Thanks for the photo and this is why a wound photo can cause controversy! A photo without a history is...just a photo.  First of all - was there drainage on the dressing or sock? When was the last time the patient reported drainage(or the sock or pants sticking?  What did the previous photo (the one documenting a healed wound) look like? Your photo certainly has some epithelialization within the "red" area.

I find myself in person asking my self the same question - and this is how I solve it. If looking directly over head and looking straight down at the  at the wound - a wound like this clearly would look open. I could use an otoscope to help magnify my findings - but I find that shining a good light horizontonally across the wound will help me determine dull tissue (not reflecting light and therefore epithelialized as it is not wet) vs. open tissue (not epithelialized)- where the tissue can be visualized as wet or glistening. Another trick  is to use silver nitrate - assuming you have not washed or wetted the area - if there is moisture, the silver nitrate will stain the area - and determine if wound is "healed" or not....

I don't know if I can commit on this one without more info - but assuming there is no drainage, and the skin is "dull",  I'd say it is epithelized - but surely scar tissue is not well formed..so it will need protection - this patient is one warm day, or ham sandwich or not wearing compression for a few hours away from reopening - so compress and protect the immature scar well.

Which then brings me to the definition of "healed" - clearly a matter of debate between regulators and payers and clinicians and clinical trial definition.....