6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly inherent merits would still have to be weighed and duly considered. The seafarer may dispute such assessment by seasonably exercising his prerogative to seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of his choice.[29] In this case, petitioner was repatriated on December 25, 1999 and was seen and examined by Dr. Cruz, the company-designated physician, seven times and each time was prescribed corresponding medications. Dr. Cruz made a diagnosis[30] of controlled hypertension and diabetes mellitus and declared him fit to work on April 7, 2000. As petitioner was not satisfied with the assessment made by Dr. Cruz, he, through counsel, requested respondents for another medical assessment to which respondents acceded by directing petitioner to go to Dr. Alegre at St Luke's Hospital for a second medical opinion. Petitioner went to Dr. Alegre's clinic for consultation only on August 31, 2000. After petitioner was subjected to laboratory examinations, Dr. Alegre issued a medical report declaring the former not fit to work and gave him a disability of Grade 12 (slight residuals of disorder of intra-thoracic organ [heart] and intra-abdominal organ [pancreas-diabetes]) under the heading abdomen #5. However, petitioner sought the opinion of a private physician, Dr. Vicaldo, who declared him unfit to board ship and work as seaman and found his condition to be a partial permanent disability with an impediment Grade V (58.96%). The LA and the NLRC gave credence to Dr. Vialdo's disability grading but the CA reversed and accepted that of Dr. Alegre's. We find no error committed by the CA in giving more weight to Dr. Alegre's finding than that of Dr. Vicaldo's. Dr. Alegre's finding was based on the results of the laboratory examinations conducted on petitioner. On the other hand, Dr. Vicaldo examined petitioner only once, and his justification for the latter's disability grading was not supported by any diagnostic or medical procedure but merely based on general impressions. We adopt the CA's ratiocination in giving more evidentiary weight to Dr. Alegre's assessment, to wit: x x x Clearly, the determination of whose medical findings, including disability assessment, should be given more weight would depend on the length of time the patient was under treatment and supervision, results of laboratory procedures used as basis for diagnosis and recommendation, and detailed knowledge of the patient's case reflected in the medical certificate itself. A comparison of the medical certificates issued by Dr. Alegre and Dr. Vicaldo reveals that the former's findings were based on results of certain laboratory procedures such as urinalysis and chest x-ray, while that of the latter merely stated the usual expected long term complications associated with diabetes mellitus. The present target organ in private respondent's case was determined by Dr. Alegre to be the heart and eyes (hypertensive retinopathy), while Dr. Vicaldo plainly indicated the lifelong medications are necessitated by his "HPN and DM" and that long term complications involve the heart, brain and 'kidneys. Further, while Dr. Vicaldo's diagnosis of uncontrolled diabetes mellitus and essential hypertension was based only on the patient's age belonging to high risk group, Dr. Alegre attributed the patient's poorly-controlled diabetus mellitus and essential hypertension to elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61060 7/12