10-15 151, 10-15 151

Veteran served Jan 1972–Mar 1993 and appealed VA RO decision granting a 10% rating for right eye glaucomatous optic neuropathy and rating it with service‑connected ocular hypertension from July 20, 2011.
Board previously remanded (Mar 2017) for additional treatment records; RO readjudicated and issued SSOC denying increase above 10% (Jun 2017); Board found substantial compliance with remand.
VA exams (Dec 2011, Feb 2015) and treatment records show corrected distance vision no worse than 20/40 bilaterally and average remaining visual fields ~58.12° (R) and ~56.88° (L); continuous medication required; no incapacitating episodes, diplopia, scarring, or muscle dysfunction.
RO initially invoked continuous medication as the basis for the 10% rating; Board applied DC 6013 (open‑angle glaucoma) by analogy (6099‑6013) because same medications are used for glaucoma.
Board evaluated visual acuity, visual field, muscle function, incapacitating episodes, and potential analogous DCs (conjunctivitis, optic neuropathy, pinguecula) and found no evidence supporting a rating above 10% from July 20, 2011.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to rating >10% for ocular hypertension from Jul 20, 2011	Veteran contends symptoms and impairment warrant >10%	VA/Board: evidence shows at‑worse acuity 20/40 bilaterally, visual field averages in 46–60° range, continuous meds but no incapacitating episodes or muscle dysfunction	Denied — 10% is correct from Jul 20, 2011; higher rating not met or approximated
Proper diagnostic code for rating	Veteran implicitly argued current rating undervalues symptoms	VA: continuous medication criterion fits DC 6013 (open‑angle glaucoma) by analogy; DC 6013 includes continuous medication and visual criteria	Board applied DC 6099‑6013 (not less favorable)
Effective date for 10% rating	Veteran sought increased rating; claim adjudicated from date of evidence of neuropathy	VA: no evidence of compensable level during year before Jul 20, 2011	Effective date set as Jul 20, 2011 (date evidence of increase)
Extraschedular referral for exceptional disability picture	Veteran argued symptoms impair work (sensitivity, redness)	VA: symptoms and functional impact are contemplated by schedular criteria; no marked interference or frequent hospitalization; no combined exceptional impact shown	Denied — schedular ratings adequate; extraschedular referral not warranted

Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (requires substantial compliance with Board remand directives)
Mayfield v. Nicholson, 499 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (a fully compliant VCAA notice before readjudication cures prior notice defects)
Vazquez‑Flores v. Shinseki, 580 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (VCAA notice in increase claims is generic: show worsening and occupational effects)
Kelly v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 471 (1995) (Board may interpret graphical test results if it has the expertise and must address them)
Savage v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 249 (2011) (Board must consider and may interpret test graphs; cannot ignore them)
Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007) (temporal focus for increased rating claims: one year before the claim until final decision)
Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008) (three‑step inquiry for extraschedular ratings)
Fanning v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 225 (1993) (standards for extraschedular consideration)
Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009) (TDIU issues may be part of rating when raised or reasonably raised by the record)
Johnson v. McDonald, 762 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (extraschedular referral can be considered based on combined effect of multiple disabilities)
Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (effective date rules for increased ratings when evidence shows earlier entitlement)