^

Opinion

Probability, not certainty

A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) - Jose C. Sison -
The general rule on employee compensation is that for the sickness and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the sickness must be the result of an occupational disease which is listed in the Amended Rules of Employee Compensation (Section 1 [b] Rule III). If not listed, proof must be shown that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions. This is known as the "increased risk theory" applied in this case of Rona, a doctor.

Rona joined the government service on January 1, 1979 as resident physician in a fifty bed capacity public rural hospital. Her duty exposes her to direct contacts with patients where a mélange of disease abounds. After 11 years she was promoted as Medical Officer III. Sometime in 1994, Rona started to experience high blood pressure. With the help of her husband she took medicines by way of self-medication. But by 1998, she started to suffer from extreme fatigue and lost her appetite causing her to lose weight. Fearing that she might be suffering from a more severe disease, her husband brought her to a hospital. Initial diagnosis showed that she had chronic renal failure secondary to intrinsic renal disease causing her to undergo hemodialysis twice a week. Eventually the diagnosis showed that her sickness was end stage renal disease secondary to chronic glomerulonephritis. The Physicians certification submitted by Rona showed that her chronic sickness that led to the end stage renal disease was caused by streptococcal infection. Thus on March 1, 1999, Rona underwent kidney transplant with her brother as kidney donor.

Thereafter or on September 16, 1999, Rona filed with the GSIS a claim for compensation benefits under P.D. 626 as amended, otherwise known as the Employees Compensation Act. The GSIS, as sustained by the Emplo-yees Compensation Commission and later on the Court of Appeals however denied her claim because (1) her sickness is not among the listed occupational disease and (2) the medical facts show that the predisposing factor that might have given rise to the development of the ailment is not inherent in her working conditions; that Rona failed to prove that she got the disease as a result of, or from her job, and/or that the risk of her contracting the disease was increased by her working conditions. Were they correct?

No. For the increased risk theory to apply in compensation cases, the degree of proof required is sub-stantial evidence, which means such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. What the law requires is a reason-able work connection and not a direct causal relation. It is sufficient that the workmen’s claim is based on the hypothesis of probable since probability, not certainty, is the touchstone.

Rona is a practicing doctor in a public rural hospital from January 1, 1979 until she underwent a kidney transplant on March 1, 1999. As a doctor who was in direct contact with patients she was more exposed to all kinds of germs and bacteria, thus increasing the risk of contracting glomerulonephritis. Given the nature of her work, and considering further that resident physician work for extended hours, the likelihood of Rona being infected by streptococcus bacterium is, without doubt, increased. So the probability of her contracting chronic glomerulonephritis in her work station has been substantiated.

The Workmen’s Compensation Law has not ceased to be a social legislation; hence, liberality of the law in favor of the workingman and woman still prevails and the official agency charged to implement the constitutional guarantee of social justice should adopt a liberal attitude in favor of the employee in deciding claims for compen-sation, especially in the light of the compassionate policy towards labor which the 1987 constitution vivifies and enhances. So GSIS should pay Rona the Compensation benefits due her under P.D. 626, as amended (Castor-Garupa etc. vs. Employees’ Compensation Commission, et. al. G.R. 158268, April 12, 2006).
* * *
E-mail at: [email protected]

vuukle comment

AMENDED RULES OF EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION

COMPENSATION

COMPENSATION COMMISSION

COMPENSATION LAW

COURT OF APPEALS

DISEASE

EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT

MEDICAL OFFICER

RONA

RONA THE COMPENSATION

  • Latest
  • Trending
Latest
Latest
abtest
Are you sure you want to log out?
X
Login

Philstar.com is one of the most vibrant, opinionated, discerning communities of readers on cyberspace. With your meaningful insights, help shape the stories that can shape the country. Sign up now!

Get Updated:

Signup for the News Round now

FORGOT PASSWORD?
SIGN IN
or sign in with