BVA9504474 DOCKET NO. 92-00 782 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for iritis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from January 1980 to December 1990. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 1991 rating decision from the Detroit, Michigan, Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded the issue of entitlement to service connection for a back disorder in September 1992. As a result of the remand, the regional office granted service connection. Accordingly, the issue of entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is not before the Board. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL It is contended that iritis is more severe than currently evaluated. It is maintained that there have been flare-ups since separation form service; that the veteran has sought treatment; and that the veteran takes medication. 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 evidence supports a 20 percent evaluation for iritis. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the appeal has been obtained. 2. There is evidence of a chronic form of iritis. During the appeal period there has been medical evidence of activity. 3. The case does not present an exception or unusual disability picture with such related factors as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization as to render impractical the regular schedular standards. CONCLUSION OF LAW Iritis is 20 percent disability. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.7, Part 4, Code 6000, 6003 (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The veteran's claim for an increased rating is well grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). We find that he has presented a claim that is plausible. We are satisfied that all relevant facts have been properly developed. There is no indication of outstanding additional evidence. No further assistance to the veteran is required to comply with the duty to assist the veteran mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. Disability evaluations are based upon the average impairment of earning capacity as contemplated by a schedule for rating disabilities. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (1993). Although the VA must consider the entire record, the most pertinent evidence is those documents created in proximity to the recent claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (1993). The veteran has appealed the assignment of a noncompensable evaluation for iritis. The rating decisions in this case seem to indicate that there is no evidence of activity, and imply that in order to warrant a minimum 10 percent evaluation there must be activity or impairment of vision. We disagree. Regardless of the results of examinations conducted for compensation purposes, other VA records establish that the iritis (or uveitis) has been active and has required treatment. The Board accepts that the iritis (or uveitis) may have been quiescent at the times of the compensation examination. However, we also accept that there is evidence of activity at other times during the appeal period. The Board is under an obligation to review all the evidence of record, not just snapshots in time. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals has noted that when all the evidence is assembled, the Secretary, is then responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 55 (1990). For the reasons stated below, the evidence supports the assignment of a 20 percent evaluation for iritis. In December 1990, January 1991, and April 1991, there were medical impressions of recurrent iritis. At other times there were impressions of resolving iritis, again indicating some degree of activity. The opinions of competent medical professionals cannot be ignored. Because there has been evidence of activity (during the appeal period), a minimum 10 percent evaluation is assignable. 38 C.F.R. Part 4, Code 6000, 6003 (1993). However, the schedule also provides that: The above disabilities, in chronic form, are to be 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 continuance of active pathology. Minimum rating during active pathology...10 In addition to activity during the appeal period, examiners have repeatedly identified some residuals of the uveitis or iritis, including the possibility of a cataract and some pigment in both eyes. The rating schedule provides that the chronic form of the disease is to be rated from 10 to 100 percent. The rating schedule does not provide for a noncompensable evaluation when there are identified chronic residuals. Rather, if there are chronic residuals (regardless of the type) a 10 percent evaluation is to be granted. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that there is evidence of activity during the appeal period and evidence of a chronic form of iritis. Accordingly, a 20 percent evaluation is warranted. The evidence reflects that the disease has not resulted in frequent periods of hospitalizations or marked interference with employment. Furthermore, the veteran corrected visual acuity has remained normal and other significant manifestations such as the need for rest, field of vision loss or episodic incapacity has not been identified. See 38 C.F.R. Part 4, Code 6003, 6080 (1993). The presence of a possible cataract does not affect the evaluation, because such impairment is rated on the basis of impairment of vision, and the veteran's corrected visual acuity remains 20/20. See 38 Part 4, Code 6028, 6061-6079 (1993). Accordingly, an evaluation in excess of 20 is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321, Part 4, Code 6000-6003. ORDER A 20 evaluation for iritis is granted, subject to the controlling regulations applicable to the payment of monetary benefits. H. N. SCHWARTZ 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.