Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01437
Original file (PD-2013-01437.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    CASE: PD-2013-01437
BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army  BOARD DATE: 20150715
SEPARATION DATE: 20040331


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E-2 (Petroleum Supply Specialist) medically separated for a bilateral foot condition. The condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of his Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). He was issued a permanent L3 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The “bilateral metatarsalgia secondary to second metatarsal fractures,” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. No other conditions were submitted by the MEB. The Informal PEB adjudicated the bilateral foot as unfitting, rated 10%, with likely application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION: The applicant makes no specific contention in his application. His complete submission is at Exhibit A.


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 when specifically requested by the CI, those conditions identified by the PEB, but determined to be not unfitting. Any conditions outside the Board’s defined scope of review and any contention not requested in this application may remain eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military/Naval Records. 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 VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The Board has neither the role nor the authority to compensate for post-separation progression or complications of service-connected conditions. That role and authority is granted by Congress to the Department of Veterans Affairs, operating under a different set of laws. The Board gives consideration to VA evidence, particularly within 12 months of separation, but only to the extent that it reasonably reflects the severity of the disability at the time of separation.


RATING COMPARISON

IPEB - Dated 20040220
 VA* - (~6 Mos. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Bilateral Metatarsalgia 5279 10% Bilateral Metatarsalgia s/p Metatarsal Fractures 5279 10% 20040914
Other Conditions x 0 (Not In Scope)
 Other x 0
RATING: 10%
 RATING: 10%
*Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20 0 41 026 (most proximate to date of separation (DOS) ) .




ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Bilateral Foot. The service treatment record (STR) noted that the CI developed bilateral foot pain after performing an extended march during basic training. Although initial X-rays were normal, subsequent repeat films revealed deposition of new bone in both feet about the 2nd metatarsal bone…thus indicating a continued healing process of a previous fracture. Further remote X-rays performed on 30 September 2003 revealed complete healing of previously mentioned fractures. Despite conservative treatment of medications, physical therapy, immobilization, orthotics, and activity restrictions, his painful symptoms continued and he was referred for an MEB. At the narrative summary (NARSUM) examination (4 months prior to separation), the CI endorsed a dull and constant pain to both feet which increases with activity. The physical examination (PE) revealed tenderness across the second metatarsal bilaterally. All other PE parameters to include range-of-motion (ROM) (ankle and toes), strength, sensation, and motor activity were normal and or intact. There was no comment with regards to any degree of painful motion on examination. The diagnosis was chronic bilateral foot pain. The examiner assessed that the CI’s condition severity was “moderate” and the effect on functional ability was “significant.” The commander’s statement also implicated the CI’s inability to perform duties within his MOS.

At the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination performed 5 months after separation, the CI reported bilateral foot pain with walking and standing. He denied any aggravation with performing activities of daily living (ADLs). The examiner documented a detailed and normal examination excepting bilateral (dorsal) foot tenderness.

The Board directed its attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB used code 5279 (metatarsalgia) which allowed for a single rating of 10% applied either unilaterally or bilaterally. Board members first deliberated if the left and right foot, having been de-coupled from the combined PEB adjudication, remained separately unfitting and therefore subject to a Service rating. The objective clinical STR evidence, as well as X-ray findings, remained equivocal to both feet without a clear indication of one foot significantly more impaired than the other. Board members agreed that it would be highly speculative to conclude that the disability separately confined to either foot would have rendered the CI incapable of performing his military duties, and member consensus was reasonable to surmise that the combination of both feet was the condition which rendered him the physical restrictions making him unfit for continued military service. Although there was no direct evidence of painful motion, Board members considered and agreed on a combined rating of both feet conceding VASRD §4.40 (functional loss) noting “a part which becomes painful on use must be regarded as seriously disabled”, based upon the CI’s reported complaints of increased pain associated with an increase in activity. The most reasonable and appropriate bilateral coding for this case remains with the PEB’s choice of 5279 which confers a 10% rating for bilateral impairment. None of the other foot codes available in VASRD §4.71a were applicable to the CI’s diagnoses or disability. There was no evidence of a ratable peripheral nerve impairment or documentation of incapacitating episodes which would provide for additional or higher rating. 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 disability rating for the bilateral foot 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 bilateral foot 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 re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination.


The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20130917, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans Affairs Treatment Record



XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
President
Physical Disability Board of Review




         SAMR-RB                                                                         


MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US Army Physical Disability Agency
(AHRC-DO), 2900 Crystal Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22202-3557


SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, AR20150012427 (PD201301437)


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              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                           Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
                                    (Review Boards)
                                                     
CF:
( ) DoD PDBR
( ) DVA
        

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2012 | PD2012 01495

    Original file (PD2012 01495.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI then returned with left foot pain and was diagnosed by bone scan in June 2001 to have another metatarsal stress fracture; she was again treated. The VA rated the right foot pain and the left foot pain separately, each as 5299-5284 (analogous to other foot injury) at 10% (moderate), combined with bilateral factor to 20%. SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation for AR20130009110 (PD201201495)I have reviewed the enclosed Department of Defense...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02370

    Original file (PD-2014-02370.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 theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Bilateral Foot Condition . In the matter of the bilateral foot 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...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00842

    Original file (PD-2012-00842.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the chronic left foot pain due to sprain of the 5th metatarsal cuboid and plantar fasciitis conditions as unfitting, rated 10%. Pre-Separation) – All Effective Date 20040204 Condition Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam Chronic Left Foot Pain due to Sprain 5th Metatarsal Cuboid and Plantar Fasciitis 5299-5279 10% Bilateral Plantar Fasciitis 5299-5276 10% 20031216 Dysthymic Disorder Not Unfitting Dysthymic Disorder 9433 10% 20031204 .No...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02609

    Original file (PD-2013-02609.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The bilateral foot condition, characterized as “metatarsalgia, bilateral feet” and “neuroma, left foot,” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.A second MEB changed the “neuroma, left foot” to “neuroma, right foot.” No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEB (IPEB) adjudicated “chronic bilateral foot pain diagnosed as metatarsalgia with left sided neuroma, status post neurectomy”as unfitting, rated 10%, with likely application of the Veterans...

  • 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 | CY2010 | PD2010-01176

    Original file (PD2010-01176.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Informal PEB (IPEB) adjudicated the chronic right foot pain due to Morton’s neuroma condition as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Although there were examination findings of hallux valgus and hammer toes (single toes) there were no symptoms or impairment attributed to these abnormalities that would warrant rating under VASRD codes 5280 or 5282, and, if rated using these codes, would not attain a minimum...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01642

    Original file (PD-2013-01642.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The conditions, characterized as “degenerative joint disease of the left knee,” “metatarsal deformity,” and “callous/corn,” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEBadjudicated the knee and foot conditions as unfitting, rated them as a single unfitting condition at 10%, citing application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy.The CI made no appeals and was medically separated. ...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00918

    Original file (PD 2012 00918.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board evaluates DVA evidence proximal to separation in arriving at its recommendations, but its authority resides in evaluating the fairness of DES fitness decisions and rating determinations for disability at the time of separation. Painful Feet Condition. RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows, effective as of the date of her prior medical separation: UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING Painful...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00978

    Original file (PD-2012-00978.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board noted the otherwise normal examinations and normal gait and concluded the unfitting pelvic ramus stress fracture condition most nearly approximated the 0% rating adjudicated by the VA at the time of separation. The Board considered the rating for the unfitting right foot metatarsal stress fractures under the codes used by the PEB and VA (5279 and 5284 respectively) as well as 5283, malunion of metatarsal bones. In the matter of the contended stress fracture right first, second...