1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly injury while on board the vessel, his fitness or unfitness for work shall be determined by the company-designated physician. If the physician appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the companydesignated physician's assessment, the opinion of a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer to be the decision final and binding on them. Thus, while petitioner had the right to seek a second and even a third opinion, the final determination of whose decision must prevail must be done in accordance with an agreed procedure. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not avail of this procedure; hence, we have no option but to declare that the companydesignated doctor's certification is the final determination that must prevail. x x x Here, the Court is bound by the Grade 11 disability grading and assessment by the company-designated physician that was timely rendered within the 120-day period. Petitioner neither questioned such diagnosis in accordance with the procedure set forth under the POEA-SEC nor contested the company-designated doctor's competence. To reiterate what has already been settled, the referral to a third physician is mandatory and non-compliance with the procedure may militate against the claim for permanent total disability in cases where the company-designated doctor declared otherwise. This is especially so if the seafarer failed to explain why recourse to the said remedy was not made. Petitioner's filing of his claim before the labor arbiter was premature. In view of the fact that he did not observe the relevant provisions of the POEA-SEC after he received a definitive disability assessment from the companydesignated physician, the Court is left without a choice but to uphold the certification issued with respect thereto. Failure to follow the procedure is fatal and renders conclusive the disability rating issued by the company-designated doctor. (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted) So must it be. Another, it was the company-designated doctors who examined, treated, and monitored petitioner from the time he got repatriated. Dr. Pascual, on the other hand, only saw petitioner once, on April 1, 2014. He did not elaborate on how he came up with the conclusion that petitioner was unfit for sea duties. He did not even mention the specific physical examinations, if any, which were made on petitioner, how the latter responded thereto, and what petitioner's condition was before and after the supposed treatment. A reading of Dr. Pascual's report shows that he based his conclusion on the results of the examinations that the company-designated physicians conducted on petitioner upon his repatriation. Still another, the company-designated physicians gave their disability rating as early as October 2013; petitioner, however, only consulted Dr. Pascual in April 2014, or six (6) months after the rating was issued by the company-designated physicians. A number of https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65965 14/19