This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor:
—The report of the Committee on Compensation Tables for Eye Injuries (The Journal, July 22) indicates anew the lack of unanimity in appraising loss of visual efficiency, and likewise an apparent disinclination on the part of physicians and insurance carriers, as well as of the various industrial boards, to accept the method of evaluating the Snellen symbol approved by the committee.The crux of the problem is, of course, the correct interpretation of the value residing in the Snellen visual symbol. Numerous tables of values purporting to offer the solution of this phase of the subject have made their way into print at different times. In this connection it may be said that any method of determination which evolves from premises inexact by their nature cannot but lead, however ingeniously and mathematically, to an inaccurate, unsatisfactory conclusion.Investigation of this question, some years ago (Gabriels, J. A.
Gabriels JAC. THE PROBLEM OF THE SNELLEN SYMBOL. JAMA. 1933;101(11):872–873. doi:10.1001/jama.1933.02740360052030
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.