6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly seafarer may have basis to pursue an action for total and permanent disability benefits, if any of the following conditions are present: (a) The company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the 120day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment would address his temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of the period to 240 days; (b) 240 days had lapsed without any certification issued by the company designated physician; (c) The company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case may be, but his physician of choice and the doctor chosen under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion; (d) The company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly with his employer, believed that his disability is not only permanent but total as well; (e) The company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading; (f) The company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-ofchoice and the third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and declared him unfit to work; (g) The company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and (h) The company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of said periods. [34] Significantly, however, when petitioner filed his complaint with the arbitration office on April 5, 2010, he had yet to consult his own physician, Dr. Jacinto. It means that, at that time, he was simply armed with: 1] the medical findings of the companydesignated physician that he was fit to work; and 2] his Affidavit Complaint[35] where he made his own conclusion that his right leg was again fractured because of the incident that occurred in the M/V Ibis Arrow, stating: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58873 9/13