4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits. If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. The above provision requires that, after medical repatriation, the company-designated physician must assess the seafarer's fitness to work or the degree of his disability. Thereafter, the seafarer may choose his own doctor to dispute the findings of the company-designated physician. If the findings of the company-designated physician and the seafarer's doctor of choice are conflicting, the matter is then referred to a third doctor, whose findings shall be binding on both parties This procedure was discussed by the Court in more detail in Mangubat, Jr. v. Dalisay Shipping Corp.,[25] viz.: Jurisprudence has elaborated on the requirements for the validity and procedure for disputing the assessment of the company-designated physician. For the company-designated physician's assessment to be considered valid, it must be timely made and must state the fitness or degree of disability of the seafarer. Once the company-designated physician has issued the valid assessment, the seafarer may dispute it by referring to his own doctor, thus: x x x resort to a second opinion must be done after the assessment by the company-designated physician precisely to dispute the said assessment. Such assessment from the company-designated physician, to reiterate, must be definite and timely issued. x x x (Emphasis and italics in the original) The seafarer has then the duty to signify his intent to challenge the company-designated physician's assessment and, in turn, the employer must respond by setting into motion the process of choosing the third doctor. As the Court ruled in Pastor v. Bibby Shipping Philippines, Inc.: Corollarily, should the seafarer signify his intent to challenge the company-designated physician's assessment through the assessment made by his own doctor, the employer must respond by setting into motion the process of choosing a third doctor who, as the 2010 POEA-SEC provides, can rule with finality on the disputed medical situation. In such case, no specific period is required by law within which the parties may seek the opinion of a third doctor, and may do so even during the conciliation and mediation stage to abbreviate the proceedings. The Court further explained in Sunit v. OSM Maritime Services, Inc. that for the third doctor's assessment to be valid and binding between the parties, the assessment must be definite and conclusive: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66216 8/14