Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00546
Original file (PD2013 00546.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX         CASE: PD1300546
BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army  BOARD DATE: 20140730
SEPARATION DATE: 20091217


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty SPC/E-4 (88M/Motor Transport Operator) medically separated for chronic low back pain (LBP) evaluated as spondylolisthesis. The back condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of her Military Occupational Specialty or satisfy physical fitness standards. She was issued a permanent L3S1 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). Chronic LBP was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. The MEB also identified and forwarded anxiety disorder (meets retention standards). The Informal PEB adjudicated “chronic low back pain evaluated as Spondylolisthesis” as unfitting, rated 20%, with application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The remaining condition , a nxiety d isorder was determined to be not unfitting and therefore not rated. The CI made no appeals and was medically separated .


CI CONTENTION: “I still have ongoing treatment from Dr. B--- @ KU Medical Center. They want to do surgery and I have more problems now performing everyday duties. I have muscle spasms daily and fall because by legs give out at least 1 time per month. I currently take muscle relaxers and MRI show bulging disk in lower back and 3 bulging disk in neck that are thought to be caused by accident. My depression has also gotten worse and have major depression.” [sic]


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 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 she may meet the inclusion criteria of the Mental Health Review Terms of Reference. The mental health 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 20091006
 VA - (3.5 and 4 Mos. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Chronic Low Back Pain Evaluated as Spondylolisthesis 5239 20% Spondylolisthesis 5239 10% 20100409
Anxiety Disorder Not Unfitting Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood 9400-9440 70% 20100331
Other x 0 (Not in Scope)
 Other x 5 20100409
Rating: 20%
 Combined: 70%
Derived from VA Rating Decision (VA RD ) dated 20 100527 ( most proximate to date of separation [ DOS ] ).
ANALYSIS SUMMARY: The Board acknowledges the CI’s information regarding the significant impairment with which her service-connected condition continues to burden her; but, must emphasize that the Military Disability Evaluation System (DES) has neither the role nor the authority to compensate 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 (DVA), operating under a different set of laws. The Board considers DVA evidence proximate to separation in arriving at its recommendations; and, DoDI 6040.44 defines a 12-month interval for special consideration to post-separation evidence. Post-separation evidence is probative to the Board’s recommendations only to the extent that it reasonably reflects the disability at the time of separation.

Chronic Low Back Pain Evaluated as Spondylolisthesis. At the MEB exam, the CI reported onset of back pain after a motor vehicle accident in July 2008. Conservative therapy including physical therapy, chiropractic, acupuncture, narcotic pain medication and epidural steroid injection did not alleviate the pain condition. Pain was noted to sometimes radiate into the left leg above the knee level. MRI noted lumbar spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis with degenerative disk disease. The MEB physical exam noted no tenderness, negative straight leg testing, normal neurologic exam with normal heel and toe walking. Range-of-motion (ROM) testing documented forward flexion to 35 degrees (normal 90 degrees) and combined ROM of 165 degrees (normal 240 degrees). The examiner stated the CI “appeared to demonstrate further range of motion than measured when doing routine activities such as getting on and off the examination table.” At the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam performed almost 4 months after separation, the CI reported continued back pain increased with activity. Exam documented normal gait with no motor or neurologic deficits. ROM was forward flexion of 85 degrees and combined ROM of 230 degrees (normal 240 degrees) with painful motion.

The Board directs attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The narrative summary (NARSUM) documented forward flexion of 35 degrees met the VASRD 20% rating criteria for “forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30⁰ but not greater than 60⁰.” Pain (whether or not it radiates), stiffness, or aching in the area of the spine affected by residuals of injury or disease is included under the general spine formula 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 adjudication for the LBP condition.

Contended PEB Conditions. The Board’s main charge is to assess the fairness of the PEB’s determination that anxiety disorder (or any MH disorder) was not unfitting. The Board’s threshold for countering fitness determinations is higher than the VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt) standard used for its rating recommendations, but remains adherent to the DoDI 6040.44 “fair and equitable” standard. The NARSUM indicated a pre-service history of anxiety with pharmacotherapy that was self-discontinued prior to service entry. The CI indicated recurrence of anxiety in 2008 with history that she “sometimes becomes anxious while out in public and would have an anxiety attack.” She was started on medication (Celexa) which seemed to help, but indicated other prior medications were more helpful. Treatment notes indicated depression as a diagnosis in 2007 with adjustment disorder indicated in 2008. Subsequent evaluations with treatment changed the diagnosis to anxiety disorder which was the diagnosis listed on the MEB and PEB. Diagnoses also included methamphetamine dependence sustained in full remission, cannabis-related disorder sustained in full remission and personality disorder with paranoid and borderline features. Treatment notes during the DES also indicated depression as a diagnosis. [Of note, Military Entrance Processing Station entry physical dated June 2007 denied “nervous trouble of any sort (anxiety or panic attacks), prior drug or alcohol abuse, or prior hospitalizations.] The DD Form 2808 listed “Anxiety/depression” under summary of defects and diagnoses and indicated an S1 profile.

The commander’s statement did not specify any MH condition or impairments, but in Section IIIB checked blocks 3A/B/C/D (performance issues are due to needs more time for each task; performs duties/tasks with errors or incompletely; does not complete the duties/tasks; unable to complete 8 hour duty day); 4 C/D (Intermittent periods where (CI) unable to perform occupational tasks; occasional difficulties with reduced reliability and productivity); and 5B (difficulty establishing and/or maintaining effective work relationships with supervisors and/or co-workers). The only text entry pertaining to any MH condition was “always complaining” written-in under 5B above.

At the VA C&P exam performed almost 4 months after separation, the diagnosis was adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood with Cannabis dependence. The CI reported multiple pre-service psychiatric hospitalizations and “stopping all psychiatric medications about three weeks prior to entry in the Army.” Symptoms included anxiety with monthly panic attacks, sleep disturbance and depression. Marital separation of 3 months and current Cannabis use was documented. The Global Assessment of Functioning score was 50 (serious symptoms). The VA indicated the condition had been aggravated by military service and rated the MH condition at 70%.

All MH symptoms and diagnoses were reviewed by the action officer and considered by the Board. This case does not meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the MH Diagnosis Review Project. There was not a preponderance of the evidence to change or add any MH diagnosis. The anxiety disorder condition was not profiled and was not judged to fail retention standards. There was scant performance based evidence from the record that any MH condition significantly interfered with satisfactory duty performance. There was clear post-separation worsening noted in the post-separation VA exam. 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 any MH 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 LBP condition and IAW VASRD §4.71a, the Board unanimously recommends no change in the PEB adjudication. In the matter of the contended anxiety (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, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination.
The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20130515, 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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX , AR20140016135 (PD201300546)

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                                                  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                                                      Deputy Assistant Secretary
                                                      (Army Review Boards)

CF:
( ) DoD PDBR
( ) DVA

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01068

    Original file (PD2013 01068.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the evidence, the Board determined that a disability rating of 10% was appropriate. On MSE, the CI’s orientation, appearance, hygiene, behavior and eye contact were all normal. 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...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00462

    Original file (PD2013 00462.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board noted the first VA C&P examination was well outside the 12-month time frame specified in DoDI 6040.44 regarding VA evaluations for Board consideration to have significant probative value in the Board’s rating recommendation, and the CI did indicate that his pain was “worse” further suggesting it did not reflect his condition at separation. Mental Health Review Contended MH Conditions .Although the CI elaborated no contention related to any MH condition, it is noted that he...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01211

    Original file (PD2013 01211.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    RATING COMPARISON : Service IPEB – Dated 20030511Based on VA and Service Treatment Records(STR)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Low Back Pain, Without Neurologic Abnormality5299-529510%Chronic LBP w/DDD523710%STR & 20040818Muscle Atrophy Right Thigh and Right Leg, Etiology UndeterminedNot UnfittingRight Lower Extremity Atrophy….w/LBP w/DDD852110%STROther x 1 (Within Scope)Depression/Insomnia9499-9434NSC*STROther x 4 NSC Combined: 10%Combined: 20%*Derived from VA Rating Decision...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02212

    Original file (PD-2013-02212.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 Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The Board directed attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.The PEB rated the chronic LBP 10%, coded 5299-5237 (analogous to lumbosacral strain) and the VA rated it 0%, coded 5237.The Board...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00409

    Original file (PD2013 00409.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The chronic back pain and chronic neck pain conditions, characterized as “chronic neck pain and chronic back pain, with degenerative disc disease” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. In addition, the CI was notified by the Army that his case may be eligible for review of the military disability evaluation of his MH condition in accordance with Secretary of Defense directive for a comprehensive review of Service members who were referred to a disability...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00338

    Original file (PD2013 00338.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Post-Sep.Flexion (90 Normal)152035Combined (240)7010090Comments (Date of Surgery was 20040713)ROMs obtained 3.5 months prior to surgery; Pos. There were three service treatment notes related to the CI’s MH condition present for review. Physical Disability Board of Review

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01713

    Original file (PD2013 01713.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated “chronic low back pain (LBP) status post (s/p) L5/S1 fusion” as unfitting, rated 10%, citing criteria of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Should the Board judge that a condition was most likely incompatible with the specific duty requirements, a disability rating IAW the VASRD, based on the degree of disability evidenced at separation, will be recommended. invalid font number 31502 ” The CI had chronic LBP and ROM flexion limited to 80 degrees at the MEB exam.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00495

    Original file (PD-2014-00495.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At that exam, thoracolumbar ROM was normal. He also reported LBP and as his back pain became worse, so did his mood symptoms. The Board concluded therefore that the MH condition could not be recommended for disability rating.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01157

    Original file (PD2013 01157.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It was likewise agreed that even if a recommendation for a change in service MH diagnosis was conceded, there would be insufficient evidence for recommending it as unfitting and eligible for rating; noting that no psychiatric impairment was judged to fail retention standards, that the profile wasS1, that the commander did notidentify any MH limitations on performance, and that there is a lack of any performance-based evidence in the service record suggesting that such limitations existed. ...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01140

    Original file (PD2013 01140.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There were no periods of incapacitation.At the MEB narrative summary (NARSUM) examination,performed 5 months prior to separation, the CI endorsed“tolerable back pain (with medication use), unless exacerbated by activity.”The examination was limited and revealed tendernessand guarding. Although the service and VA titled the unfitting back condition differently, they both used similar codes of 5242 (degenerative arthritis of the spine) at 10% and 5243 (intervertebral disc disease) at 20%,...