BVA9500531 DOCKET NO. 93-06 862 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan, Puerto Rico THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for bilateral pterygium. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Nancy R. Kegerreis, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from October 1950 to October 1953. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a June 1990 rating decision by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Juan, Puerto Rico, which denied a compensable evaluation for bilateral pterygium. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends, essentially, that the pterygium on his right eye interferes with his vision, causing difficulties in his work as a chef. He alleges that he has had several on-the-job accidents because he could not see where he was putting things, especially knives, and that this condition is becoming more severe every day. 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 bilateral pterygium. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the appeal has been obtained. 2. The veteran had a pterygium removed from his left eye in the service, with some tissue remaining, and currently has a small, external pterygium in his right eye. 3. The veteran's visual acuity in both eyes is 20/30 with correction. CONCLUSION OF LAW The schedular criteria for a compensable disability rating for bilateral pterygium have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1-4.14, 4.75, 4.83, Diagnostic Code 6034 (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Board notes that the veteran's claim is well grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). That is, the Board finds that he has presented a claim which is plausible. We are also satisfied that all relevant and available facts have been properly developed. No further assistance to the veteran is required to comply with the duty to assist mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). The veteran is currently service connected for bilateral pterygium at a noncompensable evaluation, effective from July 1981. He filed his initial claim for service connection for this disorder and for permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes in July 1981, but the RO, at that time, denied both claims. In December 1984, the case came before the Board, which granted service connection for bilateral pterygium. The RO assigned a noncompensable evaluation, effective from July 1981. In October 1989, the veteran requested an increased rating, stating that his eye condition had become more severe and that he was submitting evidence of recent treatment by the VA. Upon denial of the claim in June 1990, the veteran appealed to the Board. In March 1992, the RO granted a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes, but denied a compensable evaluation for bilateral pterygium, on the ground that objective medical evidence failed to show that this disorder interfered with his vision to an extent which would warrant a compensable evaluation. The only extant service medical record is the veteran's separation medical examination, dated in September 1953, which refers to bilateral pterygium. A letter from a private optometrist, Hector M. Vazquez, O.D., stated that his examination in April 1979 revealed that a pterygium in the left eye had been extirpated when the veteran was in the Army. He noted also epiphora in the left eye. Refraction was hypertropic with astigmatism and presbyopia. There was an external pterygium in the right eye. An October 1981 VA disability evaluation examination noted a history of pterygium surgery on the left eye in 1952 and provided diagnoses of pterygium nasal, bilateral, recurrent in the left eye; conjunctivitis, chronic, severe; and refractive error and presbyopia. In May 1984, Dr. Vazquez again examined the veteran, noting that the right eye pterygium affected visual acuity and that the left eye pterygium had been extirpated. The unaided visual acuity was 20/100 in the right eye and 20/200 in the left eye. Corrected visual acuity was 20/40 in the right and 20/30 in the left. Dr. Vazquez noted that the veteran could not sustain close work without tears and irritation. He had chronic conjunctivitis, photophobia, and a 20 percent loss of vision. Dr. Vazquez noted similar findings in 1986. There was a nasal active pterygium in the right eye, with chronic conjunctivitis and pterygium extirpation with residual tissue in the cornea of the left eye. Corrected vision in the right eye was 20/50 and in the left eye was 20/40. In May 1989, the veteran was seen at a VA outpatient clinic for discomfort in his left eye, possibly due to a foreign body. Examination revealed a very small pterygium in the left eye. Visual acuity, corrected, was 20/30 in the right eye and 20/40 in the left. The veteran's most recent VA examination in January 1990 showed a corrected visual acuity of 20/30 in both eyes. Disability evaluations are administered under the Schedule for Rating Disabilities, located in 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (1993), which is designed to compensate a veteran for reductions in earning capacity as a result of injury or disease sustained as a result of or incidental to military service. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2 (1993); Bierman v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 125, 129 (1994). In evaluating a disability, the VA is required to consider the functional impairment caused by the specific disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10 (1993). Each disability must be evaluated in light of the veteran's medical and employment history, and from the point of view of the veteran's working or seeking work. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589, 592 (1991). The Board notes that the veteran has not worked since October 1990, due to numerous nonservice- connected disabilities. The veteran's eye disorder is evaluated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, the schedule of ratings for diseases of the eye. Pursuant to this regulation, pterygium is rated under Diagnostic Code 6034, which is referable to § 4.83a, impairment of central visual acuity. To determine the percentage evaluation allowable for a loss of visual acuity, one refers, in turn, to a chart which combines the degree of visual acuity of both eyes in order to provide an overall evaluation of visual loss. For a compensable evaluation of 10 percent, for example, visual impairment must show, at the minimum, a 20/50 measurement in one eye and 20/40 in the other. The veteran's visual acuity, however, as measured by VA examinations, does not fall into a range allowing compensation. The Board has been mindful of the doctrine of reasonable doubt, but the facts of this case and the regulations which must be applied afford no basis for the application of this regulation. The preponderance of the evidence, therefore, is against the claim for an increased schedular rating. The Board has also considered an extra-schedular compensable evaluation, but finds that this case does not present such an exceptional or unusual disability picture with such related factors as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization as to render impractical the application of the regular schedular standards. Accordingly, a compensable evaluation on this basis is not warranted. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b). (1993). ORDER Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for bilateral pterygium is denied. WARREN W. RICE, JR. 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.