and the declaration or assessment by the company-designated physician of either being fit to work or the degree of permanent disability had already lapsed. Thus, by law, if Bastol’s condition was with the lapse of the 120 days of post-employment medical examination and treatment, which actually lasted as the records show for at least over eight months and for over a year by the time the complaint was filed, without his being employed at his usual job, then it was certainly total permanent disability.   It has been held that disability is intimately related to one’s earning capacity.72[72] It should be understood less on its medical significance but more on the loss of earning capacity.73[73] Total disability does not mean absolute helplessness.74[74] In disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one’s earning capacity.75[75] Thus, permanent disability is the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body.76[76] This is the case of Bastol, aptly held by the CA. 72[72] Philimare, Inc./Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd. v. Suganob, G.R. No. 168753, July 9, 2008, 557 SCRA 438, 448. 73[73] Id.; citing Austria v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146636, August 12, 2002, 387 SCRA 216, 221. 74[74] Id. at 449; Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 163838, September 25, 2008, 2008, 566 SCRA 338, 349. 75[75] Philimare, Inc./Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd. v. Suganob, supra note 72, at 449; citing Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 123891, February 28, 2001, 353 SCRA 47, 53; Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 74.