4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Indeed, the employer and the seafarer are bound by the disability assessment of the third-party physician in the event that they choose to appoint one. Nonetheless, similar to what is required of the company-designated doctor, the appointed third-party physician must likewise arrive at a definite and conclusive assessment of the seafarer's disability or fitness to return to work before his or her opinion can be valid and binding between the parties. (Emphasis in the original) The foregoing shows that it is required for both the company-designated physician and the third doctor to arrive at a definite and conclusive assessment of the fitness or disability rating of the seafarer for their assessment to be considered as valid. The same standards to determine the validity of the assessment should be the same for the company-designated physician, seafarer's physician, and the third doctor. Thus, in order for the seafarer to dispute the assessment of the company-designated physician, the assessment of the seafarer's doctor should state the seafarer's fitness to work or the disability rating.[26] (Citations omitted) Based on the foregoing, following the disability assessment issued by his personal physician which conflicted with that of the company-designated physicians, it was incumbent on Solacito to refer the findings of his own doctor to his employer who would then have had the obligation to commence the process of the selection of the third doctor. The records of the case reveal, however, that Solacito (1) consulted his personal physician only on March 18, 2010, or about three months after the filing of the complaint, and (2) did not submit to or notify his employer the conflicting findings of his own doctor and give notice of his intention to have the conflicting findings referred to a third doctor.[27] In this regard, jurisprudence is likewise settled that non-referral to a third doctor, whose decision shall be considered as final and binding, constitutes a breach of the POEA-SEC[28] and the assessment of the company-designated physician shall prevail. [29] As discussed by the Court in Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. v. Alferos,[30] viz.: The need for the evaluation of the respondent's condition by the third physician arose after his physician declared him unfit for seafaring duties. He could not initiate his claim for disability solely on that basis. He should have instead set in motion the process of submitting himself to the assessment by the third physician by first serving the notice of his intent to do so on the petitioners. There was no other way to validate his claim but this. Without the notice of intent to refer his case to the third physician, the petitioners could not themselves initiate the referral. Moreover, such third physician, because he would resolve the conflict between the assessments, must be jointly chosen by the parties thereafter. Unless the respondent served the notice of his intent, he could not then validly insist on an https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66216 9/14