RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW
NAME: BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY
CASE NUMBER: PD0900084 COMPONENT: GUARD
BOARD DATE: 20090813 SEPARATION DATE: 20040318
________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF CASE: This covered individual (CI) was an NCO in the Army National Guard medically separated in 2004 after 20 years of combined service. The medical basis for the separation was a back condition. He suffered a fall down steps, loaded with gear, in 2004 during an OEF mobilization. The back injury occurred in CONUS. It did not respond well enough to conservative management (including physical therapy and epidural injections) for deployment or continued service, resulting in a medical board. The CI was noted with hypertension (HTN) during his orthopedic work-up and was referred for medical management. This was related as a new condition, although subsequent VA documentation revealed prior HTN and treatment as early as 1992. The blood pressure remained elevated, even with treatment titrated to three medications. The MEB form 3847 referred the HTN condition as not meeting retention standards. The PEB adjudicated the HTN as not unfitting and the CI was separated at 10% for the back condition.
________________________________________________________________
CI CONTENTION: The CI contends for rating of his back injury and uncontrolled hypertension.
________________________________________________________________
RATING COMPARISON:
| Service PEB | VA (1 Mo. from Separation) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEB Condition | Code | Rating | Date | Condition | Code | Rating | Exam | Effective |
| CHRONIC BACK PAIN, SUBJECTIVE, WITHOUT NEUROLOGIC ASNORMALITY. | 5299- 5237 | 10% | 20040220 | LUMBOSACRAL STRAIN | 5237 | 10% | 20040508 20040618 |
20040319 |
| HYPERTENSION | 7101 | 20% | 20040930 | 20040319 | ||||
| TOTAL Combined: 10 % | TOTAL Combined (incl non-PEB Dxs): 10% |
ANALYSIS SUMMARY:
Back Rating. The goniometric exam for thoracolumbar range-of-motion forwarded in the NARSUM was 70⁰ flexion (>240⁰ total), with spinal tenderness noted. Pain parameters were not specified. The VA exam yielded 90⁰ flexion (>240⁰ total). The VA 10% rating rested on the examiner’s description of painful motion. The PEB rating was accurate, accounting for the 70⁰ flexion and the tenderness. There is no reason to suspect that application of the USAPDA pain policy, mitigating the VASRD rating IAW §4.71a, was a factor in this case.
HTN Unfitting. The PEB did not elaborate its rationale for the finding of fitness regarding HTN, even though the MEB judged it to be below retention standards. In general, however, none of the service PEB’s tend to adjudicate HTN as unfitting unless there are complications or frequent requirement for inpatient management. The exact language in the NARSUM was, ‘Blood pressure medications may well interfere with the soldier performing his job in extreme environmental conditions such as extreme heat. Physical Evaluation Board will have to adjudicate on the possible impairment on blood pressure medications in extreme desert conditions’. The adjustment of blood pressure medications was ongoing at the time of PEB referral. The NARSUM stated that it was controlled well enough to avoid acute complications, but that continued civilian management was indicated. The Commander’s statement implies that the HTN is unfitting because the physical demands of his MOS ‘under a variety of tactical conditions predisposes him to a stroke’. The source of the C.O.’s opinion is unknown, but it is obviously speculative and carries little probative weight. The physical profile (313111) states, ‘Cannot participate in vigorous aerobic activities. The aerobic proscription is assumed to apply to cardiovascular limitations or risk, although parameters for ‘vigorous’ are not defined. This would be a prudent profile for a member undergoing titration of anti-hypertensive medications, but it does not follow that it is an anticipated permanent profile. AR 40-501 conveys no specific recommendations for unacceptability of HTN (except parameters for flight status). The MEB referenced the general principles of AR 40-501, 3-41e, for its recommendation. On review, however, none of these seem to be particularly implicated in this case. Of additional relevance is that, even if added as unfitting, it would be difficult to rate the HTN above 10%. Although the VA rating decision quoted ‘predominant’ readings in the service record for its rating, the conclusions are not supported by the record. Excluding readings during flares of back pain or missed medications, a representative majority (12) of them during the MEB period averaged 163 systolic and 97 diastolic. Even conceding this reflected the condition prior to optimal control, it would rate only 10% IAW §4.10. A default to the 30% VA rating would not accurately reflect the relevant medical evidence at the time of separation. Therefore, even if the BOARD surmounted the PEB expertise in its fitness determination, the appropriately rated condition would be of no monetary benefit to the CI.
________________________________________________________________
BOARD FINDINGS: IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the PDBR to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in effect at the time of the adjudication. The Board did not surmise from the record or PEB ruling in this case that any prerogatives outside the VASRD were exercised. The Board unanimously agreed that the PEB coding and rating of the back was fair and IAW VASRD §4.71a. No change is recommended. In the matter of the HTN, the Board unanimously concluded that our threshold for opposing the PEB expertise in its fitness adjudication was not reached.
________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION: The Board therefore recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination.
________________________________________________________________
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 2009127, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record.
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans' Affairs Treatment Record.
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 00007
Using the criteria in code 7101 yields a 30% rating under code 7533 that states, “…or hypertension at least 10 percent disabling under diagnostic code 7101.”After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board recommends a disability rating of 30% for the nephralgia back pain attributed to polycystic kidney disease condition. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows; and, that...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00107
The medical basis for the separation was chronic low back pain (LBP) with a tethered spinal cord. The VA noted increased radicular pain (from the military exam) to the right leg and granted a 10% rating effective 20060830 "the date of the VA exam as there was no medical evidence showing a diagnosis for this condition prior to VA examination." The CI's radicular pain was considered by the PEB and found not to be unfitting.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00165
Right Shoulder Condition . The other conditions forwarded by the MEB and adjudicated as not unfitting by the PEB were sleep apnea (OSA), neck pain, hypertension, and seasonal allergies. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows:
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00186
DATE OF PLACEMENT ONTO TDRL: 20040820 DATE OF REMOVAL FROM TDRL: 20060525 The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. At a nephrology evaluation dated 10 August 1998 the examinernoted that the CI was being followed for nephrotic syndrome, hypertension, and immunosuppression as a result of FSGS.
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 01206
The rating for the unfitting back condition is addressed below; and, as well as the contended, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS), coronary artery disease (CAD) and paroxysmal atrial tachycardia (PAT) which are within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of the Board. He was noted the have normal, but painful, range-of-motion (ROM) of the lumbosacral back. Spasm was absent.A permanent L3 profile was issued on 18 December 2007 for low back pain with restrictions...
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02991
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01762
The PEB adjudicated the “lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD)” as unfitting, rated 20%with application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The VA coded the DDD lumbar spine with spondylosis as 5242 with 5243intervertebral disc syndrome rated at 20%.The general rating formula for diseases and injuries of the spine considers the CI’s pain symptoms “with or without symptoms such as pain (whether or not it radiates), stiffness or aching in the area of the spine...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01073
IAW VASRD §4.71a, the Board must apply separate codes and ratings in its recommendations if compensable ratings for each condition are achieved. He followed up with orthopedics in June 2002; he again reported no improvement. The Board concluded that separating the bilateral knee condition into right and left knee conditions gave no rating advantage to the CI.
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01114
The PEB rated the depression at 10% using code 9434 (Major Depressive Disorder) and determined the pain disorder was a Category II condition related to the back pain, while the VA rated the depression 30% also using code 9434. Additionally, his symptoms improved with psychotherapy and continuous medication thereby favoring a 10% rating, although the NARSUM noted his back condition was “complicated by his morbidity of depression” and the addendum noted “the condition alone [was] so severe...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00378
CI CONTENTION : The CI states: “At the time of discharge, I also had other issues. I concur with that finding, accept their recommendation and direct that your records be corrected as set forth in the attached copy of a Memorandum for the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force. The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, be corrected to show that the diagnosis in his finding of unfitness was Left Chronic Knee Pain, VASRD code 5099-5003, rated...