[Errors and difficulties in the assessment of severely handicapped and blind persons].
The assessment of ophthalmological examination reports in social law is usually based on subjective statements by the petitioner made towards his ophthalmologist. Insufficient consideration of objective results as well as the limited experience of the officials in charge may lead to errors. An analysis of patients for consideration as legally blind in Baden, Germany, between 1980-1999, based upon 2,265 doubtful applications resulted in 33.3% false estimates by the patient's ophthalmologist. The reason, in the vast majority of cases, was misjudgment involving visual field defects or even missing manual-kinetic Goldmann perimetry. It may be assumed that this is also true for petitions in legislation for severely handicapped persons, particularly because the officials in charge are rarely ophthalmologists.
Mackensen
I
I
Versorgungsärztlicher Dienst im Gesundheitsamt, Landratsamt Karlsruhe. klaus.rohrschneider@med.uni-heidelberg.de
Becker
S
S
Rohrschneider
K
K
D001766:Blindness / Q000175:diagnosis*; D004185:Disability Evaluation; D004608:Eligibility Determination / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005858:Germany; D006801:Humans; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D012943:Social Security / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D014792:Visual Acuity; D058609:Visual Field Tests; D014794:Visual Fields; D019987:Persons with Visual Disabilities / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*