6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly was trained for or accustomed to do. Despite immediate and extensive medical treatment which lasted for six months or 180 days, the company-designated physician's assessment of petitioner's injury did not show remarkable progress. The surgical procedures (laminectomy and foraminotomy) performed to address petitioner's herniated discs did not entirely free him from low back pain. Although the companydesignated physician, Dr. Tay, made a prognosis of "fair to good" on September 11, 2012, petitioner's disability with a Grade 8 impediment remained unchanged. Dr. Tay also noted that petitioner did not pass the functional capacity test that was tailored to petitioner's job description and recommended further therapy session for flexibility enhancement, and the therapy would take another two to three months.[32] The Court of Appeals averred that although the provisions of the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEASEC) and the applicable ITF TCC Collective Agreement state that it is the duty of the company-designated doctor to declare the employee's fitness or unfitness to resume sea duty, the said rule does not deprive the seaman to consult another doctor to make an independent evaluation of his medical condition. Moreover, if the doctor of the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the companydesignated doctor, a third doctor may be chosen jointly by the company and the seafarer, and the decision of the third doctor shall be final and binding on both parties. However, since the parties did not appoint a third physician, the Court of Appeals evaluated the findings of the company-designated doctor, Dr. Tay, and petitioner's private doctor, Dr. Runas, based on their inherent merit.[33] The Court of Appeals found no genuine inconsistency between the findings of the two doctors. x x x We reiterate that although Dr. Tay made no definitive findings as to the fitness of Gomez to resume his duties as Ordinary Seaman, she noted that the latter could not yet resume his work because he failed the functional capacity test; and that his disability with an impediment of Grade 8 shall continue up to three months. On the other, hand, while Dr. Tay's findings were vague and inconclusive, Dr. Runas was explicit in declaring that Gomez' injury is permanent because the same is resistant to physical therapy and treatment. Consistent with the findings of the company-designated physician, Dr. Runas observed that Gomez' low back pain is triggered by exertion, thus, limiting his forward and backward trunk motion. Dr. Runas opined that regardless of continuous medical intervention, Gomez could no longer perform strenuous and heavy work, making him "unfit for sea duty in whatever capacity x x x."[34] As between Dr. Runas' express declaration that petitioner is suffering from permanent disability and Dr. Tay's more positive assessment, the Court of Appeals gave merit to Dr. Runas' assessment that petitioner is suffering from permanent disability thus: As between Dr. Runas' express declaration that Gomez is suffering from permanent disability and Dr. Tay's more positive assessment, We give merit to the former's findings. In Abante v. KJGS Fleet Management Manila, et al., the Supreme Court recognized the propensity of the company-designated physicians, who are employed by the shipowner or the manning agency, to elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63243 6/17