Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01728
Original file (PD-2013-01728.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    CASE: PD-2013-01728
BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army  BOARD DATE: 20150303
SEPARATION DATE: 20040815


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E-2 (Network Switching Systems Operator/Maintainer) medically separated for chronic bilateral foot pain. The condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of his Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) nor satisfy physical fitness standards. He was issued a permanent L3 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). “Bilateral slight/constant pain of the feet due to idiopathic neuropathy” and “chronic dysthesias of the feet, secondary to idiopathic neuropathy” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. No other condition was submitted by the MEB. The Informal PEB adjudicated “chronic bilateral foot pain and dysthesias, due to non-specific idiopathic neuropathy” as unfitting, rated 10%, c iting application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy. The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION: The CI elaborated no specific contention in his application.


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 :

IPEB – Dated 20040625
 VA* - (~1 Mos. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Chronic Bilateral Foot Pain and Dysthesias 5099 5003 10% Neuropraxia of the Right Foot with Plantar Fasciitis and Metatarsalgia 8599-8524 10% 20040915
Neuropraxia of the Left Foot with Plantar Fasciitis and Metatarsalgia 8599-8524 10% 20040915
Other x 0
Other x 0
RATING: 10%
 COMBINED RATING: 20%
* Derived from VA Rating Decision (VA RD ) dated 200 41118 (most proximate to date of separation [ DOS ] ) .

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Bilateral Foot Condition. The service treatment record revealed that the CI twisted his right ankle on 10 March 2003 during a physical training run. X-rays confirmed no fracture and a diagnosis of sprain was rendered. Conservative treatment to include pain medication and rest did not resolve his symptoms. Additionally, absent history of direct trauma, the CI developed left ankle pain in May 2003 which also was initially diagnosed as a sprain. Over a short period of time his painful symptoms spread about the bottom of both feet to include numbness of the forefoot (toes) of both feet. Although interim exams indicated additional diagnoses of plantar fasciitis, metatarsalgia, and the presence of bunions, both podiatry and neurology agreed that the CI’s overall worsening symptoms were due to neuropraxia secondary to the wearing of tight-fitting boots. In May 2004, the CI was permanently profiled with the diagnosis of neuropathy of both feet and restricted to wear soft shoes. The commander’s statement did not support retention.

At the MEB narrative summary (NARSUM) examination performed on 12 May 2004 (3 months prior to separation) the CI reported the inability to do any of the Army physical fitness testing. “He is unable to wear boots more than a couple of hours per day. He is most comfortable in soft shoes.” His condition was listed as “stable.” The physical exam noted the presence of an antalgic gait, “mild” bilateral pes planus (flat feet), and a right-sided bunion. There was tenderness along both (right “slightly” worse than left) arches and decreased sensation on the top of both feet. Proprioception was normal. Range-of-motion of both feet was normal. The VARD indicated a 10% rating of each foot (combined 20%) IAW VASRD §4.124a Schedule of Ratings-Diseases of the Peripheral Nerves, and citing a sensory polyneuropathy of each lower extremity.

The Board directed attention to its rating recommendations for the bilateral foot pain condition and debated several options for coding and rating. The PEB and VA chose different coding options for the condition and both were IAW §4.71a. The PEB chose to bundle the feet and assign an analogous code 5099-5003 (degenerative arthritis) at 10%. The VA assigned separate 10% ratings for each foot analogously coded under the peripheral nerve code 8599-8524 (incomplete paralysis of the tibial nerve), presumably with application of §4.40 (functional loss) since no limitation of motion was specifically noted.

The Board first considered if each foot, having been de-coupled from the combined PEB adjudication, remained independently unfitting. All members agreed that there was reasonable justification that each foot, as an isolated condition with logically identical findings, would have rendered the CI incapable of continued service within his MOS; specifically noting numbness of the forefoot and, accordingly merits separate ratings. Considering the degree of dysethesia (abnormal sensation) that correlated with the bilateral sensory polyneuropathy as described by the VA, Board members agreed that the chosen peripheral nerve analogously coded under 8524 was an appropriate option IAW VASRD §4.124. Although the CI ambulated with an altered gait at the NARSUM examination, the absence of any motion limitation did not support a level of impairment above “mild” 10%. After due deliberation, considering all evidence, and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board unanimously recommends that each foot be separately adjudicated as follows: an unfitting right foot condition and unfitting left foot condition, each coded 8599-8524 and rated 10%, both IAW VASRD §4.124a. Additionally, Board members did entertain the VASRD unilateral code of 5284 (foot injuries, other) and determined that the intensity of the CI’s symptoms would support only “moderate” (10%) impairment to each foot; thereby conferring no additional benefit to the Board’s current recommendation under 8524 for a combined 20%.


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 bilateral feet was operant in this case and the condition was adjudicated independently of that policy and instruction by this Board. In the matter of the bilateral foot condition and IAW VASRD §4.124a, the Board unanimously recommends a change in the rating to 10% and reflect VASRD code 8599-8524 for the right foot and 8599-8524 rated at 10% for the left foot for a combined 20% disability impairment. 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:

CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING
Right Foot Neuropraxia 8599-8524 10%
Left Foot Neuropraxia 8599-8524 10%
COMBINED (w/BLF) 20%


The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20131016, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans Affairs Treatment Record



XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
President
DoD 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, AR20150011077 (PD201301728)


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 | CY2009 | PD2009-00055

    Original file (PD2009-00055.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Bilateral foot pain was adjudicated by the PEB as a single unfitting condition and the CI was medically separated with a disability rating of 0%. All evidence considered and IAW VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board recommends that the foot condition be separately coded as above and each rated 10% for moderate disability. In the matter of the bilateral foot condition, the Board unanimously recommends that each foot be separately adjudicated as follows: an unfitting right foot condition...

  • 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 00809

    Original file (PD 2012 00809.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The CI was then medically separated with a 10% disability rating. All records and exams refer to bilateral lower leg pain. In regards to the bilateral leg conditions combined under a single 5003 rating by the PEB, the Board unanimously recommends that each leg be individually unfitting and individually rated.

  • 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 | 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 | CY2013 | PD-2013-01956

    Original file (PD-2013-01956.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. Pre-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Bilateral Metatarsalgia527910%Bilateral Pes Planus527610%20050106Other Conditions x 0 (Not In Scope)Other x 4 RATING: 10%RATING: 20% *Derived from VA Rating...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-01079

    Original file (PD2011-01079.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Bilateral Foot Condition. The Board notes, however, that the disability in this case is a good analogous fit with peripheral nerve coding in alignment with the VA approach. UNFITTING CONDITION Chronic Pain and Neuralgia, Left Foot Chronic Pain and Neuralgia, Right Foot VASRD CODE RATING 8799-8725 8799-8725 COMBINED (w/ BLF) 10% 10% 20% XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX President Physical Disability Board of Review SFMR-RB MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US Army Physical Disability Agency (TAPD-ZB / ),...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01845

    Original file (PD 2012 01845.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board must apply separate codes and ratings in its recommendations if compensable ratings for each condition are achieved IAW VASRD rating guidelines. Pain management notes in the service treatment record (STR) indicate that post tarsal tunnel release the CI continued with pain in both feet, rated at 6 to 7 out of 10 on the left and 9 out of 10 on the right. At the VA exam bilateral foot sensation was noted to be normal.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01437

    Original file (PD-2013-01437.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. Post-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Bilateral Metatarsalgia527910%Bilateral Metatarsalgia s/p Metatarsal Fractures527910%20040914Other Conditions x 0 (Not In Scope)Other x 0 RATING: 10%RATING: 10% *Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01403

    Original file (PD-2013-01403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The bilateral foot condition, characterized as “plantar fasciitis (PF)” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. The Board therefore, only reviewed to see if a higher combined rating was achieved with any applicable VASRD code. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination.