6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly contributors. However, Balatero failed to adequately prove that the foregoing were attendant in, or arose out of, his shipboard employment.[57] Ruling of the Court The Court partially grants Balatero's petition, and denies that of the respondents. Balatero's entitlement to permanent total disability compensation and attorney's fees As the LA, NLRC and the CA had uniformly and aptly found the work-relation of Balatero's sickness, the Court shall no longer belabour the issue. The question to be resolved now is Balatero's entitlement either to permanent total disability compensation as recommended by his chosen physician, Dr. Lara-Orencia, or merely to that corresponding to Grade 7 Disability rating as assessed by the companydesignated doctor. The company-designated doctor assessed Balatero to be suffering from Grade 7 Disability under Section 32 of the POEA SEC, to wit, "Moderate residuals of disorder of the intra-abdominal organs secondary to trauma resulting to impairment of nutrition, moderate tenderness, nausea, vomiting, constipation or diarrhea." On the other hand, Dr. Lara-Orencia found Balatero's Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease as an occupational disease under Section 32(A), Items 11(c)[58] and 13(b)[59] of the POEA SEC. Due to Balatero's recurrent chest pains, "easy fatigability," and continuous intake of five maintenance medicines, he was no longer fit to resume sea duties as 3rd Officer. It bears stressing that the parties did not refer the divergent medical assessments of their respective doctors to a third doctor, whose findings should have been final and binding pursuant to Section 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA SEC. For failure to refer the two conflicting medical findings to a third doctor mutually agreed upon by the parties, the CA ruled that Balatero breached a contractual obligation. Consequently, the assessment of the company-designated doctor was held as binding. The Court examined the pleadings filed by the respondents and notes that nowhere did they categorically state the date when the company-designated doctor had issued Balatero's final disability rating. Further, the respondents did not attach or completely quote the medical report of the company-designated doctor. Hence, in the LA, NLRC and CA decisions, specific references to, and details about the aforecited date and medical report are conspicuously absent as well. From the herein assailed decision, however, it can be inferred that the companydesignated doctor declared Balatero fit for sea duties upon the conclusion of the Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty on February of 2014 and successive consultations thereafter. [60] To this, Balatero disagreed, thus, he sought the opinion of Dr. Lara-Orencia, who issued a Medical Certificate,[61] dated June 3, 2014, refuting the company-designated doctor's fit-to-work assessment of Balatero. On account of Dr. Lara-Orencia's findings, Balatero demanded for total and permanent disability elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63152 8/17