J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2008 May;49(5):819-824. 10.3341/jkos.2008.49.5.819.

Clinical Characteristics of the Patients Referred to Ophthalmic Clinic for Medical Disability Evaluation

• Kim HJ
• Lee HJ
• Lim KH

• KMID: 2211713
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2008.49.5.819

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical characteristics and disability rates of patients seeking expert consultation for legal reasons because of ophthalmologic symptoms.
METHODS
We analyzed the gender, age, reason for consultation, and result of consultation, among other factors, by retrospectively examining the medical files of 89 patients from January 1999 to December 2004.
RESULTS
Out of 89 patients, men constituted 76.4% and patients in their forties constituted 23.0%. The most common reason for consultation was a traffic accident (64.0%), followed by a medical lawsuit (11.2%). Forty-nine patients (55.1%) were diagnosed with a disability, while 30 patients (33.7%) were not. Diagnostic decisions for the other 10 patients (11.2%) were deferred. Optic atrophy was the most frequent cause for deteriorating visual acuity in patients, accounting for 19 cases, and diplopia caused by orbital wall fracture was also prevalent (9 patients). Among the resulting types of damage, brain damage was the most frequent, while the percentage of patients with an impairment in the visual system was approximately 29.0% among the patients diagnosed with a disability.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results will be helpful in elucidating the clinical characteristics of patients referred to the ophthalmic clinic for consultation because of legal concerns.

Keyword

Disability evaluation; Impairment rate; Legal consultation

MeSH Terms

Accidents, Traffic
Accounting
Brain
Diplopia
Disability Evaluation
Humans
Male
Optic Atrophy
Orbit
Retrospective Studies
Visual Acuity

Reference

References

1. Kim SY, Lee DH, Park SH. An anlaysis of visual fields in patients with post traumatic functional visual loss. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2004; 45:469–79.

2. Park YT, Park SH, Shin HH. Problems of application to McBride disability evaluation in loss of visual efficiency patients. J Korean Ophahlmol Soc. 1997; 38:1273–9.

3. McBride ED. Injury of the eye. Disability Evaluation and Principle of Treatment of Compensable Injuries. 6th ed.Philadelphia: Lippincott;1968. p. 465–79.

4. Xu S, Meyer D, Yoser S, et al. Pattern visual evoked potential in the diagnosis of functional visual loss. Ophthalmology. 2001; 108:76–81.

5. Martin TJ. Threshold perimetry of each eye with both eyes open in patients with monocular functional (nonorganic) and organic vision loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998; 125:857–64.

6. The Office of Court Administration (2002). The Court Statistics. 2005; 12:4–5.

7. Han YS, Shin KH. A statistical observation of the ocular injuries. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2005; 46:117–24.

8. Hwang JM. Clinical analysis of 150 patients with visual disability. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1997; 38:135–40.

9. Kim KH, Oh CS, Jang SD. Clinical aspects of 273 patients with visual disability. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2002; 43:136–42.

10. Lee SJ, Choi MY. Clinical analysis of monocular blindness. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2002; 43:733–8.

11. Kim YJ, Koo BS. Clinical observation of the ocular injuries by traffic accidents. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1985; 26:99–104.

12. Lee KS. Disbility estimation and medical consultation. 1th ed.1. Seoul: Joongang Munhwasa;2002. p. 170–2.

13. Hyun DH, Moon NJ, Koo BS. Clinical evaluation of ophthalmic injury associated with head injury. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1996; 37:171–8.

14. Michael H. Ocular Malingering: a surprising visual acuity test. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002; 120:756–60.

15. Keltner JL, May WN, Johnson CA, Post RB. The California syndrome. Functional visual complaints with potential economic impact. Ophthalmology. 1985; 92:427–35.