6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly not yet expired when the company-designated physician made a pronouncement on private respondent’s fitness to return to work.[13] Petitioner’s invocation of the ruling in the case of Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad[14] was likewise found by the Court of Appeals to be inapplicable, to wit: Moreover, the ruling in Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad case in that the seafarer therein “was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total disability” cannot be applied as a general rule in the instant case because it involved a different set of facts. In Crystal Shipping case, the seafarer was completely unable to work for three years and was undisputably unfit for sea duty due to his need for regular medical check-up and treatment which would not be available if he were at sea. It was also clear in that case that the seafarer’s disability went beyond 240 days without any declaration that the seafarer was fit to resume work. Under such circumstances, a ruling of permanent and total disability was called for in accordance with the operation of the period for entitlement that we described above. However, in the case at bench, private respondent’s medical treatment period lasted only for 102 days before the company-designated physician made a pronouncement that he was already fit to resume sea duties.[15] As a matter of fact, in Kestrel Shipping,[16] the Court made the following pronouncement regarding the indiscriminate invocation of Crystal Shipping in permanent disability claims, thus: This Court’s pronouncements in Vergara presented a restraint against the indiscriminate reliance on Crystal Shipping such that a seafarer is immediately catapulted into filing a complaint for total and permanent disability benefits after the expiration of 120 days from the time he signedoff from the vessel to which he was assigned. Particularly, a seafarer’s inability to work and the failure of the company-designated physician to determine fitness or unfitness to work despite the lapse of 120 days will not automatically bring about a shift in the seafarer’s state from total and temporary to total and permanent, considering that the condition of total and temporary disability may be extended up to a maximum of 240 days. We likewise uphold the Court of Appeals’ reliance on the medical findings of the company-designated physician. In a maritime disability claim, the issue that often arises is the conflicting findings between the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s chosen physician. Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC provides that if a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated doctor, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer, and the third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties. We had in several cases upheld the findings of the company-designated physician due elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60647 6/10