8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In determining whether or not a given illness is work-related, it is understandable that a company-designated physician would be more positive and in favor of the company than, say, the physician of the seafarer's choice. It is on this account that a seafarer is given the option by the POEA-SEC to seek a second opinion from his preferred physician. And the law has anticipated the possibility of divergence in the medical findings and assessments by incorporating a mechanism for its resolution wherein a third doctor selected by both parties decides the dispute with finality, as provided by Sec. 20 (B) (3) of the POEA-SEC quoted above.[95] Nevertheless, this is company-designated instances where the medical records, the not a hard and fast rule. This Court has acknowledged that the physician's findings tend to be biased in the employer's favor. In company-designated physician's assessment is not supported by courts may give greater weight to the findings of the seafarer's personal physician.[96] Disability ratings should be adequately established in a conclusive medical assessment by a company-designated physician. To be conclusive, a medical assessment must be complete and definite to reflect the seafarer's true condition and give the correct corresponding disability benefits.[97] As explained by this Court: A final and definite disability assessment is necessary in order to truly reflect the true extent of the sickness or injuries of the seafarer and his or her capacity to resume work as such. Otherwise, the corresponding disability benefits awarded might not be commensurate with the prolonged effects of the injuries suffered.[98] On the contrary, tardy, doubtful, and incomplete medical assessments, even if issued by a company-designated physician, have been repeatedly set aside by this Court.[99] Here, the medical assessment issued by the company-designated physician cannot be regarded as definite and conclusive. A review of the records shows that the companydesignated physician failed to conduct all the proper and recommended tests. Dr. Bacungan's letter[100] discloses that a complete neurologic examination recommended to adequately assess petitioner's disability rating. It read: was According to the attending Neurologist, an orthopedic surgeon cannot adequately assess the neurologic status of the patient. A complete neurologic examination includes memory and cognitive assessment and should be done before declaring the patient incapacitated. This will show whether the patient has mild, moderate or severe brain dysfunctions. In addition, neurologic examination will evaluate the motor strength, gait, balance and other deficits of the patient.[101] Despite the recommendation, Dr. Bacungan did not conduct all the proper tests to fully evaluate petitioner's condition. Respondents solely relied on an electroencephalography run by the company-designated physician. In their Comment, respondents only referred to this test in concluding that petitioner was not suffering from a total and permanent disability.[102] Nothing in the records shows that other tests were https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65333 13/22