8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly However, this does not mean that the company-designated physician's assessment is automatically final, binding or conclusive on the claimant seafarer as he can still dispute the assessment.[36] In assailing the assessment, the seafarer must comply with the mechanism provided under Section 20(A)(3) of the POEA-SEC which is integrated in the employment contract between the seafarer and his employer and therefore operates as the law between them. Thus, the seafarer may dispute the company-designated physician's assessment by seasonably exercising his prerogative to seek a second opinion and consult a doctor of his choice.[37] In case the findings of the seafarer's physician of choice differ from that of the company-designated physician, the conflicting findings shall be submitted to a third-party doctor, as mutually agreed upon by the parties.[38] The referral of the conflicting findings to an independent third doctor is important and crucial to the claim of the seafarer. If the seafarer fails to signify his intent to submit the disputed assessment to a third physician, then the company can insist on the disability rating issued by the company designated physician, even against a contrary opinion by the seafarer's doctor. The duty to secure the opinion of a third doctor belongs to the employee, who must actively or expressly request for it.[39] Failure to comply with the requirement of referral to a third-party physician is tantamount to violation of the terms under the 2010 POEA-SEC, and without a binding third-party opinion, the findings of the company-designated physician shall prevail over the assessment made by the seafarer's doctor.[40] Thus, without the referral to a third doctor, there is no valid challenge to the findings of the company-designated physician. In the absence thereof, the medical pronouncement of the company-designated physician must be upheld.[41] Indeed, it is settled that the rule that the company-designated physician's findings shall prevail in case of non-referral of the case to a third doctor is not a hard-and-fast rule as the inherent merits of the company-designated physician's medical findings should still be weighed and duly considered.[42] Nevertheless, it is equally true that in case of nonreferral with a third doctor, the assessment of the seafarer's physician of choice may be upheld over that of the company-designated physician only if there is a clear showing that the latter was biased in favor of the employer. Clear bias on the part of the company-designated physician may be shown if there is no scientific relation between the diagnosis and the symptoms felt by the seafarer, or if the final assessment of the company-designated physician is not supported by the medical records of the seafarer. [43] As already stated, De Vera failed to seek a second opinion prior to the filing of his complaint. His failure to seasonably exercise his option to seek a second opinion necessarily means that he also failed to observe the provisions of Section 20(A)(3) of the 2010 POEA-SEC regarding the appointment of an independent third doctor. De Vera clearly breached the provisions of the 2010 POEA-SEC by his repeated failure to comply with the conflict-resolution procedure laid down therein. De Vera also failed to show any circumstance which could persuade the Court to disregard the company-designated physicians' findings. Aside from the failed attempt to show that the assessment by the company designated physicians was not definite and https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65369 9/14