1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly reiterate, must be definite and timely issued. x x x[30] (Emphasis and italics in the original) The seafarer has then the duty to signify his intent to challenge the companydesignated physician's assessment and, in turn, the employer must respond by setting into motion the process of choosing the third doctor. As the Court ruled in Pastor v. Bibby Shipping Philippines, Inc.:[31] Corollarily, should the seafarer signify his intent to challenge the companydesignated physician's assessment through the assessment made by his own doctor, the employer must respond by setting into motion the process of choosing a third doctor who, as the 2010 POEA-SEC provides, can rule with finality on the disputed medical situation. In such case, no specific period is required by law within which the parties may seek the opinion of a third doctor, and may do so even during the conciliation and mediation stage to abbreviate the proceedings.[32] The Court further explained in Sunit v. OSM Maritime Services, Inc.[33] that for the third doctor's assessment to be valid and binding between the parties, the assessment must be definite and conclusive: Indeed, the employer and the seafarer are bound by the disability assessment of the third-party physician in the event that they choose to appoint one. Nonetheless, similar to what is required of the companydesignated doctor, the appointed third-party physician must likewise arrive at a definite and conclusive assessment of the seafarer's disability or fitness to return to work before his or her opinion can be valid and binding between the parties.[34] (Emphasis in the original) The foregoing shows that it is required for both the company-designated physician and the third doctor to arrive at a definite and conclusive assessment of the fitness or disability rating of the seafarer for their assessment to be considered as valid. The same standards to determine the validity of the assessment should be the same for the company-designated physician, seafarer's physician, and the third doctor. Thus, in order for the seafarer to dispute the assessment of the company-designated physician, the assessment of the seafarer's doctor should state the seafarer's fitness to work or the disability rating. Here, it is beyond dispute that the company-designated physician found that petitioner was fit to work. This was a valid assessment and the seafarer may dispute this by https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65636 6/10