4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly nonetheless states that "[t]hose illnesses not listed in Section 32 of this Contract are disputably presumed as work-related." Thus, the burden is on the employer to disprove the work-relatedness, failing which, the disputable presumption that a particular injury or illness that results in disability is work-related stands. Unfortunately, the said presumption was not overturned by TSPI. Moreover, the Grade 7 disability rating assessment by the company-designated physician negates any claim that the non-listed illness is not work-related.[45] Accordingly, having suffered a work-related illness in the course of his last employment contract, the 2010 POEA-SEC imposes upon the company-designated physician the responsibility to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or degree of disability within a period of 120 days from repatriation.[46] During the said period, the seafarer shall be deemed on temporary total disability and shall receive his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is defined under the POEA-SEC and by applicable Philippine laws. However, if the 120-day period is exceeded and no definitive declaration is made because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability period may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists.[47] Failure of the company-designated physician to arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability within the prescribed periods, and if the seafarer's medical condition remains unresolved, the law steps in to consider the latter's disability as total and permanent.[48] In the case at bar, TSPI contended that petitioner abandoned his medical treatment when he failed to return for his scheduled follow-up check-up on December 15, 2015 that effectively prevented the company-designated physician from arriving at a definite assessment, which is in breach of his obligation under the POEA-SEC. However, as correctly pointed out by the CA, there was no medical abandonment on the part of petitioner given that the company-designated physician, in the confidential medical report dated November 3, 2015, had already declared the former to have "already reached his maximum medical improvement[,]"[49] thus, indicating his treatment through curative means to have already ended and that the subsequent check-ups were for the improvement of his physical appearance by means of fitting a scleral shell prosthesis. The said medical report also recommended a Grade 7 disability rating based on the specialist's finding that petitioner's visual prognosis and recovery were poor due to "permanent loss of vision in one eye despite intravenous antibiotic and steroids as well as oral medications given[,]" thus rendering him "unfit for further sea duties."[50] Considering that: (1) in the November 3, 2015 medical report, which was issued within the 120-day treatment period, the company-designated physician already gave petitioner a partial and permanent disability rating of Grade 7, i.e., loss of vision or total blindness in one eye, and declared him to have already reached his maximum medical improvement, rendering him unfit for further sea duties; and (2) during petitioner's subsequent check-ups on November 24 and 25, 2015, respectively, the company-designated physician did not find any significant improvement in his https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66115 5/12