Citation Nr: 21073021 Decision Date: 12/07/21 Archive Date: 12/07/21 DOCKET NO. 17-45 895 DATE: December 7, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for polycoria of the right eye with retinal scar and traumatic aphakia, secondary to blast concussion with traumatic cataract and defective vision is denied. FINDING OF FACT For the entire appeal period, the Veteran's corrected visual acuity for distance has been 20/70 at worst in the right eye and 20/40 or better in the left eye; he did not have impairment of visual field or muscle function or any incapacitating episodes due to his service-connected polycoria of the right eye. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a rating in excess of 30 percent for a polycoria of the right eye with retinal scar and traumatic aphakia, secondary to blast concussion with traumatic cataract and defective vision have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.383, 4.14.14, 4.754.79, Diagnostic Codes 6011-6066. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1966 to February 1968, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Jurisdiction of this appeal is currently with the RO in Los Angeles, California. In his Substantive Appeal to the Board, the Veteran requested a hearing before a member of the Board. He was notified of his scheduled August 2021 hearing by letter in January 2021. In a May 2021 correspondence, the Veteran requested cancellation of his hearing request. His hearing request is deemed withdrawn. Increased Rating Polycoria of the Right Eye The Veteran seeks entitlement to a higher rating for his polycoria of the right eye with retinal scar and traumatic aphakia, secondary to blast concussion with traumatic cataract and defective vision. Specifically, the Veteran asserted that the eye examination received was vague and did not adequately address the impact of his polycoria of the right eye on his daily life. See Notice of Disagreement, November 18, 2016. Additionally, the Veteran's representative contends that the most recent VA examination from October 20, 2017 is too remote to accurately evaluate the disability. See Appellate Brief, August 10, 2021. Disability evaluations are determined by evaluating the extent to which a veteran's service-connected disability adversely affects his ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment, by comparing his symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule). 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that evaluation. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Reasonable doubt as to the degree of disability will be resolved in the veteran's favor. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. It is permissible to switch diagnostic codes to reflect more accurately a claimant's current symptoms. See Read v. Shinseki, 651 F.3d 1296, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, the present level of disability is of primary concern. Although a rating specialist is directed to review the recorded history of a disability in order to make a more accurate evaluation, see 38 C.F.R. § 4.2, the regulations do not give past medical reports precedence over current findings. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55 (1994). Pertinent regulations do not require that all cases show all findings specified by the Rating Schedule, but that findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the resulting disability and above all, coordination of rating with impairment of function will be expected in all cases. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21. Therefore, the Board has considered the potential application of various other provisions of the regulations governing VA benefits, whether or not they were raised by the veteran, as well as the entire history of the Veteran's disability in reaching its decision. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 595 (1991). In general, all disabilities, including those arising from a single disease entity, are rated separately, and all disability ratings are then combined in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.25. Pyramiding, the evaluation of the same disability, or the same manifestation of a disability, under different diagnostic codes, is to be avoided when rating a veteran's service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14. It is possible for a veteran to have separate and distinct manifestations from the same injury which would permit rating under several diagnostic codes, however, the critical element in permitting the assignment of several ratings under various diagnostic codes is that none of the symptomatology for any one of the conditions is duplicative or overlapping with the symptomatology of the other condition. See Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-62 (1994). Separate ratings can be assigned for separate periods based on the facts found - a practice known as "staged" ratings. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). Staged ratings are appropriate whenever the factual findings show distinct periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. Id. The basis of disability evaluation is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. The veteran is competent to report symptoms and experiences observable by his senses. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence as to any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA will resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting its decision, there is no obligation to discuss, in detail, the extensive evidence of record. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that the Board must review the entire record but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence). Therefore, the Board will summarize the relevant evidence where appropriate, and the Board's analysis will focus specifically on what the evidence shows, or fails to show, as it relates to the Veteran's claims. The Veteran's polycoria of the right eye is rated as 30 percent under Diagnostic Code 6077. 38 C.F.R. § 4.79. The evaluation of visual impairment is based on impairment of visual acuity (excluding developmental errors of refraction), visual field, and muscle function. 38 C.F.R. § 4.75(a). Examinations of visual impairment must be conducted by a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist, and the examiner must identify the disease, injury, or other pathologic process for any visual impairment found. Id. § 4.75(b). Examinations of visual field or muscle function will be conducted only when medically indicated. Id. 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. Generally, the table is divided into steps corresponding to different levels of visual acuity for one eye, and each step is further divided into subsections of visual acuity for the other eye, with corresponding ratings. The rater will first locate the step that matches the visual acuity of the poorer eye. Within that step, the rater will then locate the subsection that matches the visual acuity of the better eye, which will produce the corresponding rating. Where a reported visual acuity is between two sequentially listed visual acuities, the visual acuity which permits the higher evaluation will be used. 38 C.F.R. § 4.76(c). Impairment of central visual acuity is evaluated on the basis of corrected distance vision with central fixation, even if a central scotoma is present. 38 C.F.R. § 4.76. Visual acuity is evaluated from noncompensable to 100 percent based upon the degree of the resulting 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. 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, Diagnostic Codes 6061 to 6066. A 10 percent rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) if corrected visual acuity is 20/100 in one eye and 20/40 in the other eye; (2) if corrected visual acuity is 20/70 in one eye and 20/40 in the other eye; (3) if corrected visual acuity is 20/50 in one eye and 20/40 in the other eye; (4) or when corrected visual acuity is 20/50 in both eyes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Diagnostic Codes 6078, 6079; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, Diagnostic Code 6066. A 20 percent rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) if corrected visual acuity is 15/200 in one eye and 20/40 in the other eye; (2) if corrected visual acuity is 20/200 in one eye and 20/40 in the other eye; (3) if corrected visual acuity is 20/100 in one eye and 20/50 in the other eye; or (4) corrected visual acuity of 20/70 in one eye and 20/50 in the other eye. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Diagnostic Codes 6077, 6078; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, Diagnostic Code 6066. A 30 percent rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) corrected visual acuity in both eyes is 20/70; (2) corrected visual acuity in one eye is 20/100 and the other eye is 20/70; (3) corrected visual acuity in one eye is 20/200 in one eye and 20/50 in the other eye; (4) corrected visual acuity in one eye is 15/200 and 20/50 in the other eye; (5) corrected visual acuity in one eye is 10/200 and 20/40 in the other eye; (6) corrected visual acuity in one eye is 5/200 and 20/40 in the other eye; or (7) blindness of one eye and corrected vision to 20/40 in the other eye. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Diagnostic Codes 6070, 6074, 6076, 6077, 6078; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, Diagnostic Codes 6064, 6065, 6066. A 40 percent rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 20/200 and 20/70 in the other eye; (2) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 15/200 and 20/70 in the other eye; (3) corrected visual acuity in one eye is to 10/200 and 20/50 in the other eye; (4) corrected visual acuity is to 5/200 in one eye and 20/50 in the other eye; or (5) blindness or anatomical loss of one eye and corrected vision in the other eye to 20/50 and 20/40, respectively, in the other eye. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Diagnostic Codes, 6066, 6070, 6073, 6076; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, Diagnostic Codes 6064, 6065, 6066. A 50 percent rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) corrected visual acuity is to 20/100 in both eyes; (2) corrected visual acuity is to 10/200 in one eye and to 20/70 in the other eye; (3) corrected visual acuity is to 5/200 in one eye and 20/70 in the other eye; or (4) blindness or anatomical loss of one eye and corrected vision in the other eye to 20/70 and 20/50, respectively. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Diagnostic Codes, 6065, 6069, 6073, 6076, 6078; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, Diagnostic Codes 6064, 6065, 6066. A 60 percent rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 20/200 and the other eye is 20/100; (2) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 15/200 and the other eye is to 20/100; (3) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 10/200 and the other eye is to 20/100; (4) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 5/200 and the other eye is to 20/100; or (5) blindness or anatomical loss of one eye and corrected vision in the other eye to 20/100 or 20/70 or 20/100, respectively. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Diagnostic Codes, 6065, 6069, 6073, 6076; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, Diagnostic Codes 6064, 6065, 6066. A 70 percent rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 20/200 and the other eye is 20/200; (2) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 15/200 and the other eye is to 20/200; (3) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 10/200 and the other eye is to 20/200; (4) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 5/200 and the other eye is to 20/200; or (5) blindness or anatomical loss of one eye and corrected vision in the other eye to 20/200. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Diagnostic Codes 6064, 6068, 6072, 6075; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, Diagnostic Codes 6064, 6065, 6066. An 80 percent rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 15/200 and the other eye is 15/200; (2) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 10/200 and the other eye is to 15/200; (3) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 5/200 and the other eye is to 15/200; or (4) blindness or anatomical loss of one eye and corrected vision in the other eye to 15/200. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Diagnostic Codes 6064, 6068, 6072, 6075; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, Diagnostic Codes 6064, 6065, 6066. A 90 percent rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 10/200 and the other eye is 10/200; (2) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 5/200 and the other eye is to 10/200; or (3) blindness or anatomical loss of one eye and corrected vision in the other eye to 10/200. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Diagnostic Codes 6064, 6068, 6072, 6075; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, Diagnostic Codes 6064, 6065, 6066. A 100 percent rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 5/200 and the other eye is 5/200; (2) blindness or anatomical loss of one eye and corrected vision in the other eye to 5/200; or (3) blindness or anatomical loss of both eyes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Diagnostic Codes 6061, 6062, 6063, 6067, 6071; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, Diagnostic Codes 6064 and 6065. Examinations of visual acuity must include the central uncorrected and corrected visual acuity for distance and near vision using Snellen's test type or its equivalent. 38 C.F.R. § 4.76(a). Evaluation of central visual acuity on the basis of corrected distance vision with central fixation, even if a central scotoma is present. 38 C.F.R. § 4.76(b). However, when the lens required to correct distance vision in the poorer eye differs by more than three diopters from the lens required to correct distance vision in the better eye (and the difference is not due to congenital or developmental refractive error), and either the poorer eye or both eyes are service connected, evaluate the visual acuity of the poorer eye using either its uncorrected or corrected visual acuity, whichever results in better combined visual acuity. Id. 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. 83 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 both the former and revised criteria, a 10 percent rating is warranted for localized scars, atrophy, or irregularities of the retina, unilateral or bilateral, that are centrally located and that result in an irregular, duplicated, enlarged, or diminished image. Both versions of the criteria also provide for an alternative basis for the evaluation if it results in a higher rating. Under the former criteria, the alternative evaluation is based on visual impairment due to retinal scars, atrophy, or irregularities. Under the revised criteria, the alternative evaluation is based on the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye. The General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye instructs to evaluate a condition based on visual impairment or its rating criteria for incapacitating episodes. Thus, the primary difference between the former and revised criteria is consideration of incapacitating episodes. Under the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye, where there are documented incapacitating episodes requiring at least 5 but less than 7 treatment visits for an eye condition during the past 12 months, a 40 percent rating is warranted. Where there are documented incapacitating episodes requiring 7 or more treatment visits for an eye condition during the past 12 months, a 60 percent rating is warranted. Note (1) indicates that, for the purposes of evaluations under 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, an incapacitating episode is an eye condition severe enough to require a clinic visit to a provider specifically for treatment purposes. Note (2) indicates that examples of treatment may include but are not limited to: systemic immunosuppressants or biologic agents; intravitreal or periocular injections; laser treatments; or other surgical interventions. Evaluation of visual field is based on the remaining field of vision in each eye. The examiner must record the remaining visual field of at least 16 meridians 2212 degrees apart for each eye, even though only the visual field at eight principal meridians 45 degrees apart will be used for rating purposes. Id. The table of Ratings for Impairment of Visual Fields provides ratings for visual field loss. The first half of the table provides ratings based on loss of an entire half of field of vision in an eye. The second half of the table provides ratings based on the average concentric contraction of the visual field of each eye. To calculate average concentric contraction, the rater should add the remaining visual field (in degrees) at each of eight principal meridians 45 degrees apart and divide the sum by eight. 38 C.F.R. § 4.77(b). To determine the evaluation for visual impairment when both decreased visual acuity and visual field defect are present in one or both eyes and are service connected, separately evaluate the visual acuity and visual field defect (expressed as a level of visual acuity) and combine them under the provisions of § 4.25. 38 C.F.R. § 4.77(c). Both the former and revised criteria provide for consideration of visual impairment, which is based on impairment of visual acuity (excluding developmental errors of refraction), visual field, and muscle function. 38 C.F.R. § 4.75(a). The amendments made no substantive changes to how visual acuity is rated. With regard to visual field and muscle function examinations, the use of a Goldmann chart is no longer required. There are otherwise no substantive changes to how those types of visual impairment are rated. When both decreased visual acuity and visual field defect are present in one or both eyes and are service connected, the visual acuity and visual field defect are separately evaluated and combined under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.25. 38 C.F.R. § 4.77(c). The table of Ratings for Impairment of Visual Fields encompasses Diagnostic Codes 6080 6081. Homonymous hemianopsia is rated 30 percent. Loss of temporal half of visual field warrants a 30 percent rating is it is bilateral and a 10 percent rating if it is unilateral. Alternatively, this equates to 20/70 vision in each affected eye. Loss of nasal half of visual field warrants a 10 percent rating, whether or not the effect is bilateral or unilateral. Alternatively, this equates to 20/50 vision in each affected eye. Loss of inferior half of visual field warrants a 30 percent rating is it is bilateral and a 10 percent rating if it is unilateral. Alternatively, this equates to 20/70 vision in each affected eye. Loss of superior half of visual field warrants a 10 percent rating, whether or not the effect is bilateral or unilateral. Alternatively, this equates to 20/50 vision in each affected eye. Ratings are also provided for concentric contraction of visual field. Where there is a remaining field of 46 to 60 degrees, a 10 percent rating is warranted for either bilateral or unilateral involvement. Alternatively, this equates to 20/50 vision in each affected eye. Where there is a remaining field of 31 to 45 degrees, a 30 percent rating is warranted for bilateral involvement and a 10 percent rating is warranted for unilateral involvement. Alternatively, this equates to 20/70 vision in each eye. Where there is a remaining field of 16 to 30 degrees, a 50 percent rating is warranted for bilateral involvement and a 10 percent rating is warranted for unilateral involvement. Alternatively, this equates to 20/100 vision in each affected eye. Where there is a remaining field of 6 to 15 degrees, a 70 percent rating is warranted for bilateral involvement and a 20 percent rating is warranted for unilateral involvement. Alternatively, this equates to 20/200 vision in each affected eye. Where there is a remaining field of 5 degrees, a 100 percent rating is warranted for bilateral involvement and a 30 percent rating is warranted for unilateral involvement. Alternatively, this equates to 5/200 vision in each affected eye. Turning to the evidence, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in September 2016. At that time, the examiner diagnosed traumatic retinal scar, traumatic polycoria, and traumatic aphakia of the right eye. The Veteran reported his condition began with an injury, and he had continuing problems with bright sunlight and glare, had to wear dark sunglasses, and used eye drops to treat his right eye. He reported that the condition had worsened, and he experienced pain on the upper right side of his face with dizzy spells. Additionally, he reported headaches and medication to help sleep as symptoms. The Veteran denied having any incapacitating episodes attributable to any eye condition in the past 12 months. Upon physical examination in September 2016, visual acuity for corrected distance was as follows: right eye was 20/70; left eye was 20/40 or better. The Veteran did not have a difference equal to two or more lines on the Snellen test type chart or its equivalent between distance and near corrected vision, with the near vision being worse. The Veteran did not have anatomical loss, light perception only, extremely poor vision or blindness of either eye. The Veteran did not have astigmatism nor diplopia. The Veteran had shallow anterior chamber of the right eye, peripheral iridectomy of the right eye, and aphakia of the right eye. He was also shown to have a scar near the macula on the right side and had a chorioretinal scar on the right side. Visual field testing in September 2016 showed a visual field defect, tested using the Goldmann's equivalent III/4e target. The Goldmann Charts were associated with the claims file. The examiner indicated the Veteran had loss of nasal half of visual field and scotoma that was centrally located. He did not have legal blindness based upon visual field loss. For the September 2016 VA examination, perimetry as to the Veteran's right eye showed the remaining visual fields were, in degrees: Meridian Normal Degrees Right Eye Up 45 38 Up Temporally 55 38 Temporally 85 45 Down Temporally 85 46 Down 65 46 Down Nasally 50 35 Nasally 60 28 Up Nasally 55 26 Total 500 302 Adding the remaining visual field for the Veteran's right eye at each principal meridian results in a total remaining visual field of 302 degrees. Dividing 302 by 8 and rounding to the nearest whole number, results in an average concentric contraction 38 of the visual field for the right eye. The September 2016 VA examiner noted the Veteran had postoperative cataract with aphakia or dislocation of the crystalline lens on the right side, with decrease in visual acuity or other impairment due to aphakia. Additionally, the Veteran was shown to have centrally located retinal scars, atrophy or irregularities in either eye that result in irregular, duplicated, enlarged or diminished image in the right eye that resulted in decrease in visual acuity or other visual impairment due to the retinal scar of the right eye. There were no other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs and/or symptoms shown. The examiner found the Veteran did not have scarring or disfigurement attributable to any eye condition. The Veteran did not have any incapacitating episodes attributable to an eye condition in the past 12 months. The examiner noted the Veteran's right eye impacted his ability to work due to poor depth perception. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in October 2017. At that time, in pertinent part, the examiner diagnosed traumatic aphakia, retinal scar, and visual field defect secondary to trauma from shrapnel of the right eye. Upon physical examination in October 2017, visual acuity for corrected distance was as follows: right eye was 20/70; left eye was 20/40 or better. The Veteran did not have a difference equal to two or more lines on the Snellen test type chart or its equivalent between distance and near corrected vision, with the near vision being worse. The Veteran did not have astigmatism nor diplopia. The Veteran had traumatic iridectomy and aphakia of the right eye. Internal eye examination showed peripapillary pigment, central scar, and vitreous floaters in the right eye. Visual field testing in October 2017 showed a visual field defect, tested using the Goldmann's equivalent III/4e target. The Goldmann Charts were associated with the claims file. The Veteran had contraction of a visual field, and the examiner noted he had a large blind spot on the right side. He did not have legal blindness based upon visual field loss. For the October 2017 VA examination, perimetry as to the Veteran's right eye showed the remaining visual fields were, in degrees: Meridian Normal Degrees Right Eye Up 45 30 Up Temporally 55 38 Temporally 85 40 Down Temporally 85 42 Down 65 40 Down Nasally 50 38 Nasally 60 25 Up Nasally 55 30 Total 500 283 Adding the remaining visual field for the Veteran's right eye at each principal meridian results in a total remaining visual field of 283 degrees. Dividing 283 by 8 and rounding to the nearest whole number, results in an average concentric contraction 35 of the visual field for the right eye. The October 2017 VA examiner noted the Veteran had preoperative cataract with aphakia or dislocation of the crystalline lens on the right side, with decrease in visual acuity or other impairment due to aphakia. Additionally, the Veteran was shown to have peripapillary pigment that resulted in decrease in visual acuity or other visual impairment due to the retinal scar of the right eye. Further, the Veteran was shown to have maculopathy and centrally located retinal scars, atrophy of irregularities in either eye that result in irregular, duplicated, enlarged or diminished image in either eye that resulted in decreased visual acuity or visual impairment due to the traumatic scar of the right eye. There were no other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs and/or symptoms shown. The examiner found the Veteran did not have scarring or disfigurement attributable to any eye condition. The Veteran did not have any incapacitating episodes attributable to an eye condition in the past 12 months. The examiner noted the Veteran's right eye impacted his ability to work due to poor depth perception. The examiner remarked that the Veteran's traumatic aphakia affected the right eye, and that the Veteran had retinal scars and visual field defect of the right eye. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that a rating in excess of 30 percent for his polycoria of the right eye is not warranted. As noted above, the rating period on appeal pre- and post-dates May 13, 2018, when the amended regulations went into effect, and therefore both the former and amended criteria are for consideration. The evaluation of visual impairment is based on impairment of visual acuity (excluding developmental errors of refraction), visual field, and muscle function. 38 C.F.R. § 4.75(a). Here, a higher rating based on loss of visual field or a separate compensable rating based on muscle function do not apply as they are not shown by the evidence. Specifically, the Veteran was not shown to have visual field impairment that was bilateral to warrant a higher than 30 percent rating, and a 30 percent rating is the maximum schedular rating based on unilateral involvement; and the Veteran was not shown to have impairment of muscle function. 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. Generally, the table is divided into steps corresponding to different levels of visual acuity for one eye, and each step is further divided into subsections of visual acuity for the other eye, with corresponding ratings. The rater will first locate the step that matches the visual acuity of the poorer eye. Within that step, the rater will then locate the subsection that matches the visual acuity of the better eye, which will produce the corresponding rating. Where a reported visual acuity is between two sequentially listed visual acuities, the visual acuity which permits the higher evaluation will be used. 38 C.F.R. § 4.76(c). The table of Impairment of Central Visual Acuity encompasses Diagnostic Codes 6061-66. 38 C.F.R. § 4.79. The evidence shows that the Veteran's right eye disorder resulted in decrease in visual acuity for the entire appeal period. Throughout the period on appeal, the Veteran was shown to have, at worst, corrected distance visual acuity of 20/70 in the right eye and 20/40 or better in the left eye. See September 2016 and October 2017 VA examination reports. Based on the foregoing, during the appeal period, the Veteran's corrected visual acuity for distance has been, at worst, right eye was 20/70; left eye was 20/40 or better for the entire appeal period. He also has retinal scar; however, this has not resulted in visual impairment specified under the rating criteria. Thus, Diagnostic Code 6066 applies, and the Veteran's impairment of visual acuity does not warrant a rating higher than the 30 percent currently assigned under the applicable diagnostic code. Therefore, a rating in excess of 30 percent is not warranted. The Board has considered whether a higher rating is warranted for the Veteran's right eye disorder, under another diagnostic code. Here, the medical evidence of record fails to show a finding of impairment of muscle function, to include diplopia, or any documented incapacitating episodes requiring at least three but less than five treatment visits for the Veteran's right eye cataracts within a 12-month period. Notably, the Veteran denied incapacitating episodes at both VA examinations of record. Thus, a rating in excess of 30 percent is not warranted under this criterion. Therefore, the Veteran is not entitled to a higher rating at any time during the period on appeal. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's statements that his right eye symptoms are more severe than evaluated because the VA examination reports are vague, did not adequately address the impact of his polycoria of the right eye on his daily life, and the October 2017 VA examination is too remote to accurately evaluate the disability. The Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and has presented credible statements in this regard. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994). The Board finds, however, that neither the Veteran's statement nor medical evidence demonstrates that the criteria for higher rating have been met. The Board also acknowledges that the Veteran's VA treatment records note complaints of and treatment for his polycoria of the right eye. However, these records do not address the specific rating criteria necessary to determine severity. In determining the actual degree of disability, the examination findings are more probative of the degree of impairment. Additionally, the Board acknowledges his assertions that the October 2017 VA examination report is too remote and vague to adequately address the severity of his polycoria of the right eye. However, the Board notes that neither the Veteran nor his representative have indicated that his right eye disorder has worsened in any way since his October 2017 VA examination, nor do they elaborate on why the VA examination is inadequate. The Board notes, however, that the "mere passage of time" between a prior VA medical examination and a claim's adjudication is not, in and of itself, sufficient to compel VA to provide a new, contemporaneous examination. Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 180 (2007). The Veteran merely asserts a conclusion, without support, that the VA examination is inadequate. The Board finds the September 2016 and October 2017 VA examination report adequate and complete to address the symptoms and severity of his polycoria of the right eye based upon the applicable and appropriate diagnostic criteria. The VA examination reports provide all of the relevant and necessary information for the Board to determine the severity of his polycoria of the right eye, to include visual acuity and visual field testing, and evidence to show the Veteran did not have diplopia, muscle function impairment, nor incapacitating episodes. There is no indication that the VA examination reports are inaccurate or inadequate in any way. These arguments are therefore without merit. The Board has considered whether a staged rating under Hart v. Mansfield, supra, is warranted, however, the Board finds that his symptomatology has been stable throughout the period on appeal. Therefore, assigning additional staged ratings is not warranted. Further, neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017). Additionally, the Board has considered whether an inferred claim for a total disability based upon individual unemployability has been raised pursuant to Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). Neither the Veteran nor his representative has alleged that he is unable to secure and maintain substantially gainful employment. Moreover, the Veteran's current employment status is not clear from the record. As such, a Rice claim is not raised. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the assignment of a rating in excess of 30 percent for his polycoria of the right eye and the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, supra. KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Mariah N. Sim, Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.