Legal requirements for communicating workplace injury assessments explored
The Third Division of the Court of Appeals in the Philippines recently reviewed a case focusing on proper protocols for assessing workplace injuries and determining disability benefits under maritime employment law.
The case examined whether sending disability assessments through email, without proper explanation, met legal requirements.
A key issue was the employer's method of communicating medical findings and its impact on the worker's ability to understand his medical condition and employment status.
Medical assessment documentation standards
A maritime worker challenged his disability rating after receiving it electronically. He argued this method left him unclear about both his condition and future work capability, leading to legal proceedings that tested established protocols for medical assessments in employment relationships.
A stateroom steward aboard the vessel Viking Orion sustained a spine injury while working in April 2023. After a shore doctor in Japan diagnosed him with a herniated disc, he returned to the Philippines in May 2023. His treatment included spine surgery in June 2023, followed by physical therapy.
By September 2023, the company-designated physician determined maximum medical improvement and assigned a Grade 11 disability rating, offering USD 17,916.00 in compensation.
The worker declined this assessment. In March 2024, he obtained a second opinion from another doctor whose examination revealed degenerative changes and nerve compression, leading to a declaration that the worker was unfit for sea duty.
The labour arbiter, reviewing the case, found: "[The worker's] final assessment did not accurately reflect the extent of [the worker's] injury or his ability to resume his usual sea duties." This finding addressed both the assessment's content and its delivery method.
The National Labour Relations Commission (NLRC) referenced significant Supreme Court rulings from Gere v. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management Philippines Inc. and Wenceslao v. C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc., which established that "a final assessment must be thorough, clearly explain the medical condition, and be personally received by [the worker]." These precedents set clear standards for communicating medical assessments.
While the employer documented providing medical care from May to September 2023, including consultations, magnetic resonance imaging scans, surgery, and physical therapy, the NLRC found issues with the assessment's delivery.
The employer's designated physician issued the Grade 11 disability rating in September 2023, with an October 2023 opinion stating the worker wasn't permanently unfit for work.
The NLRC emphasized that the worker's inability to return to work for over 240 days after repatriation indicated total and permanent disability under maritime regulations. Additionally, the commission awarded attorney's fees, noting the worker had to engage in litigation to secure his rightful benefits under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Court findings on medical assessment standards
The Court of Appeals upheld the NLRC's decision, noting: "[The NLRC's] conclusions were grounded in law and supported by prevailing jurisprudence."
The ruling affirmed that email delivery of medical assessments, without ensuring worker comprehension, failed to meet legal requirements.
Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the NLRC awarded USD 110,000.00 in total disability benefits corresponding to a Grade 1 disability, plus attorney's fees. This liability extended jointly to the maritime company, its international principal, and their managing director under Republic Act Number 8042, as amended by Republic Act Number 10022.
The Court concluded: "There is no indication of whimsicality, nor any gross or patent abuse of discretion that would amount to an evasion of a positive duty, a refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or a failure to act in contemplation of law."
