6/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the NLRC and the CA.[39] Permanent disability is defined as the inability of a worker to perform his job for more than 120 days (or 240 days, as the case may be), regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body. Total disability, meanwhile, means the disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work of similar nature that he was trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainments could do.[40] Under Article 192(c)(1) of the Labor Code, a disability is deemed both permanent and total when the temporary total disability lasts continuously for more than 120 days, except as otherwise provided in the Rules.[41] Similarly, Rule VII, Section 2(b) of the AREC provides: (b) A disability is total and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days, except as otherwise provided for in Rule X of these Rules. (Emphasis supplied) For disability to be compensable under Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA­ SEC, two elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work­related; and (2) the workrelated injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's employment contract.[42] Jurisprudence is replete with cases bearing similar pronouncements of this Court. In Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. Cruz,[43] We concluded that an interim disability grading is merely an initial prognosis and does not provide sufficient basis for an award of disability benefit, thus: Notably, the September 5, 2008 Report provides: "Interim Disability Grade: If a disability grading will be made today[,] our patient falls under 'Moderate rigidity of two thirds loss of motion or lifting power' - Grade (8) eight." Being an interim disability grade, this declaration is an initial determination of respondent's condition for the time being. It is only an initial prognosis of the health status of respondent because after its issuance, respondent was still required to return for re-evaluation, and to continue therapy and medication; as such, it does not fully assess respondent's condition and cannot provide sufficient basis for the award of disability benefits in his favor. Moreover, in Carcedo v. Maine Marine Philippines, Inc., the Court did not give credence to the disability assessment given by the company-designated doctor as the same was merely interim and not definite. This is because after its issuance, Dario A. Carcedo (seafarer therein) still continued to require medical attention. Similarly, herein respondent needed further treatment and physical therapy even after the Interim Disability Grade was given by the company-designated doctor on September 5, 2008.[44] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66786 10/13