6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly other hand, the independent physicians stated that respondent's major depression persisted and constituted a disability. More importantly, while the former totally ignored the diagnosis of the Japanese doctor that respondent was also suffering from gastric ulcer, the latter addressed this. The independent physicians thus found that respondent was suffering from chronic gastritis and declared him unfit for work.[121] Based on jurisprudence, the findings of the company-designated physician prevail in cases where the seafarer did not observe the third-doctor referral provision in the POEA Standard Employment Contract. However, if the findings of the company-designated physician are clearly biased in favor of the employer, then courts may give greater weight to the findings of the seafarer's personal physician. Clear bias on the part of the company-designated physician may be shown if there is no scientific relation between the diagnosis and the symptoms felt by the seafarer, or if the final assessment of the company-designated physician is not supported by the medical records of the seafarer. In this case, petitioner was referred by respondent to an obstetrician-gynecologist,[122] while Dr. Jacinto, petitioner's personal physician, is an orthopaedic surgeon.[123] It is not disputed that petitioner was diagnosed as suffering from Abnormal Uterine Bleeding secondary to Adenomyosis with Adenomyoma.[124] Thus, between the two physicians, the obstetrician-gynecologist is more qualified to assess petitioner's condition. Dr. Jacinto simply stated that "conditions started at work and aggravated by the performance of her duties characterized as prolonged standing and walking"[125] but did not discuss the causal connection between prolonged standing and walking and the development of petitioner's illness. Further, the company-designated physician was able to closely monitor petitioner's condition from the time she was repatriated in March 2010 until the date of her last check-up in October 2010.[126] On the other hand, Dr. Jacinto merely evaluated the results of "petitioner's medication, treatment and examination[.]"[127] Petitioner did not allege how she was examined and treated by her personal physician, and how her personal physician arrived at the conclusion that she is unfit to work as seafarer. Monana v. MEC Global Shipmanagement[128] involved a claim for disability benefits. The company-designated physician and the personal physician had different findings. [129] This court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which gave greater weight to the findings of the company-designated physician because "as between the company-designated doctor who has all the medical records of petitioner for the duration of his treatment and as against the latter's private doctor who merely examined him for a day as an outpatient, the former's finding must prevail."[130] Considering that the company-designated physician closely monitored petitioner from March 2010 until she completed her treatment,[131] and also considering that petitioner elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61719 18/26