This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-07-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In order for the beneficiary of an employee to be entitled to death benefits under the SSS, the cause of death of the employee must be a sickness listed as an occupational disease by ECC; or any other illness caused by employment, subject to proof that the risk of contracting the same is increased by the working conditions.[20] | |||||
|
2013-03-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Given the foregoing, although Graves' Disease is attributed to genetic influence, the Court finds a reasonable work connection between Laurel's condition at work as pastryman (cook) and the development of his hyperthyroidism. His constant exposure to hazards such as chemicals and the varying temperature, like the heat in the kitchen of the vessel and the coldness outside, coupled by stressful tasks in his employment caused, or at least aggravated, his illness. It is already recognized that any kind of work or labor produces stress and strain normally resulting in wear and tear of the human body.[35] Thus, the Court sustains the finding of the CA that: Stressful conditions in the environment, in a word, can result in hyperthyroidism, and the employment conditions of a seafarer on board an ocean-going vessel are likely stress factors in the development of hyperthyroidism irrespective of its origin. As recounted by the respondent in his position paper, the work on board the MV Star Princess was a strenuous one. It involved day-to-day activities that brought him under pressure and strain and exposed him to chemical and other irritants, and his being away from home and family only aggravated these stresses.[36] | |||||
|
2011-11-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In closing, it may not be amiss to add that the primordial purpose of PD No. 626 is to provide meaningful protection to the workers against the hazards of disability or illness; hence, a liberal attitude in favor of the employee and his beneficiaries in deciding claims for compensation should be adopted.[44] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to its authority under Article 191[33] and Article 192,[34] Book V of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. No. 626, the ECC, by Resolution No. 432, dated July 20, 1977, added to Annex "A" of the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation certain categories of diseases which, though not considered occupational diseases in the strict sense, are nonetheless treated as work-related. One category is item "18. Cardiovascular diseases."[35] | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| relationship. In a number of cases,[13] the Court already declared that myocardial infarction is included in this category. Myocardial infarction is the clinical term for a heart attack. It is caused by occlusion (blockage) of the coronary artery (atherosclerosis) or a blood clot (coronary thrombosis), resulting in the partial or total blockage of one of the coronary arteries. When this occurs, the heart muscle (myocardium) does not receive enough oxygen.[14] | |||||
|
2007-11-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| However, while the diseases listed in Annex "A" are presumed to be work-related, not every death resulting therefrom automatically entitles a claimant to death benefits.[16] Annex "A" requires that, for the statutory presumption of causal relation to arise, it must be established beforehand that the listed disease was contracted under certain working conditions.[17] | |||||