Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01605
Original file (PD2012 01605.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME:    BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army
CASE NUMBER: PD1201605   SEPARATION DATE: 20080620
BOARD DATE: 20120501


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty SGT/E-5 (68K/Medical Laboratory) medically separated for a lumbar spine condition. He injured his back in 1995 and suffered worsening complaints of back pain throughout the balance of his service. He was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease (DDD), was not a surgical candidate, and the condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to satisfy the physical requirements of his Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). He was issued a permanent L3 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). Separate diagnoses of “herniated lumbar disc (L3-4 L4-5)” and “lumbar spondylosis (L4-5 L5-S1)” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) as medically unacceptable IAW AR 40-501. Three additional conditions (as identified in the rating chart below) were forwarded as meeting retention standards. An initial Informal PEB (IPEB) determined that the CI was Fit for Duty; a decision that was superseded following submission of further documentation and a request for a Formal PEB (FPEB). The IPEB (via an Informal Reconsideration) then adjudicated the condition (appropriately consolidating the separate diagnoses) as unfitting, rated 20%, citing criteria of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The remaining conditions were determined to be not unfitting. The CI concurred with the Informal Reconsideration, waived the FPEB, and was medically separated with a 20% disability rating.
CI CONTENTION : “ I was injured while on active duty during performance of my duties, and was found by the Physical Evaluation Board to be physically and medically unable to perform my duties as required by rank and MOS. I had served 16 years, 9 months, and 10 days and was given a disability rating of 20 % by the PEB. The VA has given me a disability rating of 50 % .” The latter rating is combined for lumbar spine and left and right shoulder conditions.


SCOPE OF REVIEW: The Board’s scope of review is defined in DoDI 6040.44, Enclosure 3, paragraph 5.e.(2). It is limited to those conditions determined by the PEB to be unfitting for continued military service and those conditions identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB, when specifically requested by the CI. The rating for the unfitting lumbar spine condition is addressed below. The three conditions adjudicated as not unfitting by the PEB were not associated with the referenced injury, not included in the referenced VA rating, and not otherwise referenced in the application; thus, they are not judged to have been requested for consideration, and are not within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of the Board. Those, and any other conditions or contention not requested in this application, remain eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military Records.


RATING COMPARISON :

Service IPEB (Recon) – Dated 20080506
 VA (8 Mos. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Herniated Nucleus Pulposus, Lumbar Spine 5299-5243 20% DDD, Lumbar Spine 5242 20%* 20090212
Rosacea Not Unfitting No VA Entry 20090212
Allergic Rhinitis Not Unfitting No VA Entry 20090212
Esophageal Reflux (GERD) Not Unfitting No VA Entry 20090212
No Additional MEB/PEB Entries
 Other X 2 20090212
Rating: 20%
 Combined: 50%
Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20090812 .
* I ncrease d to 40% ( effective 20080621 ) based on subsequent VA exam dated 20090515 (11 months post-separation) .


ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Lumbar Spine Condition. The 1995 onset of back pain was associated with a fall from a truck. The CI suffered continued pain, but there is no significant acuity apparent in the service treatment record (STR) until 1998 when the pain was exacerbated by a lifting incident. Following that, the STR reflects frequent visits for back pain associated with lifting and various soldiering activities. There were occasional complaints of radiating pain and paresthesias, but no weakness or protracted numbness. Serial imaging confirmed stable disc disease at L3/4 and L4/5, with degenerative disease and mild left foraminal encroachment at L5/S1. An electrodiagnostic study in March 2008 (3 months prior to separation) was interpreted as “L5-S1 nerve root irritability on the left side without acute radiculopathy.” All neurological examinations in the record are normal. Entries in the STR leading up to separation note gait disturbance, although some do not. Most document spasm. There are some comments directed at grossly decreased range-of-motion (ROM) without elaboration of severity, and other observations of grossly normal ROM. The CI was assigned 72 hours quarters in April 2008, but there is no further documentation of incapacitating episodes. The narrative summary (NARSUM) stated, “Pain is usually tolerable with medications unless exacerbated by activity. The pain interferes with sleep. Soldier experiences a pain flareup with extensive use.” The physical exam noted a normal gait, mild tenderness and “no spasm or guarding”. The ROM was noted as “grossly normal, but was potentially limited by pain.” Neurological findings were normal. At the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) evaluation (8 months post-separation), the examiner noted “constant pain 5/10 with occasional flare ups ... worsened by lifting ... not able to work because is never comfortable even sitting down except for lying down.” The VA physical exam noted antalgic gait and significant spasm. Neurological findings were normal. No radicular symptoms were documented. Following a claim for increased evaluation, another VA evaluation was performed 11 months post-separation. At that time, associated right leg pain was reported; and the pain was rated 5-8/10, worsened by walking and standing. No intervening trauma or other clinical aggravation was documented. Concurrent VA entries note that the CI was working on a farm. That exam noted antalgic gait, with no comment on spasm or tenderness. Neurological exam was normal. A marked decrease in ROM (charted below) was recorded. There were 3 goniometric ROM evaluations in evidence, with documentation of additional ratable criteria, which the Board weighed in arriving at its rating recommendation; as summarized in the chart below.



Thoracolumbar ROM
 MEB ~3 Mo. Pre-Sep VA C&P ~8 Mo. Post-Sep VA C&P ~11 Mo. Post-Sep
Flexion (90⁰ Normal)
 90⁰ 50⁰ 20⁰
Combined (240⁰)
 215⁰ 145⁰ Extension 10⁰
Comments
 Antalgic gait. Antalgic gait. Antalgic gait.
§4.71a Rating
 20% 20% 40%

The Board directs attenti on to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence . The PEB’s DA Form 199 referenced the ROM values charted above (from physical therapy) which would achieve only a 10% rating; but, noted the presence of an abnormal gait on a “recent exam” (presumably an STR entry, not the NARSUM), which was the basis for the PEB’s higher 20% rating. The VA’s initial 20% rating was consistent with the ROMs from the initial post-separation C&P evaluation. The PEB’s coding choice of 5243 (intervertebral disc syndrome) permitted the flexibility for rating under the VASRD §4.71a formula for incapacitating episodes, but was moot to rating under the general spine formula compared to the VA code 5242 (degenerative arthritis of the spine) . The VA decision which increased the rating to 40% cited the 20 degrees flexion from the follow-up (11 month post-separation) evaluation. Members considered the probative value of the latter evidence in support of a 40% recommendation. Although the outpatient evidence from the STR would support an argument that the near normal ROM from the physical therapist and grossly normal ROM stated in the NARSUM were not a consistent finding, there is no corroboration of such severely limited ROM as that from the 11 month VA exam. All members agreed that this sole data point did not carry sufficient probative weight in support of a 40% rating recommendation. The evidence for incapacitating episodes would support only a 10% rating under that formula. There was no evidence for a ratable neuropathy to support additional rating on that basis. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB adjudication for the lumbar spine condition.


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 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. In the matter of the lumbar spine condition and IAW VASRD §4.71a, the Board unanimously recommends no change in the PEB adjudication. There were no other conditions within the Board’s scope of review for consideration.


 RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows:

UNFITTING CONDITION
 VASRD CODE RATING
Herniated Nucleus Pulposus, Lumbar Spine 5299-5243 20%
RATING
 20%



The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20120831, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record





         Physical Disability Board of Review


 SFMR-RB                                                                         


MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US Army Physical Disability Agency
(TAPD-ZB),

SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation for AR20130010166 (PD201201605)

I have reviewed the enclosed Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review (DoD PDBR) recommendation and record of proceedings pertaining to the subject individual. Under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1554a, I accept the Board’s recommendation and hereby deny the individual’s application.
This decision is final. The individual concerned, counsel (if any), and any Members of Congress who have shown interest in this application have been notified of this decision by mail.

BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:




Encl                                                 
                                                      (Army Review Boards)

CF:
( ) DoD PDBR
( ) DVA

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02152

    Original file (PD-2013-02152.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. There is an addendum to the NARSUM dated 13 July 2004 (7 months prior to separation) which documents constant pain rated 3-10/10 with radicular symptoms “left greater than right” and “exacerbated by prolonged sitting and standing.” The exam documents a normal gait and...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00081

    Original file (PD-2014-00081.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    RATING COMPARISON : Service FPEB – Dated 20090701VA* -(11 Days Post-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Degenerative Arthritis of the Thoracolumbar Spine524210%Thoracolumbar Compression Fracture with Degenerative Joint Disease524220%20091021Other x 0 (Not in Scope)Other x 5 (Not in Scope)20091021 Combined: 10%Combined: 70%*Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20100225(most proximate to date of separation) Thoracolumbar SpineCondition . Physical Disability Board of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02579

    Original file (PD-2014-02579.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Furthermore, the Board’s authority is limited to assessing the fairness and accuracy of PEB rating determinations and recommending corrections, where appropriate. 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. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01732

    Original file (PD2012 01732.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Upon InformalReconsideration following the appeal, the PEB adjudicated the cervical spine (subsuming myofascial pain) and lumbar spine conditions as unfitting, rated 10% each, citing criteria of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Since the PEBadjudicated polyneuropathy and iliotibial band syndrome were integral to the VA “findings” cited in the application, members agreed that those conditions were appropriately included in the Board's scope of review; and, are...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02503

    Original file (PD-2013-02503.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The back condition, characterized as “ chronic low back pain” and “degenerative disk disease,” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AFI 48-123 with no other conditions submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEB (IPEB) adjudicated “chronic low back pain associated with degenerative disc disease [DDD]” as unfitting, rated 10%,citing criteria ofthe VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The CI appealed the fitness determination to the Formal PEB (FPEB), which affirmed the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02578

    Original file (PD-2014-02578.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. Although the narrative summary (NARSUM) dates the onset of both the cervical and lumbar complaints to a fall in July 2006, the service treatment record (STR) contains an entry from May 2006 with a complaint of “mild...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02573

    Original file (PD-2014-02573.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The conditions, characterized as “lower back pain” and “left knee pain”, were forwarded as the sole submissions to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.The Informal PEB adjudicated the conditions as unfitting, rated 10% each,referencing the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy the left knee condition. The VA rating decision (VARD) referenced the lack of service evidence for “any complaint of, treatment for, or diagnosis of any back pain or other back...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01001

    Original file (PD2013 01001.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    A physical therapy (PT) entry a month later, however, documented flexion limited to 30 degrees (normal 90 degrees) and, the MEB physical exam a month after that (3 months pre-separation) noted “limited” ROM and antalgic gait.An earlier entry of April 2006 (7 months pre-separation) documented flexion “20%” (unclear if % reduction or % normal) but, no other STR entries documented grossly decreased ROM or abnormal gait (one specifying normal gait and anothernormal ROM). There is thus no...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01699

    Original file (PD-2014-01699.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Lumbar Spine Condition . There are numerous STR entries documenting grossly normal range-of-motion (ROM), although some note painful motion, and two note decreased ROM (one of these severe, with flexion limited to 30 degreesby pain).There are likewise numerous entries documenting normal gait,with none noting abnormal gait or contour; and, one specifying “no asymmetries of the lumbar spine.” The narrative summary (NARSUM) documented daily constant pain rated 3/10, with exacerbations to 6/10...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 01136

    Original file (PD 2013 01136.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is also noted that the 30 degrees flexion from the NARSUM is incongruent with the recorded ROM in other planes, and would expected to be associated with other exam findings not noted (spasm, guarding, and abnormal contour).Finally, the imprecise language used by the NARSUM examiner in describing his ROM measurements must be considered somewhat of a probative value detractor with regard to VASRD §4.46 (accurate measurement).After protracted deliberation in consideration of all of these...