6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Attendant that caused her to fall ill. When she experienced profuse bleeding, she had only been a Casino Attendant for at least a month.[107] The Court of Appeals held that because of this short span of time, then the presentation of evidence showing the relation between her work as Casino Attendant and her illness becomes all the more crucial.[108] There was likewise no error on the part of the Court of Appeals when it gave greater weight to the assessment of the company-designated physician. The POEA Standard Employment Contract provides for a procedure to resolve the conflicting findings of a company-designated physician and personal physician, specifically: SECTION 20. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS .... B. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS 3. .... If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. In Transocean Ship Management (Phils.), Inc., et al. v. Vedad,[109] the reason for the third-doctor referral provision in the POEA Standard Employment Contract is that: In determining whether or not a given illness is work-related, it is understandable that a company-designated physician would be more positive and in favor of the company than, say, the physician of the seafarer's choice. It is on this account that a seafarer is given the option by the POEA-SEC to seek a second opinion from his preferred physician. And the law has anticipated the possibility of divergence in the medical findings and assessments by incorporating a mechanism for its resolution wherein a third doctor selected by both parties decides the dispute with finality, as provided by Sec. 20 (B) (3) of the POEA-SEC quoted above.[110] In Montierro v. Rickmers Marine Agency Phils., Inc.,[111] one of the issues that was resolved was "whether it is the opinion of the company doctor or of the personal doctor of the seafarer that should prevail.["][112] This court held that non-observance of the procedure under Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract would mean that the assessment of the company-designated physician prevails.[113] This rule was reiterated in Veritas elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61719 16/26