1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The CA held that referral to a third doctor is mandatory.[21] It ruled that it is the obligation of the seafarer to notify the concerned employer of his intention to settle the issue through the appointment of a third doctor.[22] The CA upheld the assessment of Dr. Go, the company-designated physician, stating that the petitioner suffers from Grade 10 disability.[23] Likewise, the CA clarified that the 120/240-day period could no longer be made as basis for the assessment of the disability grade but the actual disability grade given by the company-designated physician or the third independent physician pursuant to Section 20(A)(6) of the POEA-SEC. Applying Section 20(A)(6) o the POEA-SEC, the CA stated that the disability shall be based on the disability grading provided under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC which grants a disability award of US$10,075.00.[24] Finally, the CA denied the petitioner's prayer for attorney's fees. It declared that the respondents are well within their rights to deny the petitioner's claim for permanent an total disability benefit.[25] The petitioner moved for reconsideration which was denied by the CA in its assailed Resolution[26] dated January 14, 2016. Undeterred, the petitioner comes before this Court raising the following grounds, to wit: A. The Court of Appeals was in error when it reversed the NLRC's Decision as the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion since its decision is based on substantial evidence. B. The Court of Appeals committed a serious mistake when it failed to uphold the evaluation made by the NLRC. C. The Court of Appeals was in error in its application of the POEA-SEC conflict-resolution procedure regarding the third physician referral. D. The Court of Appeals seriously erred when they failed to uphold that it is by operation of law that the petitioner is considered a totally and permanently disabled, and as such, the "third physician referral rule" finds no application in the instant case.[27] The basic contention of the petitioner is that he was permanently disabled as a result of the injuries he suffered while working as a seafarer. He maintains that disability should be based on one's incapacity to work. The petitioner asserts that since he was unable to engage in a gainful employment even after the statutory 120/240-day period, he is entitled to permanent disability benefits.[28] The petitioner also contends that the third-doctor-referral provision is not applicable because it was by operation of law that he became permanently disabled. He avers that the assessment of the company-designated physician is merely an interim one, and not https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65828 5/15