear histogenesis.
      • The tumor is not known to be caused by trauma, environmental factors, or diet.
      • According to Dr. Lim, the condition was not work-related and bore no relation to seafaring activities.
  • Additional Medical Evaluation and Petitioner's Subsequent Actions
    • Dissatisfied with the absence of a definitive final report, petitioner sought further medical evaluation from orthopedic specialist Dr. Renato P. Runas, whose Medical Evaluation Report (dated August 23, 2017) indicated:
      • Petitioner continued to experience pain in his deformed knee.
      • Physical therapy was no longer viable as it risked causing a fracture.
      • Petitioner was thereby declared “permanently and totally unfit to work in any capacity as a seafarer.”
    • Based on these conflicting medical findings, petitioner, through counsel, sent a letter on September 18, 2017 to North Sea requesting a meeting to discuss disability benefits, but received no favorable response.
    • Consequently, petitioner filed a Notice to Arbitrate before the Regional Conciliation and Mediation Board-NCR, resulting in voluntary arbitration.
  • Proceedings Before the Voluntary Arbitrators (VA) and Subsequent Appeals
    • In its Decision dated September 28, 2018, the VA:
      • Declared petitioner totally and permanently disabled.
      • Ordered respondents to pay full disability benefits under the POEA-SEC amounting to US$60,000 plus 6% per annum interest and 10% attorney’s fees.
    • The VA dismissed petitioner’s additional claims for lack of merit, stating that while the CBA did not cover non-accident-related illnesses, petitioner was still entitled to benefits under the POEA-SEC due to the company-designated physicians’ failure to render a final definitive assessment within the prescribed 120/240-day period.
    • Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution dated January 15, 2019, leading to the filing of a petition for review under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals (CA).
  • The Court of Appeals’ (CA) Ruling and the Conflict of Factual Findings
    • In its Decision dated January 28, 2020, the CA reversed the VA’s ruling and dismissed petitioner’s claim by holding:
      • Although petitioner’s disability was initially presumed work-related pursuant to Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, respondents successfully rebutted this presumption based on the explanations in the Medical Report by Dr. Chua (dated December 27, 2016) and the Affidavit by Dr. Lim (dated March 2, 2018).
      • Petitioner failed to prove, by substantial evidence, that his working conditions as a Galley Utility either caused or increased the risk of contracting GCT.
      • In a gesture of equity, the CA awarded petitioner financial assistance amounting to US$3,000.00.
    • Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in a Resolution dated May 21, 2021, which eventually led to the present petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether the CA reversibly erred in dismissing petitioner’s claim for total and permanent disability benefits under the POEA-SEC.
    • Whether the absence of a final and definite medical report from the company-designated physicians within the prescribed 120/240-day period warrants a declaration of total and permanent disability.
    • Whether the legal presumption of work-relation for illnesses not expressly listed under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC should have prevailed in petitioner’s favor, requiring respondents to discharge the burden of evidence proving the contrary.
    • Whether the conflicting medical opinions of Dr. Chua, Dr. Lim, and Dr. Runas were properly reconciled by the CA in addressing the work-relatedness of petitioner’s condition.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.