BVA9502345 DOCKET NO. 93-11 399 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for residuals of an injury of the right eye. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. D. Hayden, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran performed active duty from April 1982 to May 1984, and active duty for training from March to June 1990. Pursuant to a claim for an increased evaluation for residuals of an injury of the right eye received in December 1990, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office and Insurance Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (RO), continued the previously assigned noncompensable evaluation for that disorder. This matter has come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from that rating decision. The veteran and his representative have argued for a higher evaluation for residuals of a left knee injury and claimed service connection for bursitis of his right hip as secondary to the service-connected knee injury. These matters have not been developed or certified for appellate consideration. They are not inextricably intertwined with the appealed issue and we decline to assume jurisdiction of them. They are referred to the RO for appropriate action. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL It is claimed, in effect, that the symptoms of the right eye disability warrant a compensable evaluation. Reference has been made to the private clinical data of record. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for residuals of an injury of the right eye. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The relevant evidence necessary for an equitable adjudication of the appealed issue has been obtained by the RO and is of record. 2. The veteran has a scar in the right eye which does not impair his visual acuity; corrected visual acuity in the right eye is 20/20, both near and distant, and there are no complaints of diplopia or visual field defect. 3. The veteran has not submitted evidence tending to show that the residuals of the right eye injury produce an exceptional or unusual disability picture with related factors such as the need for frequent hospitalization or marked interference with employment. CONCLUSION OF LAW Residuals of a right eye injury do not warrant a compensable evaluation. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.7, 4.31, 4.75, 4.84a, Diagnostic Codes 6009, 6079 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The veteran's allegation of increased disability establishes a well-grounded claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. The veteran has been afforded a VA eye examination, and there is no indication that additional outstanding evidence is available that has not been obtained. The VA has met its duty to assist. Disability evaluations are intended to compensate for the average impairment of earning capacity, insofar as can practicably be determined, resulting from service-connected disabilities. They are primarily established by comparing objective examination findings with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Schedule). 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (1994). Injuries of the eye, in chronic form, are rated from 10 percent to 100 percent for impairment of visual acuity or field loss, pain, rest requirements or episodic incapacity combining an additional rating of 10 percent during the continuance of active pathology. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Diagnostic Code 6009 (1994). In every instance where the minimum schedular evaluation requires residuals and the schedule does not provide a no-percent evaluation, a no-percent evaluation will be assigned when the required residuals are not shown. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31 (1994). When examined for separation from service, the veteran reported that he had had a penetrating injury in his right eye which had been surgically repaired. Visual acuity was 20/200, bilaterally, corrected to 20/50 in the right eye and 20/20 in the left eye. During an April 1985 examination for VA purposes, the veteran reported that he had been hit in the right eye with a nail two years before and had had surgery for corneal abrasion. He reported that he had a "pulling sensation in the right eye with blurry visual acuity." Corrected visual acuity was 20/50 in the right eye and 20/25 in the left eye. The external eye, extraocular muscles and pupillary examinations were within normal limits. Slit-lamp examination of the right eye showed a well- healed corneal laceration, nasally, outside of the visual axis. The examiner's impression was corneal leukoma, right eye. The examiner said that the decreased visual acuity was probably secondary to irregular astigmatism and that if the veteran were to be fitted with a contact lens his visual acuity could be expected to improve to approximately 20/20. The veteran was seen by the VA in March 1988 for complaints of a decrease in visual acuity in his right eye. Examination revealed a deep scar in the right eye; the remainder of the examination was essentially normal; both lenses were clear. Diagnostic assessment was myopia and astigmatism of the right eye secondary to corneal trauma with scar. Visual acuity in the right eye could be corrected to 20/25; corrected visual acuity was 20/20 in the left eye. He was seen again in May 1988 for contact lens evaluation. At that time, corrected visual acuity was 20/25, bilaterally. A September 1988 VA examination found the veteran's corrected visual acuity to be 20/20-2 in the right eye and 20/20 in the left eye. There was a corneal opacity and a corneal scar secondary to trauma. The diagnostic assessments were myopia in the left eye, myopia with astigmatism in the right eye and a very slight decrease in vision due to the corneal scar in the right eye. A May 1992 VA eye examination found uncorrected visual acuity in the veteran's right eye to be 20/60 near and 20/400 distant; corrected visual acuity in each eye was 20/20, both near and distant. The examiner said no symptoms of diplopia were reported and that extraocular muscle function was normal. No visual field defects were suspected; confrontation fields were normal in each eye. There was approximately a 5-millimeter full thickness scar on the nasal third of the cornea. The anterior chamber was deep and quiet in each eye and the iris was normal in each eye with no evidence of traumatic injury on the right side. The lens was clear in each eye. The diagnoses were corneal scar of the right eye secondary to previous penetrating injury with excellent visual acuity, myopia in each eye, moderate astigmatism in the right eye secondary to a previous corneal injury and normal posterior segment with no evidence of other ocular pathology associated with trauma. It was noted that the veteran had no ocular complaints. With exceptions not here applicable, the best distant vision obtainable after the best correction by glasses will be the basis of rating defective vision. 38 C.F.R. § 4.75. Because service connection is in effect only for the right eye disorder, and the veteran is not blind, vision in the left eye must be presumed to be 20/20. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.383, 4.14 (1994). Defective vision is noncompensably disabling where vision in both eyes is 20/40 or better. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Diagnostic Code 6079. The veteran does not have sufficient impairment of his visual acuity to warrant a compensable evaluation nor is there any other impairment of function shown. The eye injury is healed and there is no active pathology nor is there any indication of significant pain, rest requirement or other basis for the assignment of a compensable evaluation under the schedular criteria. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Diagnostic Code 6009. In exceptional cases where the schedular evaluations are found to be inadequate, an extraschedular evaluation, commensurate with the average earning capacity impairment due exclusively to the service-connected disability or disabilities may be approved provided the case presents an exceptional or unusual disability picture with such related factors as marked interference with employment or the need for frequent periods of hospitalization. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). There is nothing in the record to indicate that the veteran has been hospitalized because of the scar in his right eye after the initial treatment. Also, there is no indication of marked interference with employment as a result of the scar. Accordingly, a compensable evaluation is not warranted on an extraschedular basis. Id. ORDER An increased (compensable) evaluation for residuals of a scar of the right eye is denied. THOMAS J. DANNAHER Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.