5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Results showed thinning of the nerve fiber layer. [20] February 2017 22, The attending specialist's assessment was optic atrophy while the neurologist opined [21] demyelinating disease. May 8, 2017 The neurologist recommended that lumbar puncture be performed to confirm or rule out other disease but respondent refused to undergo the procedure. The attending specialist likewise recommended that respondent undergo neuromyelitis optica (NMO) test to determine if the steroid treatment shall continue."[22] June 19,2017 The attending specialist evaluated the NMO test and declared that respondent is unlikely to recover his normal vision.[23] On August 25, 2017, the company-designated physician issued a medical report giving respondent a final disability rating of "Grade 7 per POEA contract eye #7." While the company-designated physician's final assessment was not issued within the 120day period as initially required by the POEA-SEC, it was given 232 days from the date the respondent was repatriated. We have held in Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc. v. Osias[24] that mere inability to work for a period of 120 days does not entitle a seafarer to permanent and total disability benefits. The 120-day treatment period may be extended when there exists sufficient justification such as when further medical treatment is required or when the seafarer is uncooperative.[25] In this case, when the 120-day treatment period expired on May 5, 2017, the company-designated physician has determined that they needed more medical tests and procedures in evaluating respondent's condition. In fact, before the 120-day period expired, the attending physicians recommended that respondent undergo evoked potential tests. Three (3) days after the 120-day period expired, the neurologist suggested that respondent undergo lumbar puncture test to confirm or rule out other diseases but he refused. The close and continuous monitoring of respondent's condition by the company-designated physicians immediately before and after the lapse of the 120-day treatment period would show that his eye ailment could not be completely addressed in such a limited period of time. Indubitably, the extension of the treatment period from 120 days to 240 days was satisfactorily justified. Here, the final medical assessment of the companydesignated physician was issued well-within the 240-day period which expires on September 2, 2017. It is interesting to note that the ophthalmological reports issued by respondent's physicians of choice Dr. Enrique-Olanan and Dr. Bravo were dated June 20, 2017 and July 12, 2017, respectively, or 66 days and 44 days before the company-designated physicians even issued their own final medical report. Both ophthalmological reports, however, were silent as regards the diagnostic tests and medical procedures conducted and their results that led Dr. Enrique-Olanan and Dr. Bravo to conclude that respondent "is no longer advised to go back to his job as a seaman"[26] and that he "is unfit as a seafarer" because of his poor vision and poor color perception in the right eye.[27] More https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66449 6/9