6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Other claims are DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.[47] Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission Petitioners appealed before the NLRC which docketed the case as NLRC LAC No. OFW(M) 07-000539-10. On November 30> 2010, the NLRC issued a Decision,[48] declaring as follows: The instant appeal is impressed with merit. At the outset, it should be pointed out that had the parties in the instant case complied strictly with the provisions of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, particularly on the appointment of a third physician in case of disagreement, a lot of controversy would have been averted, x x x xxxx We are thus compelled to evaluate the divergent opinions of the companydesignated physicians and complainant's private physician. xxxx As can therefore be seen from the last MRI of complainant, the findings of the latter are basically unchanged. However, complainant's physician issued a disability grading of Grade 6 "in terms of pain and affectation of the spinal cord," observing that the severity of complainant's symptom is equivalent to said grading. A close perusal of the above finding of Dr. Raymundo shows that there is "severe or total rigidity or total loss of lifting power of heavy objects" based on complainant's symptom, that is, his pain. This however has been put in issue by the company-designated physician, who earlier observed that: "Provocative Discography was done on 26 July 2007 and showed leakage of contrast material in the midposterior aspect of the disk more towards the left thru a mild posterior annular tear. It was opined by Interventional Radiology that the pain complained of is not commensurate with the Discography." This resulted in the following recommendation: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61305 10/25