Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01118
Original file (PD2013 01118.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX         CASE: PD1301118        
BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army         BOARD DATE: 20140124
SEPARATION DATE: 20051003                


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active Reserve SGT/E-5 (88M/Motor Transport Operator) medically separated for a chronic back condition. The CI injured his back during mobilization in November 2003 and had surgery. He was found fit for duty and activated in 2004, but evacuated from theater in 2005 due to his back pain. The back condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of his Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) or satisfy physical fitness standards. He was issued a permanent L3 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The back condition, characterized as “L5-S1 degenerative/post op changes,” and “L4-L5 mild bilateral foraminal stenosis,” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. The PEB also forwarded positive PPD (TB skin test) as meeting retention standards for PEB adjudication. The PEB combined the two MEB back conditions and adjudicated “chronic back pain” as unfitting, rated 10% with application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The CI made no appeals and was medically separated with that disability rating.


CI CONTENTION: The CI writes: “Because my back was worse than expected.”


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 back condition is addressed below; and, no additional conditions are within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of the Board. Any conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review, remain eligible for future consideration by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR).


RATING COMPARISON :

Service IPEB – Dated 20050907
 VA - (8 Mos. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
CHRONIC BACK PAIN 5243 10% LUMBAR DISC DEGENERTION 5243 40% 20060622
POSITIVE PPD Not Unfitting No VA Entry
No Additional MEB/PEB Entries
 Other x 0 20060622
Combined: 10%
 Combined: 40%
Derived from VA Rating Decision (VA RD ) dated 200 60915 ( most proximate to date of separation [ DOS ] ).


ANALYSIS SUMMARY: The Board acknowledges the CI’s information regarding the significant impairment with which his service-connected condition continues to burden him; but, must emphasize that the Disability Evaluation System (DES) 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. The Board considers VA 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.

Back Condition. The CI injured his back while lifting boxes during mobilization on 5 December 2003. He received a “yes” line of duty (LOD) determination two weeks later on 20 December 2003. A Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI) completed on 14 January 2004 was significant for right S1 nerve root impingement. He saw a neurosurgeon the next day and surgery was recommended. One month later on 13 February 2004 he underwent a L5 laminectomy and L5-S1 discectomy. Two months after surgery, he was released by the neurosurgeon to full activity without restrictions. Subsequently, a MOS Medical Retention Board (MMRB) determined he was fit for duty on 19 July 2004. He was deployed in November 2004 and had slowly progressive, recurrent low back pain which lead to evacuation from theater in July 2005. A second MRI on 28 July 2005 was significant for post-operative changes and loss of disc height at L5-S1 as well as mild bilateral foraminal stenosis at L4-5. The anterior epidural space at L5-S1 was significant for the presence of soft tissue which was either fibrosis or disc material. The CI apparently underwent an MEB that same day. The narrative summary noted that his back pain had been stable for the past month. Incapacitation was not documented. He declined intervention including physical therapy, injections or a neurosurgical evaluation. Rather, he requested separation and follow-up at the VA where he had the laminectomy. He was doing light duty and working as a transportation driver. The examination showed normal motor and sensory examinations, bilateral paraspinal tenderness with spasm in the lumbar region and a positive straight leg test bilaterally. The range-of-motion (ROM) is in the table below. At the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination performed on 23 June 2006, over 8 months after separation, the CI reported continued pain since separation. He was prescribed a TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) without significant benefit. He endorsed weakness of his legs, secondary to pain, with flares. He was using a back brace. He reported that he was employed full time, but was limited to working two days a week due to the back problems. He had difficulty getting in and out of the truck (he was a driver) and with some of his daily activities such as getting out of bed. However, incapacitation was not documented. No recent trauma was recorded to account for the deterioration between this examination and the MEB evaluation. On examination, he was noted to weigh 261 pounds, a 30 pound increase over the past year. Gait and stance were normal although he appeared to walk stiffly. He had difficulty with the toe walk, but was able to heel and tandem walk. The reflex, motor and sensory examinations were normal. The paraspinal muscles were tender, but spasm was not recorded. The straight leg test was positive at 15 degrees bilaterally. An MRI showed degenerative disc disease at L5 and S1 with epidural scarring. The diagnosis was for lumbar disc degeneration with lumbar spasm, although the latter was not documented in the examination portion of the report. The record then falls silent until the VA C&P examination on 25 June 2008, over 30 months after separation and outside the normal 12-month window for a probative evaluation. However, there is a disparity between the MEB and VA examinations above and the Board reviewed this examination to determine if this represented a worsening trend or not. The CI reported that he had not worked since March 2008 due to the back pain. He noted that his course had been progressively worse and that he had undergone facet and epidural injections. He reported seeking bed rest for a few hours at least monthly due to the back pain. On examination, spasm and painful motion were documented, but the gait and posture were normal. The sensory, motor and reflex examinations were normal. There was no atrophy. The straight leg raise was positive bilaterally at 45 degrees.

The goniometric ROM evaluations in evidence which the Board weighed in arriving at its rating recommendation, with documentation of additional ratable criteria, are summarized in the chart below.

Thoracolumbar ROM
(Degrees)
 MEB ~ 2 Mo. Pre-Sep VA C&P ~ 8 Mo. Post-Sep VA C&P ~ 33 Mo. Post-Sep
Flexion (90 Normal)
 85 45 70
Combined (240)
 205 120 205
Comment
 Waddell’s signs noted as negative Flexion reduced to 15 degrees with repetition, but after six times, not the standard three DeLuca negative
§4.71a Rating
 10% 20% 10%

The Board directs attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB and VA both coded the back condition 5243 (degenerative disc disease) but at 10% and 40% disability, respectively. The VA then deducted 10% for the pre-existing component of the back pain (in the discussion, but not on the rating table.) The Board first considered the VA deduction for an EPTS (existed prior to service) component. The LOD determination was made that the back condition was secondary to lifting boxes during preparations for mobilization. The MEB determined that the condition was not EPTS. The Board concluded that the evidence does not support a deduction for an EPTS component. The Board then considered the rating for the back. Both the PEB and VA used the code 5243 although no incapacitation was noted until the 2008 C&P and then only for an hour or so approximately monthly. While spasm was noted on second VA examination and in the diagnosis part of the initial VA examination, the gait was noted to be normal (but stiff) as was the posture. The VA rated the CI for reduced flexion at 15 degrees, but after six repetitions. The action officer observed that this should be measured after three repetitions. The examiner recorded that the ROM was unchanged until after six repetitions; hence, the rating should have been based on 45 degrees flexion. The Board observed that this is a significant reduction from the MEB measurements and that there was no intervening trauma documented which could account for this. It then reviewed the more remote VA C&P examination and observed that these ROM values were much closer to the MEB values. The Board therefore assigned a higher probative value to the MEB examination for the purpose of rating the disability. After review of the different available coding options for the back pain, the Board found no route to a rating higher than the 10% adjudicated by the PEB. 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 back 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 back pain 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 of review for consideration.


RECOMMENDATION: The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no-recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows:

UNFITTING CONDITION
 VASRD CODE RATING
Chronic Back Pain 5243 10%
COMBINED
 10%


The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20130809, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record




                          
         XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, DAF
         President
         Physical Disability Board of Review

SFMR-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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, AR20140005193 (PD201301118)


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)


Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02418

    Original file (PD-2013-02418.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A note in the record on 3 June 2004 noted improvement with mild to moderate LBP, aggravated by activity, with occasional RLE symptoms, with a normal examination except “some discomfort in the lumbar region.” The CI sought a second opinion from physical medicine regarding a MEB and at the evaluation on 14July 2004 the CI reported no relief of symptoms despite PT. The Board agreed that according to current VASRD spine rules for rating the spine in effect at the time of separation the ROM...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01174

    Original file (PD-2013-01174.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. “The neurologic exam was grossly non-focal.” Three months prior to separation, he was seen for severe pain and noted to have tenderness, muscle spasm, pain with full ROM, and normal contour of the lumbosacral spine. I...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00843

    Original file (PD2011-00843.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    It also noted the CI had only one or two days a week without any back pain. Evaluate intervertebral disc syndrome (preoperatively or postoperatively) either on the total duration of incapacitating episodes over the past 12 months or by combining under § 4.25 separate evaluations of its chronic orthopedic and neurologic manifestations along with evaluations for all other disabilities, whichever method results in the higher evaluation. However, if codes 5292 or 5295 are used, the back pain...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01856

    Original file (PD-2013-01856.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The condition was characterized by the MEB as “chronic low back pain with lumbar degenerative disc disease” and it was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. The PEB adjudicated “chronic low back pain”…with “no neurological deficits “as unfitting, rated 10%citing criteria of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).The remaining condition was determined to be “medically acceptable.” The CI made no appeals and was medically separated. Contended Pain and...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01739

    Original file (PD-2013-01739.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board considered the CI’s history of significant back pain with muscle spasm and radiation of pain with mild weakness and decreased sensation of the right lower leg. However, notes in the STRs proximate to separation indicated daily use of a muscle relaxant medication and later evidence in record suggests episodes of muscle spasm continued, consistent with the lumbar spine abnormalities noted on MRI.Board members consensus was that the totality of evidence in record supports the 20%...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD2014 01618

    Original file (PD2014 01618.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    on the left; Normal sensory; mild right leg weakness; reflexes symmetric ; Pos. Contended Mental Health Condition .The Board reviewed the evidence for any indication that a MH condition existed at the time of separation and if so, to render a rating recommendation if that condition was adjudged to be unfitting at the time of separation. Physical Disability Board of Review

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02299

    Original file (PD-2013-02299.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Post-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Neck Pain…524310%Degenerative Disc Disease, Cervical Spine5299-524210%20060731Chronic Low Back Pain…524310%Degenerative Disc Disease, Lumbar Spine524210%20060731Other x 0 (Not In Scope)Other x 7 RATING: 20%RATING: 20% *Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20070215(most proximate to date of separation [DOS]). At pain management visit dated 10 May 2004 the CI reported increased neck and right upper back pain with...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00133

    Original file (PD2012-00133.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the chronic low back pain with left leg pain and chronic left leg pain with radiculopathy conditions as unfitting, rated 10% each, with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). 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...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01462

    Original file (PD-2014-01462.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. RATING COMPARISON : Service IPEB – Dated 20060331VA -(> 6 Years Post-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Back Pain status post (S/P) L5-S1 Discectomy w/o Neurologic or Electrodiagnostic Abnormality...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00886

    Original file (PD-2014-00886.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) neurological examination noted that initially the CI had normal lumbar x-rays and was treated with physical therapy. At the VA C&P examinations reviewed, both on the same daya year after separation, the CI’s exam noted muscle spasm and TL ROM of flexion of 40 degrees with pain to 80 degrees and a combined ROM of 225 degreesand normal sensation at the neuro exam, whereas the general exam noted only “pain with motion” with decreased LLE sensation. At the...