Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01448
Original file (PD-2013-01448.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX     CASE: PD-2013-01448
BRANCH OF SERVICE: NAVY  BOARD DATE: 20141209
SEPARATION DATE: 20040430


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E-3 (Fire Controlman Third Class) medically separated for a neck condition. This condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of his rating or satisfy physical fitness standards. He was placed on limited duty (LIMDU) and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). “Cervical stenosis status post (s/p) anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF); chronic pain syndrome with myofascial pain; pain disorder associated with both psychological factors and a general medical condition; mild sleep dysfunction secondary to #2 and 3; tension headache; and bilateral knee pain, status post right knee arthroscopy,” were forward to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW SECNAVINST 1850.4E. No other condition was submitted by the MEB. The Informal PEB (IPEB) adjudicated cervical stenosis as Category I (unfitting), rated 10%, with application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The remaining conditions were determined to be C ategory II or III as indicated in the r ating c omparison chart below . The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION: “Brain Damage, spinal, knee, poor vision.” 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 Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (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 :

Service IPEB – Dated 20040325
 VA* - (~6 Mos. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Cervical Stenosis… 5243 10% Cervical Spine, Traumatic & DJD… 5010-5241 10% 20041022
Mild Sleep Dysfunction Category II Sleep Problems, Depression, Nervousness… 9400-9400 NSC 20041022
Panic Disorder… Category II
Chronic Pain Syndrome… Category II No VA Entry 20041022
Bilateral Knee Pain… Category III Right Knee, DJD… 5010-5260 10% 20041022
Left Knee Condition 5299-5261 NSC 20041022
Tension Headaches Category III Tension Headaches 8199-8100 0% 20041022
Other x 0
 Other x 7
Combined: 10%
 Combined: 40%
* Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20050126 (most proxima te to date of separation (DOS))


ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Cervical Stenosis Condition. The CI complains of multiple areas of pain including the neck after a series of falls in early 2002. He did not report any injuries until several months later. Over a period of time, he developed neck pain and bilateral upper extremity radicular symptoms. In January 2003, a cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging study revealed a disc protrusion with bone spur that resulted in a moderate canal narrowing at C6-7. In February 2003, he underwent a fusion of the C6-7 vertebrae and experienced improvement with decreased neck pain. His hands felt stronger and looser, with decreased tingling and numbness. At the MEB narrative summary (NARSUM) examination, dated approximately 3 months prior to separation, the CI reported a bilateral sharp, burning neck pain that was aggravated by extending or lateral rotating his head to either side. The physical exam findings are summarized in the chart below.

At the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam approximately 6 months after separation, the CI reported 7/10 neck pain that radiated into both arms, stating that the procedure had no benefit. The pertinent physical exam findings are in the following chart.

The range-of-motion (ROM) evaluations in evidence which the Board weighed in arriving at its rating recommendation, with documentation of additional ratable criteria, are summarized below:

Cervical ROM (Degrees) NARSUM ~3 Mo s . Pre-Sep VA Ortho ~6 Mo s . Post-Sep
Flex (45 Normal) F ull ROM 35
Combined (340) - 105
Comment Pos. painful motion; Pos. tenderness to palpation; Normal strength, reflexes and sensation Pos. painful motion; Reflexes symmetric; Questionable decreased sensation; 10% decrease in grip strength bilaterally
§4.71a Rating 10 % * (PEB 10%) 20 % (VA 10%)
invalid font number 31502 * invalid font number 31502 IAW §4.59 (p invalid font number 31502 ainful motion)

The Board directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB adjudicated the cervical stenosis condition by applying VASRD code 5243 (intervertebral disc syndrome) and rated it 10%. The VA applied the analogous code 5010-5241 (arthritis due to trauma-spinal fusion) and also rated it 10% citing the ROM measurements documented in the C&P exam. The Board noted that those ROM measurements are consistent with the 20% rating using the combined ROM criteria IAW the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine. The Board considered the probative value of each exam and noted that the NARSUM was performed 3 months prior to separation while the C&P exam was 6 months after separation. Although the NARSUM did not contain goniometric ROM measurements it did document full ROM with the presence of painful motion. The PEB’s 10% adjudication was appropriately based on that exam which was performed 3 months before separation. The Board considered to probative value of the C&P exam and although it did contain actual ROM values, it was 3 months more remote from separation than the NARSUM and was performed after separation. There was no evidence available of review that documented any reason for the post-separation worsening documented by the C&P exam. The Board members agreed that the NARSUM exam was the more probative exam on which to base its rating recommendation. 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 cervical stenosis condition.

Contended PEB Conditions. The Board’s main charge is to assess the fairness of the PEB’s determination that the contended Category II conditions, sleep dysfunction, pain disorder and chronic pain syndrome, were not unfitting. The Board’s threshold for countering PEB fitness determinations for Category II conditions requires that the conditions be “reasonably justified” as separately unfitting and therefore, eligible for a disability rating. The LIMDU document prepared 16 months prior to separation noted the following:

1. Chronic pain syndrome with myofascial pain syndrome.
2. Pain disorder associated with both psychological factors and a general medical condition
3. Mild sleep dysfunction, likely secondary to #1 & 2.

The profile completed 11 months prior to separation only noted the cervical stenosis s/p fusion condition as duty limiting. The commander’s statement stated that the CI was working outside of his specialty due to his condition and contained the following summary statement:

“FC3 Washington performs all tasks quickly and requires little supervision in the performance of assigned duties. He has limited movement and motion with his neck, back and knees could potentially cause more harm to himself or others and I cannot recommend him for retention.”

The Board could not find evidence in the service treatment record that documented any significant interference of the sleep dysfunction, pain disorder and chronic pain syndrome conditions with the performance of duties at the time of separation, nor were any physical findings documented by the MEB or VA examiners which would logically be associated with significant disability. It should also be noted that the VA did not grant service-connection for these conditions proximate to separation. After due deliberation, members agreed that the evidence does not support a conclusion that the functional impairment from any of these conditions were reasonable justified as separately unfitting or integral to the CI’s inability to perform his rating; and, accordingly cannot recommend a separate rating for them.

The Board’s main charge is to assess the fairness of the PEB’s determination that the contended Category III conditions, bilateral knee pain and tension headaches, were not unfitting. The Board’s threshold for countering PEB fitness determinations for Category III conditions is higher than the VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt) standard used for its rating recommendations and requires a preponderance of evidence. The bilateral knee pain and tension headache conditions were not profiled while the knees were implicated in the commander’s statement as causing any duty limitation. All were reviewed by the action officer and considered by the Board. There was no performance based evidence from the record that either of these conditions significantly interfered with satisfactory duty performance proximate to separation. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB fitness determination for the contended Category III bilateral knee pain and tension headache conditions and so no additional disability ratings are recommended.


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 cervical stenosis condition and IAW VASRD §4.71a, the Board unanimously recommends no change in the PEB adjudication. In the matter of the contended sleep dysfunction, pain disorder and chronic pain syndrome Category II conditions, the Board unanimously agrees that it cannot recommend them for additional disability rating. In the matter of the contended bilateral knee pain and tension headache Category III conditions, the Board unanimously recommends no change from the PEB determination as not unfitting. 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 20130912, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record




                                   
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
President
DoD Physical Disability Board of Review
MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY COUNCIL OF REVIEW
BOARDS

Subj: PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW (PDBR) RECOMMENDATIONS

Ref: (a) DoDI 6040.44
(b) CORB ltr dtd 11 May 15

In accordance with reference (a), I have reviewed the cases forwarded by reference (b), and, for the reasons provided in their forwarding memorandums, approve the recommendations of the PDBR that the following individual’s records not be corrected to reflect a change in either characterization of separation or in the disability rating previously assigned by the Department of the Navy’s Physical Evaluation Board:
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN


                                                      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                                            Assistant General Counsel
                  (Manpower & Reserve Affairs)

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00095

    Original file (PD 2013 00095.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Despite the CI’s remarks of pain during portions of flexion of both knees, the VA C&P noted that examination of his knee on 10 June 2003 “ was grossly unremarkable” the examiner of on to state that the knee examination revealed “ no soft tissue swelling, no point tenderness, or joint effusion and there was no ligamentous instability appreciated.” After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded there was insufficient cause to recommend a...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00249

    Original file (PD2009-00249.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The medical basis for the separation was a back condition. A subsequent neurology follow-up note stated, ‘SM does not feel HA’s interfere significantly with duty, though acknowledges that he would be unable to use weapons if he should develop a significant HA with associated visual dysfunction.’ A month later a civilian consultant note stated, ‘Symptoms are now described as moderate to debilitating; when he is afflicted with the most severe symptoms he is incapacitated.’ Specifically, AR...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01106

    Original file (PD2010-01106.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board notes that the reflex and motor exam were normal on the MEB evaluation and that sensation was altered only for the right hand. The CI reported back pain following neck surgery. There was no additional VA conditions, but the Board notes that the VA determined the hearing loss, heart condition, TBI and sleep conditions to not be service-connected and that the heartburn was rated at 0% disability.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00366

    Original file (PD-2012-00366.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Neck Condition. He rated the neck pain as 7/10. Knee Condition.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00833

    Original file (PD2011-00833.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The PEB adjudicated the “chronic neck, back, shoulder, knee, tibial, hip and shoulder pain” as a single unfitting condition rated at 20% with specified application of the USAPDA pain policy; and adjudicated the OSA condition as unfitting, rated 0% with application of DoDI 1332.39. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), in regards to the chronic neck, back, knee, tibia, hip, shoulder pain joint conditions combined under a single...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00010

    Original file (PD2009-00010.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Commander’s statement lumps the peripheral nerve symptoms in with the neck pain and ‘shoulder pain’ when describing interference with her performance. The only other condition rated and service-connected by the VA is a headache condition. The Board has no reasonable basis for recommending the shoulder or headache conditions as additional unfitting conditions for separation rating, and does not have jurisdiction for considering tinnitus.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00228

    Original file (PD2011-00228.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Neck Pain Condition. The PEB rated the CI’s knee pain condition at 0% for slight/intermittent pain IAW the USAPDA pain policy. RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows and that the discharge with severance pay be recharacterized to reflect permanent disability retirement, effective as of the date of his prior medical separation: VASRD CODE 5242 5099-5003 COMBINED RATING 20% 10% 30% UNFITTING CONDITION Chronic Neck Pain Chronic Right Knee...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-01184

    Original file (PD2010-01184.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The VA rated the same knee condition at 20% disability effective the date of separation from the Army. The Army PEB had adjudicated the neck pain, upper back pain, and arm pain as a single unfitting condition using VASRD code 5293-5003. The evidence clearly shows that the CI had pain in his neck and left arm, as well as his upper back region.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01673

    Original file (PD-2014-01673.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    SEPARATION DATE: 20061219 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. Neck Pain and Headaches Condition .

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01533

    Original file (PD-2013-01533.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Informal PEB adjudicated “TBI with residual neck pain and headaches;” “low back pain (LBP);” and “left knee pain with degenerative joint disease (DJD),” as unfitting, rated at 10%, 10%, and 0% respectively, with application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Board could not find evidence in the commander’s statement or elsewhere in the treatment record that documented any significant interference of the neck pain condition with the performance of...