1) Nicks claim for Employees Compensation benefits is meritorious.

His injury
arises out of and is in the course of employment.

As a rule, injury sustained from any accident arising out of and in the
course of the employment is compensable. An injury arises out of employment
if it some sense it is due to the employment or if the employment is one of the
contributing causes without which the accident would not have happened. An
injury that occurs in the course of employment is when it takes place within
the period of employment, place where he performs his work and
circumstances incidental thereto.

In the case at bar, Nick was onboard the ship and performing his duties
when he sustained his injury. He was checking the temperature of the repair
containers when suddenly upon going up the ladder, the manholes cover fell
and hit him on his forehead. He sustained an open wound and developed a
severe frontal temporal headache with radiation to his left cervical area. He
was also diagnosed by an on-shore physician to have suffered from benign
cerebral trauma and later on was diagnosed again by cranial and cervical
traumatism.

Proof of direct causal relation is not required. It is enough that the

claimant adduces proof of reasonable work connection. Clearly, the ruling of
the System is not meritorious because the facts already indicate as proof of
reasonable connection between Nicks injury and his job as AB seaman. Nicks
injury arose out of employment because had it not been for his employment
and performance of duties, he would not have been in an accident causing his
injuries and sickness. It also occurred in the course of his employment because
he was onboard the ship when he sustained the injuries and diagnosed with
several trauma in the head.

2) Yes, Alberts claim is compensable. To determine whether the injury

suffered by an employee in the course of recreational activity is
compensable, such recreation has to be for the exclusive benefit of the
employee and was fostered and encouraged by the employer to the end of
efficiency of their service.
 Furthermore, it should be noted that Board Resolution 93-08-0068 states
that Acts performed by an employee within the time and space limits of his
employment, to minister to personal comfort, such as satisfaction of his thirst,
hunger or other physical demands, or to protect himself from excessive cold,
shall be deemed incidental to his employment and injuries the employee
suffered in the performance of such acts shall be considered compensable and
arising out of and in the course of employment.

In the case at bar, the basketball game was intended for the physical
fitness of the crew so it can be said that such is for the exclusive benefit of the
employees and one of their physical demands. In line with this, the ball game
regularly played on the employers premises is considered recreational activity
incidental to the employees employment. Thus, the injury sustained by Albert
while playing basketball must be compensated even if he was not on duty at
that time because such activity is considered incidental to his employment.