July 6, 201411 yr 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).
July 6, 201411 yr Author 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.
July 7, 201411 yr 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.
July 7, 201411 yr 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.
Create an account or sign in to comment