6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Indeed, it is not disputed that the conditions for compensability of an incapacity resulting from work-connected illness/injury during the term of the contract, have been met in this case. xxxx Perusal of the respondents’ submitted medical report and disability assessment fails to show how the partial permanent disability assessment was arrived at, as it simply states that complainant is suffering from impediment Grade 10 disability, without any evidence that indeed only 1/3 limitation of motion of the neck or moderate stiffness had affected the complainant. On the other hand, as shown by the certification issued by Dr. Catapang on February 22, 2010 complainant’s disability is permanent and prevents him from further sea duties. The medical opinion also categorically declares that complainant continues “to suffer from neck pain despite continuous therapy“ and that “he should refrain from activities producing torsional stress on the neck and those that require repetitive bending and lifting; things that Mr. Camoral is expected to do as a Seafarer.” xxxx x x x The test to determine its gravity is the impairment or loss of one’s capacity to earn and not its mere significance. Permanent total disability means disablement of the employee to earn wages in the same kind of work or work of similar nature that he was trained for or accustomed to perform or any kind of work which a person of his mentality and attainment can do. xxxx Accordingly, We find the medical opinion of complainant’s own doctor to be more credible, and sustain the assessment as to complainant’s permanent incapacity that has rendered him unfit to work as seafarer, thus entitling him to [sic] awarded disability compensation. We sustain the award of attorney’s fees of ten (10%) percent as the complainant had sought legal representation pursuing his valid contractual claims. WHEREFORE, respondents’ appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated November 10, 2010 stands AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.[10] The petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was denied in the Resolution dated October 14, 2011 of the NLRC. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/59517 5/12