Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01849
Original file (PD2012 01849.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army
CASE NUMBER: PD1201849 SEPARATION DATE: 20030109
BOARD DATE: 20130320


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty SPC/E-4 (97B/Counterintelligence Agent), medically separated for chronic right foot pain. The CI tripped on some stairs and injured his right foot, shortly after being on active duty for a year. The CI underwent surgery to repair the fracture and subsequently had additional surgery to remove hardware from the initial surgery. Despite ongoing treatment, the CI could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of his Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) or satisfy physical fitness standards. He was issued a permanent L3 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The MEB identified “bone pain secondary to delayed union and bone graft with sural nerve damage and chronic sural neuritis secondary to surgical scar” and forwarded this condition to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for adjudication. The MEB did not forward any other conditions to the PEB. The PEB adjudicated “pain right fifth metatarsal area” as unfitting, and rated 10%. The CI made no appeals and was medically separated with this rating.


CI CONTENTION: “Nerve damage (RT foot/ankle) due to surgery of broken RT metatarsal. (pinky toe bone/between RT ankle & pinky toe) Rod inserted then removed” [sic]


SCOPE OF REVIEW: The Board’s scope of review is defined in Department of Defense Instruction (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. Ratings for unfitting conditions will be reviewed in all cases. The rated right foot condition as requested for consideration meets the criteria prescribed in DoDI 6040.44 for Board purview. The CI’s right ankle condition was not recognized by the MEB or PEB and is therefore not within the board’s purview. Any conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review, remain eligible for future consideration by the respective Board for Correction of Military Records.


RATING COMPARISON:

Service IPEB – Dated 20021003
 VA - rating based on service treatment record (STR) review
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Right Fifth Metatarsal S/P Fracture and ORIF
 5299-5279 10% Post Op Residuals, Fracture of Right Fifth Toe with Chronic Sural Neuritis 5299-5279 10% STR
No Additional MEB/PEB Entries
 Other x 0 STR
Combined: 10%
 Combined: 10%
VA Rating base on VARD 20030117





ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Pain Right Fifth Metatarsal Area Condition. The narrative summary (NARSUM) notes that the CI had a right fifth metatarsal fracture in October 2000. He had open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) surgery due to delayed healing. He continued to have pain and paresthesias and a second surgery removed the screw in an effort to relieve the symptoms. Despite this, the CI continued to have pain at the fracture site and along the scar. The NARSUM stated that the CI was unable to perform all the duties of his MOS because he could not wear necessary foot gear and had “trouble running for long periods of time.” At the MEB exam on 28 June 2002, approximately 5 months prior to separation, the CI reported cramping of the right fifth toe and sharp pain up the leg that lasts 10 to 15 seconds, 2 to 3 times per day. He noted bruising, tenderness, decreased sensation, and hypersensitivity along the lateral aspect of the foot and difficulty running. The MEB physical exam noted a well healed scar and “severe” paresthesias with palpation along the lateral side of the foot. X-rays showed good healing and alignment. The DD Form 2808 dated 10 July 2002 noted the right ankle was tender to palpation (TTP), with swelling inferior to the lateral malleolus in addition to tenderness along the lateral foot scar. There was no ankle instability and full range-of-motion (ROM) of motion was noted. An orthopedic consult on 12 July 2002 evaluated bruising along the peroneal tendons at the mid forefoot. Pain and decreased sensation of the lateral foot were noted, but no motor or vascular abnormalities. The examiner stated “R foot sural neuritis cannot explain the bruising (sic). This is not why he has pain. It is the nerve.” There was no VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam near the time of separation. The initial VA Rating Decision (VARD) was based on the service treatment records (STR).

The Board directs attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB and the VA rated pain right fifth metatarsal area as 5299-5279 (metatarsalgia) at 10%. (the VARD dated 17 January 2003 was based on the STR only). The Board considered coding as 5283 (malununion of a metatarsal) but X-rays near separation indicated the fifth metatarsal had healed well with good alignment; orthopedic consultation stated that the CI’s foot pain was from the nerve. The Board opined that the CI’s diagnosed lateral foot sural nerve neuritis, secondary to post-surgical scarring, was comparable to tarsal tunnel syndrome (a compression of the posterior tibia nerve) of the medial (inner side) ankle/foot. The Board deliberated rating the CI’s right foot condition as 8625 (analogous to neuritis of the posterior tibia nerve) as mild or moderate in the absence of motor involvement. However, both the mild and moderate ratings of 8625 are 10%. A higher rating of 20% IAW VASRD §4.123 cannot be assigned in the absence of sciatic nerve involvement, not present in this case. The Board agreed that the CI’s right foot disability characterized by toe cramping and sharp pain for seconds, a few times a day, and difficulty running did not meet the criteria under 8625 for rating as severe. Thus, there was not a higher rating achievable coding with 8625 than with the PEB’s coding choice. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (Resolution of reasonable doubt), the Board concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB adjudication for the right fifth toe pain 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 pain right fifth metatarsal 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
Pain Right Fifth Metatarsal Area after Fracture
 5299-5279 10%
COMBINED
 10%


The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20120816, 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 AR20130007791 (PD201201849)

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 | CY2010 | PD2010-00996

    Original file (PD2010-00996.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board therefore has no reasonable basis for recommending the ankle condition for separation rating. The Board therefore has no reasonable basis for recommending any additional unfitting conditions for separation rating. I have reviewed the subject case pursuant to reference (a) and, for the reasons set forth in reference (b), approve the recommendation of the Physical Disability Board of Review Mr. XXXX’s records not be corrected to reflect a change in either his characterization of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01894

    Original file (PD2012 01894.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CI CONTENTION : “Medical Board combined Right and Left conditions as one and left off pes planus from diagnostic evaluation. All members agreed, however, that separate ratings (unilateral or bilateral) under separate codes was not compliant with VASRD §4.14 (avoidance of pyramiding), which specifies that “the evaluation of the same manifestation under different diagnoses are to be avoided.” Specifically a separate compensable rating for pes planus, as contended by the CI and conferred by...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00745

    Original file (PD2011-00745.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The CI was then medically separated with a 10% disability rating. Pain Left Foot Condition . All evidence considered, there is not a preponderance of the evidence in the CI’s favor supporting addition of the left ankle condition as an unfitting condition for separation rating.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01261

    Original file (PD-2013-01261.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DoDI 6040.44 provides for consideration of post-separation VA findings, particularly within 12 months of separation, although the Board’s recommendation is premised on the degree of disability at separation. The VA’s (belated) 10% rating was under code 5284 (foot injuries, other) for “moderate disability,” which offers a 20% rating for “moderately severe” and 30% for “severe.”Members agreed, that IAW VASRD §4.7 (higher of two evaluations), 5003 was not the optimal code for rating in this...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02297

    Original file (PD-2013-02297.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. A provider note from April 2005 (10 months prior to separation) states, “Achilles symptoms are self-manageable per patient, but primary complaint is surgical site foot pain.” TheAchilles condition was never profiled. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00444

    Original file (PD 2012 00444.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the right ankle pain; common peroneal partial neuritis, moderate condition as unfitting, rated 20%. The PEB rated that at 0%. However, the unfitting condition was right ankle pain a separate rating would be based on the same impairment used to adjudicate a rating under the nerve code used by the PEB and is prohibited by §4.14 (Avoidance of pyramiding).

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00547

    Original file (PD2009-00547.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered this evaluation in determining the CI’s condition at the time of separation from service. While the VASRD code 5276 could be used analogously, it appears that the malunion of the metatarsal fractures with subsequent pain, arthritis, and painful motion of the right foot and ankle as well as the inability to perform or sustain prolonged or exertional activities are the conditions that limited the CI’s ability to perform the required duties of his rank and rating. The CI...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 01026

    Original file (PD 2014 01026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The PEB adjudicated “hallux limitus”as unfitting rating each great toe separately at 10% with a 20% combined rating, which included the bilateral factor. The remainder of the foot and ankle examination was normal.The MEB NARSUM concluded with diagnoses of hallux limitus (decreased motion of the toe) and metatarsal head metatarsalgia (pain at the base of the great toe). There was painful motion of the great toes, but the remainder of the foot...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00755

    Original file (PD2011-00755.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW Right Foot Condition. Physical Disability Board of Review

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00017

    Original file (PD2012-00017.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated right ankle pain as unfitting, rated 20%; with likely application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy. At the MEB exam, the CI reported continued daily pain 4 on a scale of 1-10 currently with 8 being the worse, stiff right ankle, only able to walk on the lateral side of the right foot with numbness and tingling of the heel and lateral foot area since surgery. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no...