Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RICARDO A. DALUSONG v. EAGLE CLARC SHIPPING PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 211882 2015-07-29	ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILS. v. ERNESTO S. QUIOGUE MENDOZA, J.
In Dalusong v. Eagle Clark Shipping,[28] the Court said that "[j]ust because the seafarer is unable to perform his job and is undergoing medical treatment for more than 120 days does not automatically entitle the seafarer to total and permanent disability compensation."[29] In that case, the seafarer's medical treatment lasted more than 120 days but less than 240 days, after which the company-designated doctor gave him a Grade 11 - final disability grading.
	GR No. 191899 2015-06-22	JULIUS R. TAGALOG v. CROSSWORLD MARINE SERVICES INC. PEREZ, J.
The more practical consideration in favoring the medical findings of the company-designated physician was explained in Dalusong v. Eagle Clarc, Shipping,[19] thus:As the Court aptly stated in Philman Marine Agency, Inc. (now DOHLE-PHILMAN Manning Agency, Inc.) v. Cabanban, “the doctor who have had a personal knowledge of the actual medical condition, having closely, meticulously and regularly monitored and actually treated the seafarer’s illness, is more qualified to assess the seafarer’s disability.” Based on the Disability Report of petitioner’s doctor, it appears that he only conducted a physical examination on petitioner before issuing his final diagnosis and disability rating on petitioner’s condition. Clearly, the findings of the company-designated doctor, who, with his team of specialists which included an orthopedic surgeon and a physical therapist, periodically treated petitioner for months and monitored his condition, deserve greater evidentiary weight than the single medical report of petitioner’s doctor, who appeared to have examined petitioner only once.
	GR No. 196122 2014-11-12	JOEL B. MONANA v. MEC GLOBAL SHIPMANAGEMENT LEONEN, J.
In the recent case of Dalusong v. Eagle Clarc Shipping Philippines, Inc.,[74] we ruled that "the findings of the company-designated doctor, who, with his team of specialists . . . periodically treated petitioner for months and monitored his condition, deserve greater evidentiary weight than the single medical report of petitioner's doctor, who appeared to have examined petitioner only once."[75]