(a) Examination of visual fields. Examiners must use either Goldmann kinetic perimetry or automated perimetry using Humphrey Model 750, Octopus Model 101, or later versions of these perimetric devices with simulated kinetic Goldmann testing capability. For phakic (normal) individuals, as well as for pseudophakic or aphakic individuals who are well adapted to intraocular lens implant or contact lens correction, visual field examinations must be conducted using a standard target size and luminance, which is Goldmann's equivalent III/4e. For aphakic individuals not well adapted to contact lens correction or pseudophakic individuals not well adapted to intraocular lens implant, visual field examinations must be conducted using Goldmann's equivalent IV/4e. The examiner must document the results for at least 16 meridians 22
1/2 degrees apart for each eye and indicate the Goldmann equivalent used. See Table III for the normal extent (in degrees) of the visual fields at the 8 principal meridians (45 degrees apart). When the examiner indicates that additional testing is necessary to evaluate visual fields, the additional testing must be conducted using either a tangent screen or a 30-degree threshold visual field with the Goldmann III stimulus size. The examination report must document the results of either the tangent screen or of the 30-degree threshold visual field with the Goldmann III stimulus size.
(b) Evaluation of visual fields. Determine the average concentric contraction of the visual field of each eye by measuring the remaining visual field (in degrees) at each of eight principal meridians 45 degrees apart, adding them, and dividing the sum by eight.
(c) Combination of visual field defect and decreased visual acuity. 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.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)
[53 FR 30262, Aug. 11, 1988, as amended at 73 FR 66549, Nov. 10, 2008; 74 FR 7648, Feb. 19, 2009; 83 FR 15320, Apr. 10, 2018]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 2016–2019 · leading case:
10-15 151 (Board of Vet. App. 2017).
10-15 151 (Board of Vet. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “In regard to the method of rating impairment of visual field, 38 C.F.R. § 4.77 explains that the normal visual field extent at eight principal meridians is (expressed in degrees): Temporally: 85, Down temporally: 85, Down: 65, Down nasally: 50, Nasally: 60, Up nasally: 55, Up:…”
11-15 198 (Board of Vet. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “difference in the ratings derived from the same factual findings is explained by the fact that the January 2011 Board decision applied the (former) version of regulations it found to be applicable to the appeal at that time, and the September 2013 RO rating decision (addressing…”
10-08 221 (Board of Vet. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 4.77 (c) (2017). Lastly, the maximum evaluation for visual impairment of one eye must not exceed 30 percent unless there is anatomical loss of the eye.”
11-24 658 (Board of Vet. App. 2016).
“38 C.F.R. § 4.77 (c) (2015). Lastly, under the new rating criteria the maximum evaluation for visual impairment of one eye must not exceed 30 percent unless there is anatomical loss of the eye.”
09-48 267 (Board of Vet. App. 2017).
“" See 38 C.F.R. § 4.77 (2016). Further, the revised (post-2008) criteria require where near corrected vision is at least two scheduled steps worse than distance corrected vision, "the examination report must include at least two recordings of near and distance corrected vision…”
08-31 787 (Board of Vet. App. 2017).
“The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.77 state that the visual fields testing results must be recorded on a standard Goldmann chart and included with the examination report.”
190507-9032 (Board of Vet. App. 2019).
“38 C.F.R. §§ 4.77 , 4.79. The Veteran’s bilateral corneal scars have been rated under DC 6009 (for unhealed eye injury) at 10 percent since June 23, 1979.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.