1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Disability Grading was thus timely issued by the company-designated physician within the extended 240-day period which ended on March 6, 2015. Despite this, however, both the NLRC and the CA ruled that the disability assessment and medical report made by the company-designated physician were not accurate and precise as to Buico's medical condition based on their wording. A closer look at these documents, however, gives a contrary conclusion. The Final Medical Report[41] issued by the company-designated physician contained the following discussion as to Buico's condition: On December 1, 2014, [Buico] was reevaluated by Orthopedic Surgery service. At this time, he has completed a total of 36 sessions of physical therapy. Subjectively, the patent reported intermittent right foot pain of VAS 4/10 felt on prolonged walking and stair climbing. Objectively, [the] latest x-ray dated November 4, 2014 showed healed fracture with implants in place. Patient was able to tolerate full weight bearing, however there was note of a limping gait. Residual limitation in range of motion on the right ankle was noted. No other treatment intervention was indicated for the patient aside [from] continued self guided home exercises and as needed intake of pain medication. Mr. Buico was deemed maximally medically improved for the Orthopedic condition referred.[42] (Emphasis supplied) The Disability Grading[43] also issued by the company-designated physician on the same date contained the following statement: Should it be needed, [the] disability grading that closely corresponds to the patient's present functional capacity, in accordance [with] the 2010 POEA Standard Employment Contract, Section 32 (Schedule of Disability or Impediment for Injuries Suffered and Diseases Including Occupational Disease or Illness Contracted), Lower Extremities, Malleolar fracture with displacement of the foot inward or outward, is a Grade 10 disability. [44] (Emphasis supplied; italic in the original) After perusing the above excerpts, the Court disagrees with the findings of the CA and NLRC. The above documents show that the findings of the company-designated physician as to Buico's disability were final, accurate, and precise, especially since there was a specific disability grading and since it stated that there was no other treatment intervention indicated for Buico. It is likewise noteworthy that the disability grading given by the company-designated physician was a result of several months of diagnosis and treatment. In fact, this Grade 10 disability rating was already given to Buico at least twice as an interim disability grading, thereby further lending credence to the assessment given by the company-designated physician. In the face of such final disability grading given by the company designated physician within the prescribed period, the seafarer who intends to contest such assessment has the duty to observe the third doctor provision under the 2010 POEASEC.[45] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65874 6/10