Varies (0-100%), General Rating Formula
Highest listed pathwayMost eye diagnoses are rated on whichever is higher: documented incapacitating episodes (treatment visits in the past 12 months) or visual impairment due to the condition.
What separates the next level: Visual impairment itself is computed through the combined visual-acuity tables (DC 6061-6066), visual field tables (DC 6080-6081), or diplopia conversion (DC 6090) -- whichever applies to the documented findings.
Review CFR criteria, examples, and evidence
- Official CFR language
- Evaluate on the basis of either visual impairment due to the particular condition or on incapacitating episodes, whichever results in a higher evaluation. 7 or more treatment visits -- 60; 5 to 6 -- 40; 3 to 4 -- 20; 1 to 2 -- 10.
- Qualification explanation
- The General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye applies by default to most diagnosis labels in this hub that carry no independent criteria of their own.
- Examples
- Records document 4 treatment visits in the past 12 months for choroidopathy, and visual acuity that would independently compute to only 10 percent -- the 20 percent incapacitating-episode tier controls.
- Medical evidence
- Eye Conditions DBQ; Treatment visit records; Visual acuity, visual field, or diplopia measurements
- Functional impact examples
- Documented eye disease requiring recurring treatment, or measurable visual impairment.
- Common misconceptions
- The two paths are compared with 'whichever is higher,' not combined -- this is a direct comparison (Math.max), not a §4.25 combined-ratings calculation.
- Related topics
- visual-acuity-tables
- Source context
- 38 CFR 4.79; General Rating Formula; Current DC 6000-6091 educational pathway. No pending rulemaking found touching §§4.75-4.79 as of RSCH-035 (2026-07-25).
100% (DC 6010, tuberculosis of eye, active)
Highest listed pathwayActive tuberculosis of the eye is a flat 100 percent, stated directly.
What separates the next level: Inactive tuberculosis of the eye is gated by §4.88c/§4.89's own time-and-floor mechanic before dispatching to this hub's own visual-acuity residual scale -- the same active/inactive TB shape already used for Genitourinary's DC 7505/7525.
Review CFR criteria, examples, and evidence
- Official CFR language
- 6010 Tuberculosis of eye: Active -- 100. Inactive: Evaluate under §4.88c or §4.89 of this part, whichever is appropriate.
- Qualification explanation
- No further findings are needed once active status is confirmed.
- Examples
- Records document currently active tuberculosis of the eye.
- Medical evidence
- Eye Conditions DBQ; Records confirming active/inactive tuberculosis status
- Functional impact examples
- Active ocular tuberculosis infection.
- Common misconceptions
- The §4.88c/§4.89 citation only governs the inactive phase -- the active phase's 100 percent is stated directly in DC 6010's own text, no cross-reference needed.
- Related topics
- dc6010-tb
- Source context
- 38 CFR 4.79; 6010; Current DC 6010 educational pathway.
100% (DC 6010, tuberculosis of eye, inactive, within the mandatory time floor)
Highest listed pathwayInactive tuberculosis of the eye is still a flat 100 percent for a mandatory window after the date of inactivity, before any visual-acuity finding is even considered: 1 year for entitlement established after August 19, 1968 (§4.88c), or 2 years for entitlement established on or before that date (§4.89, a closed population).
What separates the next level: Once the mandatory 1-year (§4.88c) or 2-year (§4.89) window has passed, §4.89's own text adds a further graduated floor (50 percent for years 2-6, 30 percent for years 6-11) that the residual scale can exceed but never fall below; §4.88c has no further floor beyond its own 1-year window.
Review CFR criteria, examples, and evidence
- Official CFR language
- §4.88c: 'For 1 year after date of inactivity, following active tuberculosis -- 100. Thereafter: Rate residuals under the specific body system or systems affected.' §4.89: 'For 2 years after date of inactivity, following active tuberculosis, which was clinically identified during service or subsequently -- 100.'
- Qualification explanation
- This floor is unconditional -- it applies regardless of what visual acuity is documented, and is never displaced by a lower residual finding.
- Examples
- Records document inactive tuberculosis of the eye, entitlement established in 2005 (post-1968), 4 months since the date of inactivity -- the 100 percent floor controls regardless of documented visual acuity.
- Medical evidence
- Eye Conditions DBQ; Records confirming the date of inactivity and the entitlement-basis date
- Functional impact examples
- Recently inactivated ocular tuberculosis, within the mandatory statutory floor window.
- Common misconceptions
- This floor was previously not modeled at all -- RatingScope's earlier behavior dispatched every inactive finding straight to the visual-acuity residual scale, which could silently under-rate a veteran still inside this mandatory window. Corrected under BUG-152.
- Related topics
- dc6010-tb
- Source context
- 38 CFR 4.88c/4.89; 6010; Current DC 6010 educational pathway, per RSCH-091.
50% or 30% minimum (DC 6010, tuberculosis of eye, inactive, §4.89 graduated floor)
Highest listed pathwayFor the closed §4.89 population only (entitlement on or before August 19, 1968), years 2 through 6 since the date of inactivity carry a 50 percent floor, and years 6 through 11 carry a 30 percent floor -- the visual-acuity residual scale is used only if it computes higher than the floor.
What separates the next level: Beyond 11 years since the date of inactivity, §4.89's floor no longer applies and the visual-acuity residual scale controls alone, including its own 0 percent row if no compensable finding is documented.
Review CFR criteria, examples, and evidence
- Official CFR language
- 'Thereafter, for 4 years, or in any event, to 6 years after date of inactivity -- 50. Thereafter, for 5 years, or to 11 years after date of inactivity -- 30... if in excess of 50 percent or 30 percent will be assigned under the appropriate diagnostic code for the specific residual.'
- Qualification explanation
- The higher of the stated floor or the visual-acuity residual controls (Math.max), never the floor and the residual added or combined together.
- Examples
- §4.89 population, 4 years since the date of inactivity, visual acuity computing to 20 percent under the residual scale -- the 50 percent floor controls (60 vs 20, higher wins is actually 50 here since floor is 50).
- Medical evidence
- Eye Conditions DBQ; Records confirming the date of inactivity and the entitlement-basis date; Visual acuity for both eyes
- Functional impact examples
- §4.89-population inactive ocular tuberculosis, years 2-11 since inactivity.
- Common misconceptions
- This graduated floor was previously not modeled at all, in either direction -- corrected under BUG-152. §4.89's own text also states this graduated rating will not be combined with a separate residual rating under 38 CFR 4.25 unless the two cover genuinely separate functional losses, a nuance RatingScope discloses rather than auto-resolves.
- Related topics
- dc6010-tb
- Source context
- 38 CFR 4.89; 6010; Current DC 6010 educational pathway, per RSCH-091.
10% minimum (DC 6012/6013, glaucoma requiring continuous medication)
Next: 20%Glaucoma requiring continuous medication carries its own 10 percent minimum, even if visual impairment alone would compute lower.
What separates the next level: Without a continuous-medication requirement, glaucoma is rated purely under the General Rating Formula, which can resolve to 0 percent.
Review CFR criteria, examples, and evidence
- Official CFR language
- Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye. Minimum evaluation if continuous medication is required -- 10.
- Qualification explanation
- The 10 percent floor applies on top of the General Rating Formula, whichever is higher.
- Examples
- Records document open-angle glaucoma requiring daily eye drops, with visual acuity that would otherwise compute to 0 percent -- the 10 percent minimum controls.
- Medical evidence
- Eye Conditions DBQ; Medication records
- Functional impact examples
- Glaucoma managed with ongoing medication.
- Common misconceptions
- This minimum applies specifically to the continuous-medication finding -- it is not automatic for every glaucoma diagnosis.
- Related topics
- visual-acuity-tables
- Source context
- 38 CFR 4.79; 6012/6013; Current DC 6012/6013 educational pathway.
100% (DC 6014, malignant neoplasm requiring systemic-comparable therapy)
Highest listed pathwayA malignant neoplasm of the eye, orbit, or adnexa requiring therapy comparable to systemic malignancy treatment is a flat 100 percent, continuing through treatment.
What separates the next level: A malignant neoplasm not requiring comparable therapy is rated on its visual-impairment component alone, with the nonvisual (e.g. disfigurement) component disclosed for separate review.
Review CFR criteria, examples, and evidence
- Official CFR language
- Malignant neoplasms of the eye, orbit, and adnexa (excluding skin) that require therapy that is comparable to those used for systemic malignancies -- 100.
- Qualification explanation
- No visual-acuity findings are needed once this therapy requirement is confirmed.
- Examples
- Records document a malignant orbital neoplasm requiring systemic chemotherapy.
- Medical evidence
- Eye Conditions DBQ; Oncology treatment records
- Functional impact examples
- Malignant eye/orbit neoplasm under active systemic-comparable treatment.
- Common misconceptions
- This 100 percent continues beyond the cessation of treatment until a mandatory VA examination 6 months later re-evaluates residuals -- disclosed as context, not modeled as a computed transition.
- Related topics
- neoplasm-combine
- Source context
- 38 CFR 4.79; 6014; Current DC 6014 educational pathway.
30 percent minimum, elevated one step (DC 6029, aphakia)
Highest listed pathwayAphakia (absence of the eye's natural or replacement lens) is rated on visual impairment, elevated one step worse, with a 30 percent minimum.
What separates the next level: Cataract with a replacement lens (pseudophakia) is rated under the General Rating Formula directly, without this elevation or minimum.
Review CFR criteria, examples, and evidence
- Official CFR language
- Evaluate based on visual impairment, and elevate the resulting level of visual impairment one step. Minimum (unilateral or bilateral) -- 30.
- Qualification explanation
- The raw visual-acuity-derived percentage is moved one step worse on the schedule's own step sequence before the 30 percent minimum is applied.
- Examples
- Records document aphakia following cataract surgery with no replacement lens, and visual acuity that raw-computes to 20 percent -- elevated to 30 percent, which also happens to equal the minimum.
- Medical evidence
- Eye Conditions DBQ; Surgical records confirming no replacement lens
- Functional impact examples
- Absence of a natural or replacement lens following cataract surgery.
- Common misconceptions
- Cataract with NO replacement lens is rated as aphakia under this same mechanic -- cataract with a replacement lens is not.
- Related topics
- visual-acuity-tables
- Source context
- 38 CFR 4.79; 6029; Current DC 6029 educational pathway.
0% (DC 6090, diplopia, occasional or spectacle-correctable)
Next: 10%Diplopia (double vision) that is occasional or correctable with spectacles is rated at 0 percent.
What separates the next level: Diplopia that is constant and not correctable is converted to a visual-acuity equivalent for the affected eye via §4.78(b), then combined against the fellow eye's real acuity.
Review CFR criteria, examples, and evidence
- Official CFR language
- In accordance with 38 CFR 4.31, diplopia that is occasional or that is correctable with spectacles is evaluated at 0 percent.
- Qualification explanation
- DC 6090's own Note invokes §4.31 (the general 0 percent default rule) by section number.
- Examples
- Records document diplopia only when looking in an extreme direction, fully correctable with prism glasses.
- Medical evidence
- Eye Conditions DBQ
- Functional impact examples
- Diplopia with minimal functional impact due to occasional occurrence or spectacle correction.
- Common misconceptions
- This 0 percent is an explicit, real registry outcome, not an absence-of-criteria default.
- Related topics
- diplopia
- Source context
- 38 CFR 4.78; 6090; Current DC 6090 educational pathway.
Varies (10-100%), Visual Field Defects (DC 6080)
Highest listed pathwayVisual field loss is rated on a table of named defect patterns -- homonymous hemianopsia, loss of a visual field half, or concentric contraction of the remaining field -- with bilateral involvement rated the same as or higher than unilateral involvement at every row, up to a flat 100 percent for bilateral concentric contraction down to 5 degrees remaining.
What separates the next level: Every row also allows an alternative: evaluating each affected eye at a stated visual-acuity equivalent instead (for example, unilateral loss of the temporal half may instead be evaluated as 20/70 in the affected eye) -- whichever produces the higher evaluation controls, the same 'whichever is higher' comparison used throughout this hub.
Review CFR criteria, examples, and evidence
- Official CFR language
- 6080 Visual field defects: Homonymous hemianopsia -- 30. Loss of temporal half of visual field: Bilateral -- 30, Unilateral -- 10 (or evaluate each affected eye as 20/70). Loss of nasal half of visual field: Bilateral -- 10, Unilateral -- 10 (or evaluate each affected eye as 20/50). Loss of inferior half of visual field: Bilateral -- 30, Unilateral -- 10 (or evaluate each affected eye as 20/70). Loss of superior half of visual field: Bilateral -- 10, Unilateral -- 10 (or evaluate each affected eye as 20/50). Concentric contraction of visual field, remaining field of 5 degrees: Bilateral -- 100, Unilateral -- 30 (or evaluate each affected eye as 5/200); 6 to 15 degrees: Bilateral -- 70, Unilateral -- 20 (or evaluate each affected eye as 20/200); 16 to 30 degrees: Bilateral -- 50, Unilateral -- 10 (or evaluate each affected eye as 20/100); 31 to 45 degrees: Bilateral -- 30, Unilateral -- 10 (or evaluate each affected eye as 20/70); 46 to 60 degrees: Bilateral -- 10, Unilateral -- 10 (or evaluate each affected eye as 20/50).
- Qualification explanation
- Each defect pattern and degree range is its own row on the table; the specific pattern documented on visual field testing (not visual acuity) determines which row applies.
- Examples
- Automated perimetry documents bilateral concentric contraction with only 5 degrees of visual field remaining in each eye -- rated 100 percent.
- Medical evidence
- Eye Conditions DBQ; Goldmann or automated perimetry (visual field) testing
- Functional impact examples
- Documented visual field loss on perimetry testing, distinct from a visual acuity (Snellen) measurement.
- Common misconceptions
- Visual field loss is measured and rated separately from visual acuity -- a normal Snellen acuity reading does not rule out a compensable visual field defect.
- Related topics
- visual-field-tables
- Source context
- 38 CFR 4.79; 6080; Current DC 6080 educational pathway.
10% minimum (DC 6081, unilateral scotoma), or evaluate as visual impairment if higher
Highest listed pathwayA unilateral scotoma (blind spot) affecting at least one-quarter of the visual field, or a centrally located scotoma of any size, carries a 10 percent minimum -- with the alternative of evaluating the underlying visual impairment directly if that produces a higher result.
What separates the next level: If the scotoma's actual visual impairment would compute higher than 10 percent under the visual-field or visual-acuity tables, that higher figure is used instead, the same 'whichever is higher' comparison used throughout this hub.
Review CFR criteria, examples, and evidence
- Official CFR language
- 6081 Scotoma, unilateral: Minimum, with scotoma affecting at least one-quarter of the visual field (quadrantanopsia) or with centrally located scotoma of any size -- 10. Alternatively, evaluate based on visual impairment due to scotoma, if that would result in a higher evaluation.
- Qualification explanation
- The 10 percent minimum applies once either the one-quarter-of-field or centrally-located threshold is met; it is a floor, not a ceiling.
- Examples
- Perimetry documents a unilateral centrally located scotoma smaller than one-quarter of the visual field, too small to independently reach 10 percent under the visual impairment tables -- the 10 percent minimum controls.
- Medical evidence
- Eye Conditions DBQ; Goldmann or automated perimetry (visual field) testing
- Functional impact examples
- Documented unilateral scotoma (blind spot) on visual field testing.
- Common misconceptions
- This minimum is specific to scotoma meeting the one-quarter-of-field or centrally-located threshold -- it is not a general floor for every visual field finding.
- Related topics
- visual-field-tables
- Source context
- 38 CFR 4.79; 6081; Current DC 6081 educational pathway.