Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01246
Original file (PD2013 01246.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX          CASE: PD13 0 1246
BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army   BOARD DATE: 201 4 0408
Separation Date: 20090925


SUMMARY OF CASE : T he avai lable evidence of record indicate s this covered individual (CI) was an active duty PV1/E-5 (68W / Healthcare Specialist) medically separated for three orthopedic conditions. The CI reported twisting her right ankle in basic training in January 2009 and aggravated this condition on a road march shortly thereafter. She was eventually told th is injury was a stress fracture and the condition was treated with convalescent leave. In March 2009 , the CI strained her right (dominant) shoulder while using a weight machine for exercise. In May of the same year , she developed right hip pain after a fall. These three condition s could prevent completion of Basic Training , so she was referred for a Medical Evaluation Bo ard (MEB). The three conditions, characterized as “chronic right shoulder pain… , ” “chronic right hip pain… , ” “chronic right ankle pain…” and “chronic bilateral heel pain… , ” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. The MEB also identified and forwarded four other conditions (including one mental health [MH] condition; see chart below) for PEB adjudication, all were considered medically acceptable. The PEB adjudicated “right, dominant, shoulder pain… , ” “right hip pain , ” and “bilateral heel pain and right ankle pain” as unfitting, rated 10%, 0% and 0% (respectively), citing criteria of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The remaining conditions were determined to be not unfitting. The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION : “#1, I could hardly walk on my rt foot, #2 my back & neck were never treated, #3 my mental condition was not treated by a Dr & I was totally misdiagnosed & mistreated. #4 – I never saw a Dr for anything.”


 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. In addition, the CI was notified by the Army that her case may eligible for review of the military disability evaluation of any MH condition in accordance with Secretary of Defense directive for a comprehensive review of Service members who were referred to a disability evaluation process between 11 September 2001 and 30 April 2012, and whose MH diagnoses were changed or eliminated during that process. In accordance with Secretary of Defense directive for a comprehensive review of mental health diagnoses that were changed during the Disability Evaluation System process, the applicant’s case file was reviewed regarding diagnosis change, fitness determination, and rating of unfitting MH diagnoses in accordance with the VASRD §4.129 and §4.130. The CI is also eligible for PDBR review of other conditions evaluated by the PEB and has elected review by the PDBR. The rating for the unfitting right shoulder, right hip and bilateral heel and right ankle conditions are addressed below. The fitness determinations for the not unfitting upper back pain and MH conditions are also in the scope of the Board; rating recommendations will also be provided for any conditions recommended as unfitting. No other conditions are in the scope of this 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 Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR).


 RATING COMPARISON :
invalid font number 31502
Service IPEB – Dated 20090903
 VA - (2 & 3 Mos. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Right Shoulder Pain… 5099-5003 10% Right Shoulder Arthritis 5010-5201 10% 20091125
Right Hip Pain… 5099-5003 0% Right Hip Bursitis 5024-5252 10%
Bilateral Heel Pain and Right Ankle Pain… 5284 0% Stress Fracture, Right Heel and Ankle Pain 5271-5284 10%
Left Heel…Stress Fracture 5284 0%
History of Upper Back Pain… Not Unfitting Chronic Neck Strain 5237 10%
Generalized Anxiety Disorder… Generalized Anxiety Disorder with Bipolar Disorder 9432-9400 70% 20091217
History of Fractured Tooth… No VA Rating
History of Dizziness…
No Additional MEB/PEB Entries
 No Additional VA Entries
Combined: 10%
 Combined: 80%
Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20100528 , closest to date of separation invalid font number 31502


ANALYSIS SUMMARY : The Board acknowledges the CI’s assertions that her disabilities were not treated correctly. It is noted for the record that the Board has no jurisdiction to investigate or render opinions in reference to such allegations. These issues may be addressed by the BCMR and/or the United States Judiciary system. IAW DoDI 6040.44, the Board’s authority is limited to making recommendations on correcting disability determinations. 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 VASRD standards, based on ratable severity at the time of separation.

The PEB rated the bilateral heel pain and right ankle pain under the single code 5284 ( other f oot injuries ) . This coding approach is countenanced by AR 635-40 (B.24 f.), but IAW DoDI 6040.44 the Board must apply only VASRD guidance to its recommendation. The Board must therefore apply separate codes and ratings in its recommendations if compensable ratings for each joint are achieved IAW VASRD §4.71a. If the Board judges that two or more separate ratings are warranted in such cases ; however, it must satisfy the requirement that each “unbundled” condition was reasonably justified as unfitting in and of itself, with the caveat that the final recommendation may not produce a lower combined rating as that of the PEB.

Right Dominant Shoulder Pain Condition . The CI injured her right shoulder on a weight lifting machine in March 2009. Since the injury, she had daily shoulder pain with flare-ups when she lifte d her arm above the shoulder ; this increased pain continued until the arm was lower ed . The MEB n arrative s ummary (NARSUM) exam a ccomplished a pproximately 2 months prior to separation documented chronic right shoulder pain and despite therapy there was no improvement. The physical exam findings from the NARSUM are summarized in the chart below . In preparation for the MEB, t he CI was also eva luated by p hysical t herapy (PT), those exam findings are also summarized in the chart below . The c ommander’s s tatement noted that the CI’s injur ies prevented return to basic training. The CI was given a permanent U3 / L3 / S2 p rofile that identified her chronic right shoulder pain condition. The VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam ( performed a pproximately 2 months after separation ) noted the right shoulder joint was painful on motion ; those C&P physical exam findings are also summarized below. Those three goniometric range - of - motion (ROM) evaluations , with additional ratable criteria, which the Board weighed in arriving at its rat ing recommendation, provided the following data :
invalid font number 31502


Right Shoulder ROM (Degrees)
 MEB 3.5 Mos. Pre-Sep PT 3.0 Mos. Pre-Se p VA C&P 2.0 Mos. Post-Sep
Flexion (180 Normal)
 175 170* 180
Abduction (180)
 180 180* 180
Comments - Right hand dominant
 Pain in all planes; + impingement; tenderness to palpation (TTP) over supraspinatus, trapezius; pain, tingling forearm *With pain; visible atrophy right shoulder deltoid ROM with pain; painful joint motion; tenderness over right shoulder joint line
invalid font number 31502
invalid font number 31502 The Board direct invalid font number 31502 s invalid font number 31502 attenti invalid font number 31502 on to its rating recommendation invalid font number 31502 invalid font number 31502 based on the above evidence invalid font number 31502 . invalid font number 31502 invalid font number 31502 The PEB coded the invalid font number 31502 r invalid font number 31502 ight invalid font number 31502 s invalid font number 31502 houlder invalid font number 31502 invalid font number 31502 p invalid font number 31502 ain condition as 5099 analogous to 5003 invalid font number 31502 invalid font number 31502 ( invalid font number 31502 degenerative a invalid font number 31502 rthritis invalid font number 31502 ) invalid font number 31502 and rated invalid font number 31502 it invalid font number 31502 10% invalid font number 31502 , invalid font number 31502 invalid font number 31502 referencing invalid font number 31502 invalid font number 31502 application invalid font number 31502 of invalid font number 31502 4.10 ( invalid font number 31502 f invalid font number 31502 unctional impairment), 4.40 invalid font number 31502 invalid font number 31502 ( invalid font number 31502 f invalid font number 31502 unctional loss), 4.45 invalid font number 31502 invalid font number 31502 (the joints) and invalid font number 31502 §4 invalid font number 31502 .59 ( invalid font number 31502 p invalid font number 31502 ainful motion invalid font number 31502 ). invalid font number 31502 The VA invalid font number 31502 applied the analogous code of 5010-5201, invalid font number 31502 limitation of invalid font number 31502 arm invalid font number 31502 motion invalid font number 31502 , and invalid font number 31502 rated invalid font number 31502 it invalid font number 31502 10%. invalid font number 31502 All invalid font number 31502 documents in evidence consistently identified non-compensable ROM measurements with invalid font number 31502 painful motion invalid font number 31502 of the right shoulder invalid font number 31502 . The Board considered all reasonable alternative coding options, but no option would achieve a rating greater than 10%. invalid font number 31502 After due invalid font number 31502 deliberation, considering all invalid font number 31502 the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board concluded there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB adjudication for the invalid font number 31502 r invalid font number 31502 ight invalid font number 31502 ( invalid font number 31502 d invalid font number 31502 ominant invalid font number 31502 ) invalid font number 31502 invalid font number 31502 s invalid font number 31502 houlder invalid font number 31502 invalid font number 31502 p invalid font number 31502 ain invalid font number 31502 .

Right Hip Pain condition : The CI injured her right hip in May 2009 when she s lipped off of a bunk and fell to the floor. Since this incident, the CI complained of right hip pain on a daily basis. The NARSUM documented chronic right hip pain and that despite therapy there was no improveme nt. The CI was evaluated by PT ( exam findings reflected in the chart below ) . The c ommander’s s tatement noted the CI’s injuries prevented a return to basic training. The CI was given a permanent U3 / L3 / S2 p rofile that identified her right hip condition . The C&P exam noted the CI had chronic right hip pain and tenderness. There were three goniometric ROM evaluations in evidence, with documentation of additional ratable criteria, which the Board weighed in arriving at its rating recommendation, which are summarized below :

Right Hip (Thigh) ROM (Degrees)
 MEB ~ 2.5 Mo s . Pre-Sep PT ~ 2 Mo s . Pre-Sep VA C&P ~ 2 Mo s . Post-Sep
Flexion (125 Normal)
 115 115 90
Extension (20)
 20 20 10
External Rotation (45)
 - - 40
Abduction (0-45)
 55 55* 45
Adduction (45)
 - - 45
Comment
 TTP over right greater trochanter; guarding; “ pain behavior” in all planes of motion *with pain; goniometer used *With pain; Antalgic gait; difficulty squatting; tenderness over right hip

The Board direct s attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB coded the r ight h ip p ain condition as 5099 analogous to 5003 ( degenerative a rthritis ) and rated i t 0% , referencing VASRD 4.10, 4.40, 4.45 and §4.59 . The VA coded the r ight h ip b ursitis condition as 5024 ( t enosynovitis ) with 5252 ( limitation of flexion of the thigh ) and rated i t 1 0%. All exams proximate to separation documented painful motion of the right hip , though the NARSUM examiner termed it “pain behavior . ” The Board considered all reasonable coding alternatives and none offered a rating greater than 10%. After due deliberation, considering all the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board recommends a disability rating of 10% for the r ight h ip p ain .

Bilateral Heel Pain and Right Ankle Pain Condition : The Board first considered whether the b ilateral h eel p ain and r ight a nkle p ain conditions, having been de-coupled from the combined PEB adjudication, were each reasonably justified as independently unfitting. Both the NARSUM and the VA exams documented the CI had pain in the right ankle and that a stress fracture existed in the right heel. The left heel also had a mild calcaneal stress fracture, though there was no mention of a left ankle injury in those exams . Therefore, it is reasonably justified that the CI be found unfit for continued military ser vice in her Military Occupational Specialty ( MOS ) due to l eft h eel p ain and r ight h eel and a nkle p ain as separate (unfitting) conditions. Board members agreed that the l eft h eel p ain and r ight h eel and a nkle p ain conditions, as isolated conditions, would each have rendered the CI incapable of continued service within h er MOS, so each merits a separate rating.

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

Ankle ROM (Degrees)
 MEB ~ 2.5 Mo s . Pre-Sep PT ~ 2 Mo s . Pre-Sep VA C&P ~ 2 Mo s . Post-Sep
Left Right Left Right Left Right
Dorsiflexion (20 Normal)
 10 10 * 10 15 * No ROM 10 *
Plantar Flexion (45)
 45 45 * 45 45 * 30 *
Comment
 No pain noted *with “ pain behavior” ; TTP entire lateral aspect * with pain *with pain; pain on inversion; antalgic gait; difficulty walking on heels and toes

The CI twisted her right ankle in February 2009 when she stepped on a rock and further aggravated the right ankle after a three day road march. She developed a stress fracture in the right ankle. A left heel X- ray showed a mild calcaneal stress fracture. A bilateral heel X -ray reveal ed healing bilateral calcaneal stress fractures. Since this incident the CI complained of right ankle hip pain. The MEB NARSUM documented chronic right ankle pain which was made worse with standing for prolonged periods . The MEB NARSUM exam findings are summarized in the chart above. The CI was evaluated by PT and the exam findings are summarized in the chart above. The c ommander’s s tatement noted the CI’s injuries prevented her from returning to basic training. The CI was given a permanent U3 / L3 / S2 p rofile for her right ankle and bilateral heel pain . The C&P exam noted the CI had chronic right ankle pain which would last for weeks and right heel pain which would last for approximately 2 hours daily. The examiner noted that the CI required heel supports. The C&P physical exam findings are summarized in the chart above.

 The Board directs attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. As described above, the PEB bundled the conditions and assigned a 0% rating with application of 4.10, 4.40, 4.45 and §4.59 . The VA assigned a disability rating of 1 0% to the s tress f racture, r ight h eel and a nkle p ain and coded as 5271 ( limited motion of the ankle ) with 5284 (o ther injuries of the foot ). The VA assigned a disability rating of 0% for the l eft h eel s tress f racture and coded as 5284. The MEB NARSUM exam focused on the right ankle and heel and noted painful motion along with a healing calcaneal stress fracture. The left heel was noted to be pain free. The C&P examiner noted right ankle painful motion and difficulty walking on heels and toes. The left heel and ankle were not examined. After due deliberation in consideration of the totality of the evidence, the Board concluded that the l eft h eel p ain and r ight h eel and a nkle p ain were each reasonably justified as unfitting. Considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 r easonable doubt, the Board recommends a disability rating of 10% coded 5284-5003 IAW VASRD §4.71a for the r ight h eel p ain and r ight a nkle p ain and 0% coded 5284 IAW VASRD §4.71a for the l eft h eel p ain.

 Contended PEB Conditions. The contended conditions adjudicated as not unfitting by the PEB were h istory of u pper b ack p ain and g eneralized a nxiety d isorder (GAD) . The Board’s first charge with respect to these conditions is an assessment of the appropriateness of the PEB’s fitness adjudications. 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.

 History of Upper Back Pain Condition : The NARSUM contained only one reference to upper back pain. That reference was contained in the “Past Medical History” section and stated that the u pper back pain in May 2009 was “resolved.” This condition was not profiled nor was this condition implicated in the c ommander’s s tatement. This condition was not judged to fail retention standards. This condition was reviewed by the a ction o fficer and considered by the Board. There was no indication from the record that this condition significantly interfered with satisfactory duty performance. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB fitness determination for the h istory of u pper b ack p ain , so no additional disability rating can be recommended.

 Generalized Anxiety Disorder : The Board reviewed the records for evidence of inappropriate changes in diagnosis of the MH condition during processing through the D isability E valuation S ystem. The evidence of the available records shows a diagnosis of a nxiety d isorder NOS (not otherwise specified) was rendered and no change in diagnosis was made at any time; therefore, this case did not meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the MH Review Project. A psychiatric addendum was prepared approximately 3 weeks prior to s eparation. The examiner repor ted the CI self-referred for MH treatment in May 2009 ( approximately 4 months after entering military service ) with complaints of generalized anxiety, low frustration tolerance , increased irritability and insomnia. She reported a 12 - year history of intermittent outpatient treatment for anxiety and depression. She was initially diagnosed with a djustment disorder, rule-out a nxiety disorder and started on medication and behavioral therapy. Despite treatment, s he continued to endorse problems with generalized anxiety, irritability and insomnia. T he CI denied panic attacks and psychotic symptoms , reported no history of manic symptoms and no suicidal or homicidal ideations. The Behavioral Health provider made several changes to the CI’s psychiatric medications in an effort to reduce her anxiety, depression and insomnia symptoms. The examiner opined that the CI’s most functionally impairing symptoms in the military environment were rel ated to her medical problems, not psychiatric ones. The examiner documented the CI had experienced similar psychiatric symptoms prior to the Army and that these symptoms did not impact her ability to be successfully employed. The examiner also noted the CI’s main source of anxiety and irritation were the cadre members of the physical training and rehabilitation program in which she was enrolled at the time . The examiner diagnosed GAD and indicated the CI met retention standards from a psychiatric perspective . The CI agreed with the MEB p sychiatric NARSUM. She was given a permanent S2 p rofile for GAD . The VA C&P MH exam ( approximately 2 months prior to separation ) indicated the CI showed emotional lability, poor judgment, anxiety and anhedonia. The examiner diagnosed a djustment d isorder with anxious and depressed mood. No MH condition was specifically implicated by the c ommander’s s tatement ; it referred to physical injuries only (there was no mention of a MH condition) . No MH condition was judged to fail retention standards. The MH condition was reviewed by the a ction o fficer and considered by the Board. There was no indication from the record that this condition significantly interfered with satisfactory duty performance. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB fitness determination for the GAD , so no additional disability rating can be recommended.


 BOARD FINDINGS : In the matter of the r ight s houlder p ain condition and IAW VASRD §4.71a, the Board unanimously recommends no change in the PEB adjudication. In the matter of the r ight h ip p ain condition and IAW VASRD §4.71a, the Board unanimously recommends disability rating of 10% coded 5099-5003 IAW VASRD §4.71a. In the matter of the b ilateral h eel p ain and r ight a nkle p ain conditions , the Board unanimously recommends the conditions be unbundled and adjudicated as follows: r ight h eel p ain and r ight a nkle p ain with a disability rating of 10% coded 5284 -5003 IAW VASRD §4.71a , and the l eft h eel p ain with a disability rating of 0% coded 5284 IAW VASRD §4.71a . In the matter of the contended h istory of u pper b ack p ain and the GAD conditions, the Board unanimously recommends no ch ange from the PEB determination as not unfitting. There were no oth er conditions within the Board’s s cope of review.


 RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows and, that the discharge with severance pay be recharacterized to reflect permanent disabi lity retirement, effective the date of her prior medical separation:

UNFITTING CONDITION
 VASRD CODE RATING
Right Dominant Shoulder Pain 5099-5003 1 0%
Right Hip Pain 5099-5003 10%
Right Heel Pain and Right Ankle Pain 5284-5003 10%
Left Heel Pain 5284 0%
COMBINED
 3 0%
invalid font number 31502

The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20 130910 , w/atchs
Exhib it 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, AR20140013580 (PD201301246)

1. Under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1554(a), I approve the enclosed recommendation of the Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review (DoD PDBR) pertaining to the individual named in the subject line above to recharacterize the individual’s separation as a permanent disability retirement with the combined disability rating of 30% effective the date of the individual’s original medical separation for disability with severance pay.

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:

         a. Providing a correction to the individual’s separation document showing the individual was separated by reason of permanent disability retirement effective the date of the original medical separation for disability with severance pay.

         b. Providing orders showing that the individual was retired with permanent disability effective the date of the original medical separation for disability with severance pay.

         c. Adjusting pay and allowances accordingly. Pay and allowance adjustment will account for recoupment of severance pay, and payment of permanent retired pay at 30% effective the date of the original medical separation for disability with severance pay.

         d. Affording the individual the opportunity to elect Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and medical TRICARE retiree options.

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                                                  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                                                      Deputy Assistant Secretary
                                                      (Army Review Boards)

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 01539

    Original file (PD2013 01539.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The CI non-concurred and the Reconsideration PEB only adjudicated the “posttraumatic arthritis, right ankle…” as unfitting, rated 10%, identifying all other conditions as not unfitting. Right Ankle Condition . Physical Disability Board of Review

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01693

    Original file (PD-2014-01693.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    invalid font number 31502 Service IPEB – Dated 20060316VA - (3 Mos. Chronic Upper Back Pain Condition . The CI was seen in pain managementprior to deploying for pain medications due to the chronic clavicle and shoulder pain.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02368

    Original file (PD-2013-02368.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    tenderness both heels; Normal gait§4.71a Rating10%10%10% (PEB 0%)10% (PEB 0%)10%10% invalid font number 31502 The Board directs attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.The PEB coded the chronic bilateral foot pain condition as 5099 analogous to 5022 (periostitis), rated at 0%. 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...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00805

    Original file (PD2013 00805.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s charge with respect to the MH conditions referred for review that were determined to be not unfitting by the PEB is an assessment of the appropriateness of the PEB’s fitness adjudication. The MH condition was reviewed and considered by the Board . Physical Disability Board of Review

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 01186

    Original file (PD 2013 01186.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Additionally, members agreed that the chronic low back pain and left shoulder pain conditions, as isolated conditions, would have rendered the CI incapable of continued service within his MOS and therefore each is separately unfitting and merits a separate rating. Physical Disability Board of Review Providing a correction to the individual’s separation document showing that the individual was separated by reason of permanent disability retirement effective the date of the original medical...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02791

    Original file (PD-2013-02791.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board reviews medical records and other available evidence to assess the fairness of PEB rating determinations, using the VASRD standards, based on ratable severity at the time of separationand, to review those fitness determinations within its scope consistent with performance-based criteria in evidence at separation. tenderness to palpation; Decreased movement of toes of right foot; Repetitive motion increased ROM; No temperature change; No skin or vascular changes; Normal reflexes...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 01187

    Original file (PD 2013 01187.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Post Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Left Shoulder Pain5099-50030%Left Shoulder Pain, History of Dislocation5202-502410%Other x 0 (Not in Scope)Other x7 Rating: 0%Combined Rating: 40%Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20060921 (most proximate to date of separation [DOS]) ANALYSIS SUMMARY :IAW DoDI 6040.44, the Board’s authority is limited to making recommendations on correcting disability determinations. Chronic Left Shoulder Pain Condition . ...

  • 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 | CY2013 | PD2013 00651

    Original file (PD2013 00651.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The informal PEB adjudicated “chronic pain right hip and left shoulder” and “bilateral plantar fasciitis” as unfitting, rated 10% and 0%,respectively (IAW the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy). The CI was given a U4/L4 Profile for right hip pain, left shoulder pain and bilateral foot pain. Physical Disability Board of Review

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00518

    Original file (PD 2013 00518.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI had a long history of chronic right knee pain and arthritis dating from 1992. The PEB coded the DDD right knee condition as 5003 arthritis, degenerative (hypertrophic or osteoarthritis) and rated at 10%.The VA coded the right knee s/posteotomy proximal tibial plateau, with DJD condition and rated at 5010 arthritis, due to trauma, substantiated by X-ray findings with 5262tibia and fibula, impairment of and rated at 20%, with moderate knee disability, citing, “ This 20percent is...