Citation Nr: 18160046 Decision Date: 12/21/18 Archive Date: 12/20/18 DOCKET NO. 17-12 135 DATE: December 21, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a compensable rating for right pterygium is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s right pterygium does not cause any visual impairment or objective symptomatology and has not resulted in any incapacitating episodes. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to a compensable rating for right pterygium have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.79, Diagnostic Code 6034 (2017, 2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION 1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for right pterygium The Veteran currently has a noncompensable rating for right pterygium under Diagnostic Code 6034. During the pendency of the appeal, VA issued a final rule revising the portion of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities that addresses the organs of special sense and schedule of ratings-eye. 89 Fed. Reg. 15316 (Apr. 10, 2018). The final rule went into effect May 13, 2018. Where there is a change in the rating criteria during the appeal period, the Board will consider the claim in light of both the former and revised schedular rating criteria, although an increased evaluation based on the revised criteria cannot predate the effective date of the amendments. Under the former criteria, Diagnostic Code 6034 directs that pterygium should be evaluated on the basis of visual impairment, conjunctivitis under Diagnostic Code 6018, disfigurement under Diagnostic Code 7800, or other appropriate diagnostic code depending on the particular findings. 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, Diagnostic Code 6034 (2017). Under the revised criteria, Diagnostic Code 6034 directs that pterygium should be evaluated under the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye, Diagnostic Code 7800, Diagnostic Code 6018, or other appropriate diagnostic code depending on the particular findings. 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, Diagnostic Code 6034 (2018). The General Rating Formal for Diseases of the Eye instructs to evaluate on the basis of either visual impairment due to a particular condition or on incapacitating episodes, whichever results in a higher evaluation. Here, the evidence does not reflect that the Veteran has experienced any incapacitating episodes due to his right pterygium. Thus, a compensable rating is not warranted on that basis. The evaluation of visual impairment under both the previous and revised regulations is based on impairment of visual acuity (excluding developmental errors of refraction), visual field, and muscle function. 38 C.F.R. § 4.75(a). There were no substantive changes under the new regulations to how visual acuity, visual field, or muscle function are rated. Evaluation of visual acuity is based on corrected distance vision with central fixation. 38 C.F.R. § 4.76(b)(1). The measurements for each eye are applied to the table for Impairment of Central Visual Acuity. 38 C.F.R. § 4.76(c). Here, a December 2014 private treatment record indicates the Veteran’s right eye vision is correctable to 20/30 and a disability benefits questionnaire completed by a private provider in November 2016 notes vision correctable in the right eye to 20/40 or better. A compensable rating based on loss of visual acuity requires vision of 20/50 or worse. Thus, a compensable rating is not warranted on the basis of loss of visual acuity. Evaluation of visual field is based on the remaining field of vision in each eye. 38 C.F.R. § 4.77. No loss of visual field was found on private examination in November 2016, and the Veteran has not contended he has any visual field loss Therefore, a compensable rating is not warranted on the basis of loss of visual field. Evaluations of visual impairment of muscle function is based on the degree of diplopia. 38 C.F.R. § 4.78(a). There is no evidence here that the Veteran has diplopia, therefore, a compensable evaluation for impairment of muscle function is not warranted. Finally, there is no evidence that the Veteran’s right pterygium results in any characteristics of disfigurement such that a rating would be warranted under Diagnostic Code 7800. Under Diagnostic Code 7800, a 10 percent disability rating is warranted for one characteristic of disfigurement. Note (1) to Diagnostic Code 7800 defines the 8 characteristics of disfigurement as: (1) a scar 5 or more inches (13 or more cm.) in length; (2) a scar at least one-quarter inch (0.6 cm.) wide at widest part; (3) surface contour of a scar elevated or depressed on palpation; (4) a scar adherent to underlying tissue; (5) skin hypo-or hyper-pigmented in an area exceeding six square inches (39 sq. cm.); (6) skin texture abnormal (irregular, atrophic, shiny, scaly, etc.) in an area exceeding six square inches (39 sq. cm.); (7) underlying soft tissue missing in an area exceeding six square inches (39 sq. cm.); and (8) skin indurated and inflexible in an area exceeding six square inches (39 sq. cm.). 38 C.F.R. § 4.118. On private examination in November 2016, the Veteran was noted to have a stable corneal scar due to a past pterygium excision. No other symptoms or functional loss were noted. Both the former and revised criteria for Diagnostic Code 6018 for rating conjunctivitis distinguish active and inactive disease processes. Under the former criteria, an active disease process (with objective findings, such as red, thick conjunctivitae, mucous secretion, etc.) is assigned a 10 percent rating. Under the revised criteria, an active disease process is rated pursuant to the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye, with a minimum rating of 10 percent. Inactive chronic conjunctivitis is rated on residuals. 38 C.F.R. § 4.79. The Veteran has argued he is entitled to a 10 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 6018. The Board acknowledges that, if appropriate, pterygium may be rated under Diagnostic Code 6018. However, here, the evidence does not reflect that the Veteran experiences chronic conjunctivitis or similar symptoms such that a rating under Diagnostic Code 6018 would be appropriate. The private November 2016 VA examination noted no conjunctivitis or other conjunctival condition. The only right eye symptom reported by the Veteran was blurred vision in a March 2017 statement. The Board finds that the Veteran does not have active conjunctivitis or any objective findings of such a condition. Therefore, a rating under Diagnostic Code 6018 is not appropriate. (Continued on the next page)   Based on the forgoing, the Board finds that a compensable rating is not warranted for the Veteran’s s right pterygium. H. SEESEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Christensen