4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly condition, it is evident that there was no need for further medical treatment and he cannot be faulted for his failure to appear on his scheduled check-up session on December 15, 2015 nor can such be construed as abandonment. Besides, his attending specialist at Medical City likewise confirmed the permanent loss of vision in petitioner's left eye.[51] Notably, while the company-designated physician assessed petitioner only a partial and permanent disability rating of Grade 7 in accordance with the POEA-SEC, the latter was nonetheless also found to be unfit for further sea duties. In Kestrel Shipping Co., Inc. v. Munar,[52] the Court held that the POEA-SEC merely provides the minimum acceptable terms in a seafarer's employment contract, and that in the assessment of whether a seafarer's injury is partial and permanent, the same must be so characterized not only under the Schedule of Disabilities found in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, but also under the relevant provisions of the Labor Code and the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation, to wit: Indeed, under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC, only those injuries or disabilities that are classified as Grade 1 may be considered as total and permanent. However, if those injuries or disabilities with a disability grading from 2 to 14, hence, partial and permanent, would incapacitate a seafarer from performing his usual sea duties for a period of more than 120 or 240 days, depending on the need for further medical treatment, then he is, under legal contemplation, totally and permanently disabled. In other words, an impediment should be characterized as partial and permanent not only under the Schedule of Disabilities found in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC but should be so under the relevant provisions of the Labor Code and the Amended Rules on Employee Compensation (AREC) implementing Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code. That while the seafarer is partially injured or disabled, he is not precluded from earning doing the same work he had before his injury or disability or that he is accustomed or trained to do. Otherwise, if his illness or injury prevents him from engaging in gainful employment for more than 120 or 240 days, as the case may be, he shall be deemed totally and permanently disabled.[53] (Emphases and underscoring supplied) From the foregoing, since petitioner was declared by no less than his attending specialist to be unfit for further sea service due to permanent loss of vision in his left eye, the Court finds his resulting disability to be not only partial and permanent as ruled by the CA, but rather total and permanent as correctly found by the PVA. It is well to point out that in disability compensation, it is not the injury which is compensated, but rather it is the incapacity to work resulting in the impairment of one's earning capacity. Total disability refers to an employee's inability to perform his or her usual work. It does not require total paralysis or complete helplessness. Permanent disability, on the other hand, is a worker's inability to perform his job for more than 120 days or 240 days, if the seafarer required further medical attention justifying the extension of the temporary total disability period, regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his body.[54] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66115 6/12