6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly II. WHETHER OR NOT THE CA ERRED IN DISMISSING PETITIONERS' CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES DESPITE RESPONDENTS' COMMISSION OF BAD FAITH IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS. The primordial question to be resolved is whether petitioner is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits. The parties do not dispute that petitioner's injury was work-related and that he is entitled to disability compensation. The disagreement, however, lies on the degree of disability and amount of benefits that petitioner is entitled. Petitioner bases his entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits on the failure of the company-designated doctor to arrive at a definitive assessment of his disability. Petitioner particularly assails Dr. Chuasuan's assessment of Grade 10 disability since he still required further medical rehabilitation, as affirmed by Dr. Bathan, the third doctor. In addition, petitioner points at the inconsistency between the Grade 9 disability issued by Dr. Bathan in his certification and the latter's remark therein that petitioner was still "not fit to work and should undergo further rehabilitation." As noted by the NLRC, petitioner's condition prevented him from acquiring gainful employment for 499 days reckoned from the time he arrived on October 6, 2012 until Dr. Bathan examined him on February 17, 2014.[10] Petitioner alleges that he could no longer resume sea service without risk to himself and to others due to the limited physical exertion brought about by his injury, and is permanently unfit for further sea duty. In their Comment, respondents argue that the 240-day rule does not apply to the case since the company-designated doctor timely assessed petitioner; that the 240-day period only applies to the assessment of the company-designated doctor, and not to the third doctor's opinion. Even assuming that the 240 days limitation applies to the third doctor, the parties validly extended the period for assessment since it was at petitioner's instance that a third doctor was appointed. By seeking this relief, respondents insist that petitioner agreed to whatever disability grading the third doctor will issue. In addition, respondents maintain that petitioner's disability should be based on the Schedule of Disability under Section 32 of the 2010 POEA-SEC and should not be based on the number of days of treatment or the number of days in which sickness allowance is paid, citing Section 20 (A)(6) of the 2010 POEA-SEC. It is respondents' position that the amendments therein require the injury or illness to be compensated based solely on the Schedule of Disability Gradings in Section 32 of the Contract, and that the duration of treatment or payment of sickness allowance should be discounted when determining the applicable disability grading. Moreover, respondents refuse to acknowledge that they are liable for 100% disability elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62831 5/16