Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01589
Original file (PD-2013-01589.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX             CASE: PD-2013-01589
BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army           BOARD DATE: 20140612
SEPARATION DATE: 20050228


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty PFC/E-3 (11B/Infantryman) medically separated for bilateral knee pain. The bilateral knee condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of his Military Occupational Specialty or satisfy physical fitness standards. He was issued a permanent L3/S2 and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). Chronic bilateral knee pain due to patellofemoral syndrome/patellar chondromalacia, characterized as not meeting retention standards, was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. No other conditions were submitted by the MEB. The Informal PEB adjudicated bilateral knee pain secondary to patellofemoral syndrome as unfitting, rated 0%, citing criteria of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy. The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION: “10% - knees 10% PTSD.”


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 applicant. The ratings for conditions meeting the above criteria are addressed below. In addition, the Secretary of Defense directed a comprehensive review of Service members with certain mental health (MH) conditions referred to a disability evaluation process between 11 September 2001 and 30 April 2012 that were changed or eliminated during that process. The applicant was notified that he may meet the inclusion criteria of the MH Review Terms of Reference. The MH condition was reviewed regarding diagnosis change, fitness determination and rating in accordance with VASRD §4.129 and §4.130. Any conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review, may be eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military Records.


 RATING COMPARISON :

Service IPEB – Dated 20041220
 VA* - (2 Mos. Pre -Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
BILATERAL Knee Pain 5009 5003 0% BILATERAL Knee Pain 5009 5010 10% 20041202
Mental Health Condition Not Adjudicated Adjustment D/O 9440 10% 20041130
Other x 0 (Not in Scope)
Rated: 0%
 Combined: 20%
* Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20050233 (most proximate to date of separation (DOS))


ANALYSIS SUMMARY: The PEB combined the left and right knee pain conditions as a single unfitting condition rated as 5099-5003 (analogous to arthritis) at 0%. The PEB relied on AR 635.40 (B.24 f.) and the USAPDA pain policy for not applying separately compensable VASRD codes. The Board must apply separate codes and ratings in its recommendations if compensable ratings for each condition are achieved IAW VASRD rating guidelines. If the Board judges that two or more separate ratings are warranted in such cases; it must satisfy the requirement that each ‘unbundled’ condition was unfitting in and of itself. Therefore, the Board must exercise the prerogative of separate fitness recommendations in this circumstance, with the caveat that its recommendations may not produce a lower combined rating than that of the PEB.

Bilateral Knee Pain Condition. The narrative summary (NARSUM) noted the CI had chronic aching of both knees without history of specific trauma for a couple (2002-2003) years, worsening in 2004. Bilateral knee X-rays were normal. Orthopedic consultation on 28 September 2004, 5 months prior to separation, noted that the CI had bilateral knee pain, right worse than left, with patellar crepitus and positive grind test of both knees, without other abnormality. He was diagnosed with bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome and patellar chondromalacia. Surgery was not recommended and the CI had physical therapy without resolution of his symptoms. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of both knees performed the day after the NARSUM examination showed degenerative changes with small joint effusions and possible stress changes of the femoral condyles of both knees and an area of swelling in the left quadriceps muscle just above the knee. At the MEB exam on 28 October 2004, 4 months prior to separation, the CI reported pain, swelling, and stiffness of both knees, with “cracking and popping” with bending or squatting, but no giving out. The MEB physical exam of both knees noted tenderness to palpation of the patellae and joint lines, with minimal swelling. Bilateral knee range-of-motion (ROM) was 0 degrees extension (normal 0) and 120 flexion (normal 140) without pain. There was no instability noted. The examiner provided a pain rating of slight/constant.

At the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination on 2 December 2004, 2 months prior to separation, the CI reported bilateral knee pain with stiffness and cracking, difficulty standing, climbing stairs and walking more than a mile or running. He reported he was not receiving any treatment, had no periods of incapacitation and had not lost any work time. The VA examination showed normal gait and posture. Both knees were normal in appearance with full ROM, with no additional loss of ROM with repetition, instability or evidence of cartilage damage and normal motor and sensory examinations. Bilateral knee X-rays were noted to be normal. The examiner indicated the CI experienced daily pain with activity due to the knee conditions.

The Board directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB combined the right and left knee pain conditions and rated as a single unfitting condition of bilateral knee pain at 0%, coded as 5099-5003 (analogous to degenerative arthritis), and cited the USAPDA pain policy. The VA rated patellofemoral syndrome and patellar chondromalacia of both knees at 10%, coded 5099-5010 (analogous to traumatic arthritis), due to MRI evidence of degenerative joint disease of both knees, without painful motion. The Board first reviewed to see if both knees remained unfitting when separated from the PEB’s combined adjudication. The CI was treated for pain in both knees throughout the service treatment record (STR) and MRI of both knees the day after the MEB examination demonstrated abnormalities consistent with the CI’s reported pain. The permanent profile was for bilateral knee pain and the commander’s statement referenced only chronic knee pain. The Board agreed that the evidence in the record reasonably supported that both the right and left knees were unfitting for continued military service at the time of separation. The Board deliberated the rating of the right and left knee pain conditions. The Board considered coding with 5260 (limitation of leg flexion) or 5261 (limitation of leg extension); but the knees did not reach a compensable rating under the ROM rating criteria according to the DoD instruction, p atellofemoral syndrome analogize d to 5261. The Board noted that the VA specified that there was no evidence of painful motion on examination. However, the Board considered that the totality of the evidence in the record supported that the CI had degenerative changes with chronic pain of both knees that limited activity and concluded both the left and right knees met the 10% rating IAW §4.40 (functional loss) which states “a part which becomes painful on use must be regarded as seriously disabled.” After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt) and §4.40, the Board recommends a disability rating of 10% for the right knee and 10% for the left knee conditions separately, both coded as 5299-5261.

Contended Mental Health Conditions. MH notes in the STR indicated that the CI was deployed to Iraq from January to July 2003 and received a combat infantry badge. In September 2004, 5 months prior to separation , t he CI waved a knife at a non-commissioned officer who was reprimanding him for walking and talking on a cell phone . He was admitted as a psychiatric inpatient for safety and further assessment. At the intake evaluation on 14 September 2004 , approximately 5 months prior to separation, he reported that since returning from deployment he had difficulty sleeping with nightmares. He said that he felt trapped when he was being reprimanded and it took him back to events during deployment and he did not know what he was doing. He reported irritability , frequent violent thoughts and sleeping with weapons near his bed for protection. In addi tion , the CI and his family were victims of a financial scam and suffered serious financial losses, which had led to the incident that resulted in the disciplinary action a few months earlier . On mental status examination (MSE) , he was anxious and at times smiled inappropriately , but was otherwise normal without evidence of suicidal or homicidal ideation (SI/HI), or psychotic features. He denied any past suicide attempt. The examiner noted that the CI’s c ommand reported that prior to his demotion he was an exce llent soldier and “had been on a fast track as a highly regarded soldier in his unit.” The working diagnosis on intake was PTSD , rule out depression. The CI was evaluated by the Chief of Inpatient Psychiatry for a n MSE because discharge was being considered for the threatening behavior . The e xaminer’s A xis I diagnosis was a djustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct and A xis II was n arcissistic personality disorder. An expeditious administrative separation was recommended and the psychiatrist indicated that “the diag nosis does not require dispo s i tion through medical channels . ” The examiner noted that the CI was making vague homicidal threats, but was not considered an imminent danger and recommended that he should be held administratively and legally responsible for his actions. The Chief of Psychiatry dictated the hospital discharge summary and indicated that despite some reported symptoms of PTSD , the treatment team thought that the CI’s symptoms were due to the diagnoses noted. At discharge his Global Assessment of Functioning ( GAF ) was 70 and he was willing to face his pen ding Article 15 and looking forward to going home. Following hospital discharge he was on psychotropic medications for sleep and anxiety and the diagnosis remained the same on the remaining MH visits in record . The DD Form 2808 , Report of Medical Examination, listed MH diagn oses of anxiety and depression . There was no psychiatric MEB consult because the s ervice psychiatrist’s opinion was that there was no indication for a n MEB and the NARSUM examiner noted that according to psychiatry the CI had no psychological reasons for a n MEB. The final permanent psychiatric profile was S-2 .

At the initial VA C&P psychiatric evaluation on 30 November 2004, 3 months prior to separation, the CI reported stressful combat-related events with sleep difficulties, nightmares, anger and irritability. The examiner noted that the CI’s records indicated that he reported no difficulties following his return from deployment until a sequence of events occurred: he was the victim of a financial scam, with concomitant stress on his family members who were also victims and he received an Article 15 with a demotion for engaging in activities on base to make money. A few months after this, the knife wielding incident noted above occurred. On MSE, the CI had a normal mood and affect and the examination was otherwise normal without suicidal ideation, thought/speech disturbance, hallucinations/delusions or other acute features. The psychiatrist indicated that DSM-IV criteria for PTSD were not met because the CI did not report “ fear, h elplessness, or horror , ” or being stunned or shoc ked by traumatic events during deployment . The examiner noted the CI reported being angry and irritable but attributed the symptoms mainly to his personal problems, evidence d by his excellent performance as a soldier after deployment until the personal crises occurred. The examiner noted the absence of any physiological reactivity or distress at exposure to reminders of the combat events, as well as “no evidence of avoidance which is critical in making a diagnosis of PTSD.” The A xis I diagnosis was a djustment disorder with mixed disturba nce of mood and conduct and Axis II was p ersonality disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS) with a GAF of 80 to 85 (no significant impairment range ) .

The Board direct s attention to its recommendations based on the above evidence; and, its first assessment with regard to the MH condition, under MH Review Project guidelines, is to judge whether a diagnosis was changed or unfairly eliminated during DES proceedings . The DD Form 2808 listed anxiety and depression, the service psychiatrist diagnosed adjustment disorder and a personality disorder with no indication for an MEB and no MH condition was entered into the DES process. Therefore, this case did not meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the MH Review Project.

 Members next considered the diagnosis of the MH condition and noted that both the s ervice and the VA psychiatrist s directly addressed a diagnosis of PTSD and provided expert opinion that the CI did not meet diagnostic criteria for PTSD; likewise, both MH examiners diagnosed a single A xis I condition of adjustment disorder. All members agreed that DSM IV-TR Criteria A – F for a diagnosis of PTSD were not satisfied by a preponderance of evidence. The PEB and VA psychiatrists likewise provided mutually corroborating evidence that there was not a s ervice disability ratable A xis I MH di agnosis , with both examiners providing an A xis I diagnosis of adjustment disorder . The PEB conferred MH diagnosis of adjustment disorder was not eligible for disability rating IAW DoDI 1332.38 (E5, conditions not constituting a physical disability). The Board agreed that even if a s ervice ratable MH condition was conceded ; the commander’s statement and the r eport of MSE by the s ervice psychiatrist provided strong support that no MH condition was unfitting . After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board therefore concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend any MH condition for disability rating.


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. As discussed above, PEB reliance on the USAPDA pain policy for rating the bilateral knee pain was operant in this case and the condition was adjudicated independently of that policy by the Board. In the matter of the bilateral knee condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating as follows: a right knee condition of 10%, and a left knee condition of 10%, each coded 5299-5261, IAW VASRD §4.71a. In the matter of the contended MH condition, the Board unanimously agrees that it cannot recommend it for additional disability rating. There were no other conditions within the Board’s scope of review for consideration.


RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows, effective as of the date of his prior medical separation:

UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING
Right Knee Pain 5299-5261 10%
Left Knee Pain 5299-5261 10%
RATED/COMBINED 20%


The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20130508, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record







XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, AR20150006994 (PD201301589)


1. 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 to modify the individual’s disability rating to 20% without recharacterization of the individual’s separation. This decision is final.

2. I direct that all the Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected accordingly no later than 120 days from the date of this memorandum.

3. I request that a copy of the corrections and any related correspondence be provided to the individual concerned, counsel (if any), any Members of Congress who have shown interest, and to the Army Review Boards Agency with a copy of this memorandum without enclosures.

BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:




Encl              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                           Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
                           (Review Boards)

CF:
( ) DoD PDBR
( ) DVA

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00878

    Original file (PD-2014-00878.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. At the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam performed 2 monthsprior to separation, the CI reported 6/10 pain with weakness, stiffness, fatigability, locking, and swelling of both knees; with giving out of the right...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02055

    Original file (PD-2014-02055.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    At an Orthopedic follow-up visit 7 March 2007 the CI reported bilateral anterior knee pain and the exam noted patellofemoral tenderness with full motion of both knees, without effusion or instability. In the matter of the bilateral knee condition the Board recommends disability rating as follows: an unfitting right knee condition, rated 10% and an unfitting left knee condition rated 0% both coded 5299-5260 IAW VASRD §4.71a.In the matter of the contended anxiety disorder condition, the Board...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00582

    Original file (PD 2013 00582.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A new MEB was done and identified and forwarded generalized anxiety disorder and alcoholdependence as medically acceptable.The Informal PEBadjudicated chronic bilateral knee pain, chronic back pain, due to DDD, without neurologic abnormality and sensorineural hearing loss as unfitting, rated 10%, 10%, and 0%respectively, citing the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policyand the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The remaining conditions were determined to be not...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 02018

    Original file (PD2013 02018.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Board noted that the VA initially rated the CI for depression with insomnia and did not change the diagnosis until over 3 years after separation, based on the 10 July 2012 C&P evaluation. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 02099

    Original file (PD2013 02099.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    At the MEB separation exam on 31 March 2005 (9 months prior to separation), the CI denied any history of knee injury. In the matter of the chronic right knee pain condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 10%, coded 5099-5003.In the matter of any contended MH condition, the Board unanimously agrees that it cannot recommend it for additional disability rating.There were no other conditions within the Board’s scope of review for consideration. Physical Disability...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD2014 00469

    Original file (PD2014 00469.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 applicant. The Board discussed coding analogously to5262 (knee disability due to impairment of the tibia or fibula) with subjective 10%, 20% and 30% ratings of slight, moderate or severe knee disability and agreed that the reported mild daily knee pain with a normal gait...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00717

    Original file (PD2013 00717.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There are compelling opinions and evidence from subsequent VA neurologic and psychiatric evaluations that there was a very substantial psychological contribution to the physical disability in this case, which will not be elaborated here; but is probative to the Board’s rating recommendation which must be based on the disability confined to the unfitting knee condition(s) based on criteria of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) §4.71a. The Board,IAW VASRD §4.7 (higher of two...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00925

    Original file (PD2013 00925.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The “chronic pain, multiples cites [ sic ]”characterized as “mechanical thoracic and lumbar back pain,, “right knee pain,” “right ankle pain,” “right foot sesamoiditis and metatarsalgia,”“left knee pain,” and “left foot and ankle pain,” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. Bilateral knee condition . X-rays were normal for both knees.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00988

    Original file (PD2013 00988.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Right knee pain secondary to patellar tendonitis and shrapnel injury was diagnosed.The PT noted the need for ambulation with a cane and knee brace with strength limited by pain. The Board reviewed the MH conditions for “fitness” and possible rating (under VASRD 4.130) if determined to be “unfitting” for military service. Physical Disability Board of Review

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00066

    Original file (PD 2012 00066.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The chronic low back pain with degenerative disc disease was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.The MEB also identified and forwarded six other conditions(bilateral knee pain, sleep apnea, hypertension, dyslipidemia, delayed PTSD and adjustment disorder) all meeting retention standards for PEB adjudication.The Informal PEB adjudicated “degenerative arthritis of the spine”as unfitting, rated at 20%.The remaining conditions were determined to be not unfitting.The CI...