9/15/21, 8:03 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In its September 9, 2016 Decision,[20] the CA held that although Jamias was medically repatriated because of his umbilical hernia, petitioners cannot deny that the seafarer also complained of his back ailment. The CA noted that within the 3-day period after his repatriation, Jamias was seen by the company-designated physician and the latter immediately ordered a lumbosacral MRI. The results of the MRI revealed that Jamias had: "Disc dessication [sic] and diffuse disc bulge with focal broad-based central disc protusion causing mild central canal and mild left foraminal stenoses, L5-S1."[21] The CA ruled that the MRI belied petitioners' claim that Jamias complained of a back ailment way beyond the termination of his employment contract, or only when he asked for a medical reassessment in January 2012. The CA also observed that it was erroneous for the PVA to limit the third doctor's determination to the sole issue of "whether respondent's broad­ based herniated disc at L5-S1 which is causing the moderate to low back pain is a necessary consequence or even remotely related to his umbilical hernia that had already been medically resolved."[22] In doing so, the third doctor's evaluation did not satisfy the standard required under the POEA-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) and the CBA in assessing the true state or condition of the seafarer. Considering that the third doctor who reexamined Jamias failed to give the corresponding impediment rating which would be the basis for the grant of disability benefits, the CA set aside the PVA's Award, thus: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the award of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators dated 8 November 2013 is SET ASIDE. In order to finally determine respondent's entitlement to disability benefits, the parties are enjoined to comply with the provisions of the CBA and POEA-SEC pertaining to the appointment of a third doctor whose assessment shall be final and binding between the parties. SO ORDERED.[23] Petitioners and Jamias each sought reconsideration, but their motions were denied in the Resolution[24] dated March 29, 2017, wherein the CA clarified that: The Court resolves to deny the Motions for Reconsideration filed by the parties for raising arguments and issues which were already passed upon. The Court, however, would like to clarify that, for obvious reasons, a reexamination of Respondent's condition at this stage is unnecessary. Besides, the third doctor appointed by the parties, Dr. Samuel Grozman, has already examined Respondent as evidenced by the Medical Certificate dated 2 August 2013. In order to fully comply with the procedure agreed upon by the parties in their CBA as well as the POEA SEC, the third doctor, Dr. Samuel Grozman, need only give a disability grading assessment which shall then be final and binding on both parties in accordance with the CBA, the POEA SEC and prevailing jurisprudence. WHEREFORE, the Motions for Reconsideration respectively filed by the parties in this case are hereby DENIED for lack of merit. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/67077 4/12