SO ORDERED.[9]     In so ruling, the NLRC considered the medical findings of Dr. Norberto Meriales of the Philippine General Hospital (PGH)/Medical Center Manila. Dr. Meriales opined that, with or without additional medical treatment on private respondents foot, a return to his previous work as a seaman was no longer possible. Consequently, private respondents refusal to undergo a triple arthrodesis operation on his foot should not defeat the merits of his claim. Even if he underwent the surgery, there was no guarantee that it would alleviate private respondents pain, bring back the full mobility and use of his foot and ability to work as a seaman. The operation was intended merely to relieve him of pain.   The NLRC also noted the findings of Dr. Rafael Bundoc, orthopedic surgeon in PGH:   x x x. It is my opinion xxx that results of these surgeries might not live up to the expectations of Mr. Dee. As it is, patient is already frustrated with the degree of immobility of his hind and midfoot. Fusion is going to compromise this further. Even if the surgeries are designed to lessen the pain of his foot, results are still undeniably variable. Patient is very much aware of the consequences of having corrective foot surgery or none at all. It is for the patient to finally decide to undergo such an elective procedure when he feels that its benefit outweigh its other limitations. Nevertheless, patient will never be able to attain the level of activity that he could perform as a seaman. It would be best for him to seek an occupation that would not entail heavy manual work and prolonged ambulation. [10]     On this basis, the NLRC ruled that private respondents disability was permanent and total in character, warranting a US$60,000 award.