Guest guest Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 Being " legally blind " is not the same as being totally blind (i.e., " No light perception " ). There is a whole range of vision and function. People who are legally blind can have some functional vision. It always refers to the vision in the better eye while wearing the best correction (glasses). Even though you hear people say it, there is no such thing as being legally blind in one eye or being legally blind without your glasses on. You can be declared legally blind based on visual acuity (size of print you can see) if it is 20/200 or worse (this is half the size of the " Big E " on a typical eye chart). You can also be declared legally blind if your visual field (side vision) is constricted a certain amount (the widest dimension is 20 degrees or less). The visual field loss has to be determined by either a " Tangent Screen " or " Goldman " Visual Field test. I once had a legally blind patient who had survived a stroke. His central vision was 20/20 (normal), however his side vision was so constricted because of the stroke that his entire field of vision was basically no bigger than the size of letters he was reading on the chart. You can also be declared legally blind by a combination of decreased central vision and constricted visual fields. This is where it gets tricky--there is a formula used to determine a number called " visual efficiency. " It's kind of like a weighted average that takes into account any reductions of the central vision and side vision, and if it is below a certain point a person is also considered legally blind. So a person that has reduced central vision (but better than 20/200) and some constricted visual fields (but bigger than 20 degrees) might be legally blind based on this criteria. Michele Westmaas wrote: Chantelle- Well, I'm sorry your vision is so bad because, gee, who wouldn't want it to be better? But I'm so glad you finally got someone who could do a proper eval!!! Now I'm remembering that you seemed " visually competent " in Miami so it's interesting to me in trying to understand the definition of legally blind. I hope the results of this new eval lead to some real supports for you. Michele W mom to Aubrie 8 yrs CHARGE, 14 yrs and wife to DJ good vision appointment Well this is all too late for odsp but i had a good vision assesment. I was once again proven to be registered legaly blind. I dunno what i said about the guy i saw 3 weeks ago but he was a total bafoon. This person i saw yesterday did a proper visual feild assesment as well as when she did the visual lenses thing she understood that i couldnt read the whole word but could guess each letter. Even with lenses we couldnt get a decent perscription. Bah oh well. Chantelle Membership of this email support groups does not constitute membership in the CHARGE Syndrome Foundation or CHARGE Syndrome Canada. For information about the CHARGE Syndrome Foundation or to become a member (and get the newsletter), please contact marion@... or visit the web site at http://www.chargesyndrome.org - for CHARGE Syndrome Canada information and membership, please visit http://www.chargesyndrome.ca or email info@... . 8th International CHARGE Syndrome Conference, July, 2007. Information will be available at www.chargesyndrome.org or by calling 1-. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 , This is so useful. I have just been weighing up in my mind the pros and cons of having 's ophthalmologist consider having her registered blind rather than partially sighted and thinking that as she uses her vision so efficiently, this is unlikely. Yet her visual field is greatly compromised (she seems to be bumping into everything right now which may be because she is doing everything faster). Your explanation has given food for thought for our March appoitment - thank you. Flo > > Being " legally blind " is not the same as being totally blind (i.e., " No > light perception " ). There is a whole range of vision and function. People > who are legally blind can have some functional vision. > > It always refers to the vision in the better eye while wearing the best > correction (glasses). Even though you hear people say it, there is no such > thing as being legally blind in one eye or being legally blind without your > glasses on. > > You can be declared legally blind based on visual acuity (size of print > you can see) if it is 20/200 or worse (this is half the size of the " Big E " > on a typical eye chart). You can also be declared legally blind if your > visual field (side vision) is constricted a certain amount (the widest > dimension is 20 degrees or less). The visual field loss has to be > determined by either a " Tangent Screen " or " Goldman " Visual Field test. I > once had a legally blind patient who had survived a stroke. His central > vision was 20/20 (normal), however his side vision was so constricted > because of the stroke that his entire field of vision was basically no > bigger than the size of letters he was reading on the chart. > > You can also be declared legally blind by a combination of decreased > central vision and constricted visual fields. This is where it gets > tricky--there is a formula used to determine a number called " visual > efficiency. " It's kind of like a weighted average that takes into account > any reductions of the central vision and side vision, and if it is below a > certain point a person is also considered legally blind. So a person that > has reduced central vision (but better than 20/200) and some constricted > visual fields (but bigger than 20 degrees) might be legally blind based on > this criteria. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Kim, Well said! Bonnie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 With with me full time, I haven't had time to even adequately scan all messages. If there has been a question about adding blindness to a dianosis, please think of the future. Now that she's 21, 's payments are increased almost $600 monthly because she's considered " blind, " despite the fact that her vision is a strong plus for her. An early letter from her opthamologist for tax purposes paved the way for this. This makes a huge difference in that type of house she can rent, etc. Martha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 This is exactly right. Think of a diagnosis of " legal blindness " as a tool to get better services for your child. It just means that their vision is below a certain arbitrary criteria that has been set. It's kind of like a CHARGE diagnosis--having the diagnosis doesn't really change how your child's doctor would treat each of the individual manifestations. But having the diagnosis makes it a lot easier to apply for things like SSI or Birth-to-3, etc.. lewcap@... wrote: With with me full time, I haven't had time to even adequately scan all messages. If there has been a question about adding blindness to a dianosis, please think of the future. Now that she's 21, 's payments are increased almost $600 monthly because she's considered " blind, " despite the fact that her vision is a strong plus for her. An early letter from her opthamologist for tax purposes paved the way for this. This makes a huge difference in that type of house she can rent, etc. Martha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.