NextGen Day

MANILA – A seafarer’s appeal for compensation for a mental ailment he alleges he contracted while working for a shipping company was refused by the Court of Appeals (CA).

The court affirmed its Dec. 27, 2019 judgment, which supported the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruling dismissing Jeffrey Diaz Valdez’s action against Magsaysay Maritime Corp. and Princess Cruise Lines, in a resolution issued by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz and dated February 21.

Valdez “failed to meet his duty of producing meaningful evidence,” according to the CA, and his claim for disability compensation was therefore “groundless.”

Valdez was assigned to the Grand Princess cruise ship as a ship security guard for a contract of less than a year in 2017.

In October 2017, he filed a complaint with the company’s Human Resources Department, alleging that he was being mistreated by his coworkers.

He was disembarked in Hawaii in November 2017 and then returned to the Philippines. Back in the country, he was diagnosed with schizophreniform disease by a business physician.

He was diagnosed with “bipolar affective disorder present episode sad with psychosis” at the National Center for Mental Health in 2019.

He sued the corporation, believing he contracted the disease while employed, but the NLRC dismissed the case.

Valdez claimed that the company doctor’s explanation that the handicap is not work-related is insufficient, and that just because schizophreniform disorder is not on the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration’s (POEA) list of occupational ailments does not mean it is not compensable.

“While it is true that there is a disputable assumption that his sickness is work-related,” the CA wrote in his decision, “Valdez cannot simply rely on such presumption.”

“He should have shown strong proof that his working conditions caused, or at the very least aggravated, his illness. He could, for example, have gone into greater detail about the nature of his work and how it relates to his disease. Simply stated, the petitioner must offer substantial proof “According to the appellate court.

Save/Share this story with QR CODE

---

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute endorsement of any specific technologies or methodologies and financial advice or endorsement of any specific products or services.

📩 Need to get in touch?

Feel free to Email Us for comments, suggestions, reviews, or anything else.

---

We appreciate your reading. 😊Simple Ways To Say Thanks & Support Us:
1.) ❤️GIVE A TIP. Send a small donation thru Paypal😊❤️
Your DONATION will be used to fund and maintain NEXTGENDAY.com
Subscribers in the Philippines can make donations to mobile number 0917 906 3081, thru GCash.
3.) 🛒 BUY or SIGN UP to our AFFILIATE PARTNERS.
4.) 👍 Give this news article a THUMBS UP, and Leave a Comment (at Least Five Words).

---

AFFILIATE PARTNERS

World Class Nutritional Supplements - Buy Highest Quality Products, Purest Most Healthy Ingredients, Direct to your Door! Up to 90% OFF.
Join LiveGood Today - A company created to satisfy the world's most demanding leaders and entrepreneurs, with the best compensation plan today.

---