4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the NLRC are AFFIRMED. Costs against the Petitioner. SO ORDERED.[11] Andrada's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its Resolution, dated December 9, 2010. Hence, he filed this petition raising the following ISSUES THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN DISREGARDING JURISPRUDENCE INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 20(B), PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE POEA STANDARD CONTRACT REGARDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMPANYDESIGNATED PHYSICIAN. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT DID NOT APPLY THE CORRECT LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE ON CLAIMS FOR FULL DISABILITY BENEFITS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN UPHOLDING THE QUITCLAIM EXECUTED BY PETITIONER AS TO BAR HIS CLAIM FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS.[12] Arguments Essentially, Andrada argues that the company-designated physician is not conferred with the sole and exclusive authority to determine whether a seafarer is suffering from disability or whether his sickness is work-related and, hence, his declaration anent the medical condition of the seafarer is not conclusive upon the latter and the courts. He posits that the Court should weigh the inherent merits of the assessment of the company-designated physician and of his independent doctor taking into consideration not only its medical significance but more importantly, his ability to still perform his laborious and strenuous work after the surgery. Andrada insists that umbilical hernia is an occupational disease and one of its risk factors is the lifting of heavy objects which was part of his job. He claims that he could no longer perform his customary work despite the repair of his umbilical hernia because there was always a risk that his medical condition could recur. He avers that the Deed of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim pertained only to the payment of sickness allowance and not to disability benefits which have yet to be settled. He adds that a deed of release or quitclaim cannot bar an employee from demanding benefits to which he is legally entitled to receive, and any agreement whereby a worker agrees to receive less compensation than what he is entitled to recover is invalid. By way of Comment,[13] the respondents counter that the errors raised by Andrada elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55246 4/11