Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02061
Original file (PD-2013-02061.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX         CASE: PD-2013-02061
BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army          BOARD DATE: 20140805
SEPARATION DATE: 20040805


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty SPC/E-4 (77F/Petroleum Supply) medically separated for a neck and upper back problem. The neck and upper back conditions could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of her Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) or satisfy physical fitness standards. She was issued a permanent U3 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The neck and upper back condition, was the only condition forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. No other condition was submitted by the MEB. The Informal PEB adjudicated “chronic neck and upper back pain” as unfitting, rated 10%, with likely application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The CI made no appeals at that time and was medically separated.


CI’s CONTENTION: “My injuries were service connected resulting in neck, upper and lower back pain due to serving in my military occupation. I have suffered for years with pain which has resulted negatively with me staying in the Army for 20 years. Doing day to day tasks such as sleeping without my neck popping, driving my car, walking distance and lifting my special needs child when necessary. My range-of-motion (ROM) has been limited at times due to the pain I suffer on a daily basis. I cannot run in the park with my children, I cannot stand for long periods of time due to having muscle spasms, flare-ups, and this has been depressing and difficult with my day to day activities for years. I did not have these problems before the military and since my pain issues in my neck and back I would like to be considered for a PDBR.”


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 CI. The rating for the unfitting neck and upper back pain is addressed below. The contended low back condition was not identified by the MEB or PEB; and, thus is not within the Board’s purview. No other conditions are within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of the Board. Any condition outside the Board’s scope of review may be eligible for consideration by the Board for Correction of Military Records. The Board acknowledges the sentiment expressed by the CI regarding the impairment with which her conditions continue to burden her; but, must emphasize that the Disability Evaluation System has neither the role nor the authority to compensate service members for anticipated future severity or potential complications of conditions resulting in medical separation. That role and authority is granted by Congress to the Department of Veterans Affairs, operating under a different set of laws.


RATING COMPARISON :

Service IPEB – Dated 20040511
 VA* – (1 mo. Pre-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Chronic Neck and Upper Back Pain 5237 10% Chronic Neck and Upper Back Strain 5237 10% 20040701
Other x 0 (Not in Scope)
 Other x 0
Combined: 10%
 Combined: 10%
* Derived from VA Rating Decision (VA RD ) dated 200 40823 (most proximate to date of separation ( DOS ) )


ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Chronic Neck and Upper Back Pain. The CI has had a long history of pain in the neck and upper back region. She was treated with medication and physical therapy. However, in spite of treatment, her symptoms persisted. She was referred to the Disability Evaluation System by her unit commander, and an MEB was initiated. The MEB physical examination (PE) was on 7 January 2004. At that visit, the CI reported that certain activities made her pain worse. These activities included push-ups, sit-ups, running, jumping, and carrying her children up and down four flights of stairs. On PE, the upper extremities were symmetrical without gross atrophy. Manual muscle strength testing was 5/5 (normal) bilaterally. On active ROM, the CI grossly lacked full chin flexion (chin to chest). The examiner’s diagnostic assessment was: chronic neck and upper back pain from ligament strain, from repetitive overuse of upper torso.

A month prior to separation, on 1 July 2004, the CI had a VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam. She described her overall health as “good.” She reported that she had begun light running, and could sustain heavy physical activities without immediate distress. On general appearance, she appeared to be fit and healthy, and in no distress. Posture and gait were normal. On PE, the neck was supple with no pain on palpation. There was full ROM of the spine and no paraspinal muscle spasm was present. Neurological exam of the upper extremities was normal, with symmetric musculature and strength bilaterally. Once again, the examiner’s diagnosis was: chronic neck and upper back pain from ligament strain, from repetitive overuse of upper torso. The ROM evaluation from this July 2004 C&P exam is summarized in the chart below.

Cervical ROM
(Degrees) 		VA C&P ~1 mo. Pre-Sep
(20040701)
Flex (45 Normal) 45 ( 50 )
Extension (45) 35
R Lat Flexion (45) 45
L Lat Flexion (45) 30
R Rotation (80) 65
L Rotation (80) 65
Combined (340) 285
Comment Examiner wrote “full”

The Board carefully reviewed all available evidence, and directs attention to its rating recommendation. The Army PEB chose diagnostic code 5237 (cervical strain), and assigned a disability rating of 10%. The neck pain and the upper back pain were bundled together, and treated as a single unfitting condition. The Board evaluated whether or not it was appropriate for the two problems to be “bundled” together. The Board must determine if the PEB’s approach of combining the problems under a single rating was reasonably justified in lieu of separate ratings. The Board must apply separate ratings in its recommendations if compensable ratings for each condition are achieved IAW the VASRD. If the Board judges that two or more separate ratings are warranted, however, it must satisfy the requirement that each ‘unbundled’ condition was separately unfitting. After due deliberation, the Board agreed that the evidence does not support a conclusion that both of the chronic pain problems, separately, would have rendered the CI unable to perform her required military duties. Therefore, the Board does not recommend a separate disability rating for each of the pain problems. Her pain was in a region of her body involving neck and upper back. There is insufficient reason to treat this painful region as two separate regions. The Board concluded that it is appropriate for the neck pain to be bundled together with the upper back pain and treated as a single unfitting condition.

The 1 July 2004 C&P exam was performed just a month prior to separation and therefore had significant probative value. At that exam, combined cervical ROM was 285 degrees. IAW VASRD §4.71a, a 10% rating is warranted when combined cervical ROM is greater than 170 degrees but not greater than 335 degrees. The Board determined that a disability rating of 10% was appropriate. The Board tried to find a path to a higher rating, using other codes which could be applied to the chronic pain condition. The other VASRD codes that were considered did not result in a higher rating, since the treatment record did not show sufficient evidence of a disabling condition which would justify a rating higher than 10%. The Board also considered the matter of cervical peripheral neuropathy. After review of all the information in the record, there was insufficient evidence of a clinically significant neuropathy that interfered with performance of military duties. Therefore, the Board concluded that there was no unfitting radiculopathy present at the time of separation. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board found insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB adjudication of the chronic 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 chronic neck and upper back pain, 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 20131101, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record








                                   
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
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, AR20150001812 (PD201302061)

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

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00078

    Original file (PD2013 00078.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI was evaluated for reported symptoms of paresthesias of the right upper extremity, but cervical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on 9 January 2001 did not show spinal canal stenosis or nerve encroachment and nerve conduction studies on 13 April 2001 did not show any evidence of radicuolpathy.The CI was involved in another MVA on 26 June 2001 and was seen in the ER for “right shoulder, neck and low back pain;” the exam noted only right trapezius muscle tenderness, no spinal tenderness,...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00893

    Original file (PD 2013 00893.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    RATING COMPARISON : Army FPEB – Dated 20070906VA* -(3.4 Year Pre-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Myofascial Neck & RUE Pain, due to DDD5299-524210%DDD, Cervical Spine524220%20040707Capsulitis, Right Shoulder5299-520110%20040707Scar, Right Wrist78040%20040707Right Ulnar NeuropathyNot UnfittingNeuropathy, Right Hand851610%20040707Other X 0 (Not in Scope)Other x 0 Combined: 10%Combined: 40% *Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20050916 (most proximate to...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01640

    Original file (PD2012 01640.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI continued to complain of neck pain and could not perform the full range of activities required by her MOS so she was referred to the MEB.The commander’s letter, 22April 2002, stated that the CI was unable to perform her duties as a supply specialist due to neck and low back pain including wear of the Kevlar helmet.The Board considered whether the cervical spine pain condition,when considered alone separate from the lumbar spine pain syndrome, was unfitting for continued military...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00463

    Original file (PD2012-00463.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The migraine and cubital tunnel syndrome conditions, as requested for consideration, meet the criteria prescribed in DoDI 6040.44 for Board purview; and, are addressed below, in addition to a review of the ratings for the unfitting chronic neck and upper back pain condition. The PT examination used in the NARSUM was performed 10 months prior to separation and only 3.5 months after the CI’s second surgical procedure to her neck. RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00825

    Original file (PD 2012 00825.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board then considered its rating recommendation for the condition at the time of separation. The Board then considered its rating recommendation for the condition at the time of separation. 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 Chronic Low Back Pain 5237 10% Chronic Neck/Upper Back Myofascial Pain Syndrome 5099-5021 0 COMBINED 10% The...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01526

    Original file (PD2012 01526.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    He was then medically separated with a 0% disability rating. As noted above, the CI was medically separated from the Army in April 2003 due to chronic neck and back pain.Twenty months later, he had a VA Compensation and Pension exam. 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.In...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2013 | PD2013 00132

    Original file (PD2013 00132.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Chronic Mandible and Neck Pain Condition . After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 reasonable doubt, the Board recommends a disability rating of 20% for the chronic mandible pain condition coded 9905. Providing orders showing that the individual was retired with permanent disability effective the date of the original medical separation for disability with severance pay.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00937

    Original file (PD 2013 00937.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board’s role is thus confined to the review of medical records and all evidence at hand to assess the fairness of PEB rating determinations, compared to VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards, based on ratable severity at the time of separation; and, to review those fitness determinations within its scope (as elaborated above) consistent with performance-based criteria in evidence at separation. Neck Pain Condition . The single voter for dissent did not elect to submit a...