visual impairment

I’ve got a SG appeal for a client who says he cannot read 16 point print.  The ESA85 records that “using both eyes was able to read N14 print on a reading test type chart from a distance of 25cm without correction”.

1.  What point print does N14 equate to or is the letter N simply a cypher for point?

2.  Is a “reading test type chart” likely to be the Snellens test?

For information, he has a progressive neurogenetics disorder causing sight loss, hearing loss and cerebellar ataxia.

As far as I am aware the number is equivalent to the point size of a font, one point being 1/72nd of an inch. Again, I could be wrong, but I think the “N” merely denotes it is a test of near vision. Not a Snellens chart as such, which is used to assess distance vision, this test card should be just over a foot away from your eyes.

An ability to read N14 would be an ability to read 14 point print, in my view

As usual, there is probably someone far better qualified to correct this if I am wrong. I did ask an optician about it once, but there is always the possibility I misunderstood something, or have forgotten something material from that conversation

Apologies, ironically I have only just seen this. I’m not “better qualified” in any way other than having a VI myself but…

I believe the N stands for “Near Vision” and the numeral is the printers point size. I think the font used is usually Times New Roman and the test is from 30 to 50cm away, although sometimes you’ll see a second number, which is from 100cm away. 

I’m intrigued to know what a “reading test type card” is. It’s either a reading test card or it’s a bit of paper allegedly in 14 point that isn’t. What if what the claimant read was 14 point but in a different font and with extra high definition printing? What colour paper or card was it on I wonder? Who held it?

So, in this case, the fact that 25cm has been used may be significant as it’s outside the accepted range and doesn’t really give an accurate N measure. It’s being used to imply that if uncorrected vision can read 14 point at 25cm then there’s a good chance uncorrected or corrected vision could read 16 point at 30cm or more. Debatable really as it would depend on a number of factors:

1) Can the claimants vision be corrected?
2) Sight loss is a wide ranging term. For example, my vision varies from minute to minute. Can I read 14 point? Yes, most times. Can I guarantee to understand it? Er, no. Will I see the same thing if I look at it a second time? Not necessarily.

I think there’s an argument here that the test done was not a valid test. I’m sure an uninformed tribunal might assume it’s a “ballpark” type assessment but that’s plain wrong. There’s no such thing when it comes to VIs.

Thanks Mike , I was hoping for your input on this.  So, in effect, are you saying that from the test carried out it cannot be assumed that he can read 16 point print?

For info’, he has no peripheral vision and can only see (in limited fashion) what is literally right in front of his face.

I think you’d want to know a little more specific detail about the so-called test but essentially yes that’s exactly what I’m saying.

A proper test for example would have the N numbers down the side with the various different paragraphs. One of the things with even the proper test is it’s worth talking through what the person actually did. As the text in each paragraph is usually the same there’s a subconscious reflex with your eyes wanting to find the one they can read and not the one they can’t. Sometimes when doing this test I have realised that I have scan read the larger font size in part; realised the subject matter, and then deduced the rest of the paragraph when trying to read the smaller font size. When asked which one I can read I inevitably point to the smaller but actually I couldn’t have done that without referring in part to the larger size one. I’m probably an exception on this as I’ve become increasingly self aware re: my eyes. Your claimant may say something completely different; not recall or not want to admit this. People are often quite shocked by how poor their reading ability is.

I think it’s a fairly poor test that’s long since past it’s use by date. I very much doubt someone completing an ESA 85 would get it right.

Thanks Mike, I’ll follow your advice.