1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly fact, it was merely a suggestion coming from the attending doctor and not from the company-designated physician, as if the letter was written while the process of evaluation was still being completed. To stress, Section 20(B) (3) of the POEA-SEC requires the declaration of fit to work or the degree of permanent disability by the company-designated physician and not by anyone else. Here, it was only Dr. Chuasuan, Jr. who signed the suggested assessment, addressing the letter solely to Dr. Lim, the company-designated physician. Taken in this context, no assessment, definitive in character, from the company-designated physician's end was issued to reflect whether Zafra was fit or unfit to resume duties within the 120/240-day period, as the case may be. Thus, the Court deems him unfit to resume work on board a sea vessel.[51] (Emphasis supplied; italics supplied.) Records reveal that petitioner remained incapacitated to resume sea duties even after the company-designated doctor evaluated his medical condition. This means that the petitioner had to still undergo medical treatment even after being seen by the company-designated physician. Obviously, even after the lapse of the maximum 240day period there was still no final assessment made by the company-designated doctor as to the petitioner's disability. With Dr. Go's failure to issue a final and definite assessment of petitioner's condition within the 240-day period, petitioner was thus deemed totally and permanently disabled. It is apparent that petitioner's disability and incapacity to resume working continued for more than 240 days. Consequently, the absence of a final assessment by the company designated physician makes the rule on third-doctor-referral inapplicable in the instant case. The failure of the company-designated physician to issue a final assessment and disability grading within the 240-day period made the petitioner's disability total and permanent even without evaluation by a third doctor. Evidently, there is no need for the petitioner to initiate the referral to a third doctor for him to be entitled to permanent disability benefits. In Carcedo, this Court decreed that the rule on third doctor referral is not applicable if there is no definitive disability assessment made by the companydesignated physician, thus: In this case, the third-doctor-referral provision did not find application because of the lack of a definitive disability assessment by the companydesignated physician. x x x[52] Considering the absence of definitive disability assessment made by the companydesignated physician, it was by operation of law that the petitioner became permanently disabled. Viewed in this light, the CA erred in upholding the interim assessment of Dr. Lao over that of Dr. Catapang on the basis of the petitioner's failure to seek medical opinion from a third doctor as provided under the POEA-SEC. It erroneously applied the provisions of the POEA-SEC in isolation with other laws such as the Labor Code and the AREC. The CA should have widened its spectrum in deciding the case and applied the Labor Cod provisions on disability benefits. Applying the 2010 POEA-SEC, the Labor Code provisions on permanent disability and the AREC vis-a-vis the several jurisprudence concerning seafarer's disability compensation, this Court holds that the petitioner is, by https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65828 11/15