petitioner was fit to work. Viewed from this perspective, both the NLRC and CA were legally correct when they refused to recognize any disability because the petitioner had already been declared fit to resume his duties. In the absence of any disability after his temporary total disability was addressed, any further discussion of permanent partial and total disability, their existence, distinctions and consequences, becomes a surplusage that serves no useful purpose.   A twist that directly led to the filing of this case is the issue of whose medical pronouncement should be followed given that the company-designated physician had declared the petitioner fit for work with a certification of fitness duly executed by the latter, while the petitioners physicians gave qualified opinions on his medical situation.   The POEA Standard Employment Contract and the CBA clearly provide that when a seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board the vessel, his fitness or unfitness for work shall be determined by the companydesignated physician. If the physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the company-designated physicians assessment, the opinion of a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer to be the decision final and binding on them.[40]   Thus, while petitioner had the right to seek a second and even a third opinion, the final determination of whose decision must prevail must be done in accordance with an agreed procedure. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not avail of this procedure; hence, we have no option but to declare that the companydesignated doctors certification is the final determination that must prevail. We do so mindful that the company had exerted real effort to provide the petitioner with medical assistance, such that the petitioner finally ended with a 20/20 vision. The company-designated physician, too, monitored the petitioners case from the beginning and we cannot simply throw out his certification, as the petitioner suggested, because he has no expertise in ophthalmology. Under the facts of this case, it was the company-designated doctor who referred the petitioners case to the proper medical specialist whose medical results are not