6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly conference, the burden to refer the case to a third doctor has shifted to the respondents. This, they failed to do so, and petitioner cannot be faulted for the nonreferral. Consequently, the company-designated doctors' assessment is not binding. Petitioner is entitled to total and permanent disability benefits In any event, the rule that the company-designated physician's findings shall prevail in case of non-referral of the case to a third doctor is not a hard and fast rule.[31] It has been previously held that labor tribunals and the courts are not bound by the medical findings of the company-designated physician and that the inherent merits of its medical findings will be weighed and duly considered.[32] The June 30, 2015 final report of the company doctor reads: 1. The patient has reached maximum medical cure. 2. The final disability grading under the POEA schedule of disabilities is Grade 7– moderate residuals or disorder of the intraabdominal organ. Despite the foregoing assessment, the VA disagrees that petitioner merely suffers from a moderate disorder of intraabdominal organ and with the final disability grading given. The VA said: Having said the above, this Panel is also of the opinion that this type of disorder in the internal organ is not simply moderate but is of a serious nature. Thus, the grade 7 rating under the list of occupation disease does not seem to fully describe the gravity of the cancer suffered by herein complainant. It is thus submitted that the occupational disease should be that of a serious nature or that which is considered of a "severe residual of impairment of intra-abdominal organ which requires regular aid and attendance that will [disable] worker to seek any gainful employment" which is equivalent to a Grade 1 rating. The Panel finds it hard to accept the submission of respondents that herein seafarer's cancer is but a mere "moderate residual of disorder of the intra-abdominal organs secondary to trauma resulting to impairment of nutrition, moderate tenderness, nausea, vomiting, constipation or diarrhea." x x x (Emphasis in the original) The VA noted that petitioner's illness is serious in nature considering the company doctors' requirement for him to undergo periodic cystoscopy despite having undergone chemotherapy and surgery. It further observed that petitioner was never declared "cancer-free" and "fit to work" by his attending physicians and his illness persisted despite the final disability grade of 7 given. For the VA, this means that petitioner could no longer return to the seafaring profession and is, thus, permanently and totally disabled. We concur with the VA's conclusion. In keeping with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and full protection to labor, the Court has applied the Labor Code concept of disability to Filipino seafarers. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64175 8/12