1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly referring to his own doctor, which he did. Petitioner's doctor, on the other hand, issued a certification that merely stated that he was "Unfit to work for a year yet. Needs physical therapy because of muscle atrophy."[35] The Court finds that the assessment of the seafarer's doctor is not definite because it failed to state the seafarer's fitness to work or indicate his disability grade. The assessment is invalid. Similarly, in Sunit v. OSM Maritime Services, Inc.,[36] the Court found that an assessment that indicated a need for further rehabilitation is deemed an indefinite assessment and is therefore invalid, thus: In the case at bench, despite the disability grading that Dr. Bathan issued, petitioner's medical condition remained unresolved. For emphasis, Dr. Bathan's certification is reproduced hereunder: This is to certify that SUNIT, REYNALDO consulted the undersigned on 17 Feb. 2014 at Faculty Medical Arts Building, PGH Compound, Taft Ave., Manila. xxxx Patient is Gr. 9 according to POEA Schedule of disability. Patient is not yet fit to work and should undergo rehabilitation. (emphasis supplied) The language of Dr. Bathan's assessment brooks no argument that no final and definitive assessment was made concerning petitioner's disability. If it were otherwise, Dr. Bathan would not have recommended that he undergo further rehabilitation. Dr. Bathan's assessment of petitioner's degree of disability, therefore, is still inconclusive and indefinite.[37] The same is true for the assessment of petitioner's own doctor. It merely stated that he was unfit to work for a year and that he needed to undergo physical therapy. The assessment is inconclusive and indefinite and therefore not considered a valid assessment. Given the foregoing, although petitioner indeed moved for the referral to a third doctor during the conciliation and mediation stage,[38] and respondents failed to heed such request, such failure to heed the request cannot be taken against respondents because the assessment of petitioner's own doctor was invalid. Given the lack of a valid and definite assessment from the seafarer's doctor, the definite and valid assessment of the company-designated physician stands and is binding on the seafarer. The CA, NLRC, and LA were therefore all correct in relying on the assessment by the companydesignated physician that petitioner was fit to work, and in ruling that petitioner is not entitled to any disability benefit. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65636 7/10