expressed in the following table, give a yardstick for estimating losses due to so-called secondary ocular disabilities.
A table follows the text of the rule and identifies the following non-visual ocular disabilities: traumatic cataract; dislocation of lens; ptosis; scotoma; paralysis of accommodation; loss of eye brow; loss of eye lash; symblepharon; ectropion or entropion; lagophthalmus; and epiphora. A footnote to the table states:
In the event of bilateral disabilities due to paralysis of accommodation, loss of eye brows, loss of eye lashes, symblepharon, ectropion, entripion (sic), lagophthalmus, or epiphora, the percentage of unilateral loss in the poorer eye shall be taken of 140 weeks and to that shall be added the percentage of unitlateral loss in the better eye taken of 260 weeks.
The administrative law judge found that employee's dry eye condition should be categorized as symblepharon, a listed non-visual ocular disability. The administrative law judge then used the 140/260 calculation described above to calculate the disability attributable to employee's work-related eye condition.
As correctly pointed out by the administrative law judge, the term symblepharon appears in none of the medical records, reports, or opinions. Significantly, Dr. Pernoud did not check the box next to "symblepharon" on the Form 9-A. As an ophthalmologist, she is in a better position to categorize the employee's condition than the administrative law judge. There is no evidence in the record to support a conclusion that employee's condition is symblepharon. The administrative law judge erred in so concluding.
Based upon his erroneous determination the employee's condition is symblepharon, the administrative law judge seemed constrained to determine employee's disability using the table in the Rule. There is no requirement that we use the table in the Rule for non-visual ocular disturbances. As expressly stated in the Rule, the table is provided to "give a yardstick for estimating losses due to so-called secondary ocular disabilities."
Because employee's condition is not expressly stated in the Rule, and because we have the opinion of a credible medical expert on the disability resultant from employee's eye condition, we will accept the expert's opinion as to disability. We accept Dr. Musich's opinion that employee sustained a disability of 25 % of the body as a whole, referable to his non-visual ocular disturbances.
Dr. Pernoud's opinion that employee does not have an ocular impairment under the Missouri regulations does not undercut Dr. Musich's opinion regarding disability. The regulations contain no mention or discussion of employee's eye condition so the quantification of employee's disability is not "under the Missouri regulations." Employee's disability is determined under § 287.190 RSMo.