ewokpoacher Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) Had my name on documents. Edited September 22, 2014 by ewokpoacher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcj Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Unfortunately, not in my specialty and way too deep into ophthalmology for me to comment based on my general knowledge as a basic MD. Deaddebate may have some insight re: the PE standards. At any rate, when you find out, would you consider posting how it turned out for future board members? I've not heard of this condition before (granted, I'm not an eye doc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewokpoacher Posted July 6, 2014 Author Share Posted July 6, 2014 I'll definitely follow up with whatever information I receive. My guess is that without an established precedent for waiver, what I'm facing is some hand wringing and head scratching. I'm uncertain if precedent exists or not. I'm also uncertain if the doc will believe this glial remnant "may interfere with vision", even if it doesn't at present moment. Hopefully no issue with vision = no problem with medical qualification. Even if this isn't an issue for vision, it may prove to be an issue for receiving medical clearance in a timely manner. I've perused the scientific literature and found nothing about pathogenesis/prognosis of this kind of thing, which suggests my search terms are wrong or this pathology is benign, stable, and uninteresting. I'm hoping it's the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaddebate Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Deaddebate may have some insight re: the PE standards.I messaged 81L BLR. The recent batch of questions on this site have been surprisingly complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81L BLR Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 The Medical Standards Directory (MSD) 6 Feb 2014 C48 has the same verbiage as the 2009 AFI 48-123. However, it should not be an issue as the glial remnant in the photo is overlying the optic disc and should not be a cause of any visual field defects. If it was covering a larger area of the retina, it would have a corresponding visual field defect and would be disqualifying with no waiver. In your case it should not be disqualifying and no waiver will be needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewokpoacher Posted July 7, 2014 Author Share Posted July 7, 2014 Fantastic. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stract Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 you should probably remove the PDF or block out your name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now