1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly xxxx Here, the company-designated physician failed to give a definitive impediment rating of Carcedo's disability beyond the extended temporary disability period, after the 120-day period but less than 240 days. By operation of law, therefore, Carcedo's total and temporary disability lapsed into a total and permanent disability.[47] (Italics supplied.) Furthermore, in Fil-Pride Shipping Co., Inc. et al. v. Balasta,[48] this Court instructed that the company-designated physician must arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability within the period of 120 or 240 days, otherwise, the seafarer's medical condition remains unresolved and the latter shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled. This Court ruled in this wise: The company-designated physician must arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability within the period of 120 or 240 days, pursuant to Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code and Rule X, Section 2 of the AREC. If he fails to do so and the seafarer's medical condition remains unresolved, the latter shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled.[49] In the case at bench, the disability grading that Dr. Go, the company-designated doctor, issued was merely an interim assessment and not a final and categorical finding. If it were otherwise, Dr. Go would not have advised the petitioner to continue his rehabilitation. Also, Dr. Lao's subsequent medical report cannot be considered as final assessment as he merely suggested disability grading. Dr. Lao was not the designated doctor who medically evaluated the petitioner's condition. His report is merely a suggestion subject for evaluation by Dr. Lim, the medical coordinator. This Court pronounced in Belchem Philippines, Inc./United Philippine Lines, et al. v. Zafra, Jr.,[50] that a mere "suggestive" disability grading will not suffice as final and definitive medical assessment, thus: In this case, petitioner seek the Court's attention to the "final" assessment, dated April 19, 2010, issued by the attending physician, which was earlier quoted. To the petitioners, this assessment forecloses any claim that Zafra's injury is total or one that incapacitates the employee to continue performing his work, They treat it as the certification required under Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC as it contained his degree of disability and fitness to resume sea duties. The statement, however, is clearly devoid of any definitive declaration as to the capacity of Zafra to return to work or at least a categorical and final degree of disability. As pointed out by the CA, all the medical certificates found in the record merely recited his medical history and, worse it made no mention as to whether the seafarer was even capable of resuming work. In https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65828 10/15