issued in his capacity as the Medical Coordinator of the Metropolitan Hospital. [17]  He also points out that Dr. Lim is not an eye specialist.   To the petitioner, it is the competence of the attending physician and not the circumstance of his being company-designated that should be the key consideration in determining the true status of the health of the patient/seaman. He seeks to rebut Dr. Lims certification through the opinion of his private ophthalmologist, Dr. Patrick Rey R. Echiverri that he would not advise him to do heavy work; he would not also be able to perform tasks that require very detailed binocular vision as the right eyes visual acuity could only be corrected to 20/30 and near vision to J3 at best.[18] The petitioner likewise relies on the assessment and evaluation ofDr. Efren R. Vicaldo that he suffers from partial permanent disability with a Grade X (20.15%) impediment and is now unfit to work as a seaman.[19]   The petitioner disputes the respondent companies claim that he is no longer disabled after his visual acuity had been restored to 20/20; it is fallacious because it views disability more in its medical sense rather than on its effect on the earning capacity of the seaman. Citing supporting jurisprudence, the petitioner posits that in disability compensation, it is the inability to work resulting in the impairment of ones earning capacity that is compensated, not the injury itself. He maintains that even if his visual acuity is now 20/20 as alleged by the company-designated physician, he can nevertheless no longer perform his customary work as pumpman on board an ocean-going vessel since the job involves a lot of strain that could again cause his vitreous hemorrhage. This limitation impairs his earning capacity so that he should be legally deemed to have suffered permanent total disability from a work-related injury. In this regard, the petitioner cites as