Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 00941
Original file (PD 2014 00941.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX     CASE: PD-2014-00941
BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCE     BOARD DATE: 20140807
SEPARATION DATE: 20090426


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty A1C/E-3 (2T331/Vehicle & Vehicular Equipment Maintenance Apprentice) medically separated for right and left knee conditions. The bilateral knee condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of his Air Force Specialty (AFS) or satisfy physical fitness standards. He was placed on limited duty and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The right and left knee condition, characterized as “patellofemoral syndrome causing chronic bilateral knee pain,” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AFI 48-123. No other conditions were submitted by the MEB. The Informal PEB adjudicated “right knee pain, patellofemoral syndrome with history of medial meniscus injury” and “left knee pain, patellofemoral syndrome” both as unfitting, rated at 0% each, referencing application of DoD guidance for application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION: The CI wrote: “Knee instability, swelling, fluid in knee (still), sleeping issues. Stress related issues due to military service along with sleeping issues. Knee swells up due to fluid after short time period reoccurrence of cysts on tailbone, knee gives out.”


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 ratings for the unfitting bilateral knees are addressed below; and, no additional conditions are within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of the Board. The contended stress related issues with sleep issues and cysts on the tailbone were not identified by the PEB, and thus are not 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 Board for Correction of Military Records.


RATING COMPARISON :

Service IPEB – Dated 20081216
 VA - (<1 Mos. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Right Knee Pain, Patellofemoral syndrome 5261 0% Patellofemoral Syndrome, Right Knee 5299-5260 10% 20090514
Left Knee Pain, Patellofemoral Syndrome 5261 0% Patellofemoral Syndrome, Left Knee 5299-5260 10% 20090514
Other x 0 (Not is Scope)
 Other x 3 20090507
20090529
Combined: 0%
 Combined: 20%
Derived from VA Rating Decision (VA RD ) dated 200 91020 ( 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 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.

Right And Left Knee Patellofemoral Syndrome Condition. According to the MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI began experiencing persistent chronic bilateral anterior knee pain with most activities in the summer of 2007, including running, impact activities, climbing stairs and carrying heavy weights. The pain improved with activity restrictions but returned with resumption of offending activities. X-rays and magnetic resonance imaging did not demonstrate any significant abnormalities (CI had Osgood Schlatter’s changes of the bilateral tibial tuberosity, a developmental condition present prior to entry into military service and not related to the knee pain). Evaluation by orthopedic surgery in June 2008 diagnosed bilateral patellofemoral syndrome. At the time of the orthopedic examination, there was full range-of-motion (ROM) with stable ligaments and no joint line tenderness. There was grinding of the patella with patellar tenderness consistent with the diagnosis. A permanent profile restricting running, high impact activities and no "ruck sack" was recommended and an MEB was initiated. At the time of the MEB NARSUM examination, the CI reported pain with running, walking, climbing stairs and squatting. He stated that he did not feel capable of performing his primary AFS (vehicle maintenance) which included kneeling, lifting and straining of the lower extremities. On examination there was no tenderness and normal motion without pain. No pain or tenderness was observed with ambulation. The prominent tibial tuberosities were noted (Osgood Schlatter disease). The examiner noted the CI to be non-deployable. The commander’s statement dated 4 August 2008 stated the CI had been performing his primary duties satisfactorily without any modification to duty schedule or missed work. The commander stated the only restriction was the CI’s ability to perform physical training and that there was no mission impact. The MEB performed on 8 October 2008, concluded the CI was fit and returned the CI to duty. The CI appealed for an unfit determination in his memorandum on 14 October 2008, stating he was unable to run and had gained weight causing administrative problems. He reported difficulty bending down and standing back up at work, and that his knee pain had slowed his work as a mechanic. The PEB determined the CI to be unfit due to knee pain because of inability to deploy. At the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) joint examination performed on 14 May 2009, performed less than a month after separation, the CI reported chronic anterior knee pain aggravated by work with squatting but not necessarily kneeling. There was intermittent stiffness and swelling and pain was increased by walking a mile. There was no locking, instability, or problems (pain or stiffness) when driving or riding in a vehicle. Standing was unrestricted. On examination, the gait was normal without limp. There was no swelling, tenderness, or atrophy of the quadriceps muscle (which often accompanies patellofemoral syndrome). The patellar compression test was positive for patellofemoral syndrome. The ligaments were stable. The ROM was flexion of 135 degrees and extension to 0 degrees. The examiner indicated the CI reported pain with motion. There was no change after repetitive movement and the examiner stated that weakness, lack of endurance, and incoordination were not factors. The examiner diagnosed bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome. C&P examinations on 7 May 2009 noted a normal gait and stated the CI was enrolled to begin an automotive program at the local community college.

The Board directs attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB rated each knee 0% citing normal knee motion and DoD guidance. The VA rated each knee 10% citing degenerative arthritis and symptoms of popping and locking. There was no limitation of knee motion to support a minimum rating under codes for limitation of flexion or extension (5260, 5261). There was no ligamentous instability or meniscus problem or for consideration under respective codes for those conditions (5257, 5258). The Board considered the CI’s report of pain with use and functional impairment in squatting and climbing stairs that slowed his normal work pace and concluded a 10% rating for each knee was reasonably supported (§4.40, functional loss). After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board recommends a disability rating of 10% for each the right and left knee patellofemoral syndrome condition (5299-5261).


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 the matter of the right and left knee patellofemoral syndrome condition, the Board by a majority vote, recommends a disability rating of 10% for each knee coded 5299-5261 IAW VASRD §4.71a. The single voter for dissent submitted the appended minority opinion. 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:

UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING
Right Knee Patellofemoral Syndrome 5299-5261 10%
Left Knee Patellofemoral Syndrome 5299-5261 10%
COMBINED (w/ BLF) 20%


The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20130214, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record









                 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
President
Physical Disability Board of Review
Minority Opinion. There was no limitation of motion, instability, dislocated meniscus, or other objective impairment to support a minimum rating for the knees. Although the CI reported pain with motion, the gait was non-antalgic (normal without limp) indicating no pain with walking. Therefore the minority voter concludes a 10% rating based on painful motion is not well supported. Although the CI reported functional impairment in performance of his mechanic duties, his commander stated there was no impairment in his performance of in garrison duties and was “…doing good things for the Air Force in the vehicle maintenance area”. The commander noted the only medical restriction was performance of the fitness test. The Medical Evaluation Board (three physicians at the military treatment center) concluded the knee condition did not warrant referral to the PEB and returned the CI to duty; however, the CI appealed for an unfit determination. The PEB concluded he was unfit due to inability to deploy. Following separation, VA records indicated the CI was pursuing a similar career as a civilian. The minority voter notes the VASRD is intended to rate the impairment in the average civil occupation (§4.1), and not impairment in military unique requirements such as the physical fitness test or deployment. Although the CI experienced symptoms, the commander indicated there was no impairment at work and the CI was pursuing similar work after separation from military service. The minority voter opines there was not occupational functional impairment that supported a 10% rating. The minority voter concluded the preponderance of evidence did not support a 10% rating for each knee and recommends no change in the PEB adjudication for the right and left knee patellofemoral syndrome condition.

SAF/MRB
Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXX:
         Reference your application submitted under the provisions of DoDI 6040.44 (Title 10 U.S.C. § 1554a), PDBR Case Number PD-2014-00941.

         After careful consideration of your application and treatment records, the Physical Disability Board of Review determined that the rating assigned at the time of final disposition of your disability evaluation system processing was appropriate. Accordingly, the PDBR recommended no re-characterization or modification of your separation.

         I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the PDBR. I concur with that finding and the conclusion that re-characterization of your separation is not warranted. Accordingly, I accept the recommendation that your application be denied.

                                                               Sincerely,




 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
Attachment:
Record of Proceedings

cc:
SAF/MRBR

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00654

    Original file (PD 2013 00654.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    To date, both ankles continue to click and swell as well as both knees. Bilateral knee ROM was noted as approximately 0-130 degrees.At the VA Compensation and Pension examinationperformed 5 months after separation, the CI reported right greater than left knee pain and weakness. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00231

    Original file (PD2012-00231.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the bilateral patella femoral syndrome condition as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Effective January 2005, the VA assigned separate ratings of 10% for each knee based on new examination evidence supporting separate ratings for each knee. The Board noted that PEBs often combine multiple conditions under a single rating when those conditions considered individually are not separately unfitting and...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01629

    Original file (PD-2013-01629.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Patellofemoral Pain, Bilaterally… 5099-50030%Patellofemoral Syndrome…Left…525710%20050514Patellofemoral Syndrome…Right…52580%Other x 0 (Not in Scope)Other x 4 Combined: 0%Combined: 10%Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20050608 ANALYSIS SUMMARY :The PEB combined the bilateral knee pain conditions as a single unfitting condition rated at 0%, coded 5099-5003 (analogous to degenerative arthritis).The PEB relied on AR 635.40...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-01921

    Original file (PD-2012-01921.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB also identified and forwarded history of cellulitis, left knee, chronic bilateral hip pain secondary to bilateral iliotibial band friction syndrome, chronic mechanical low back pain, mild (less than a centimeter) left shorter than right limb length discrepancy, and mild bilateral pes planus conditions.The PEBadjudicated “left patellofemoral pain with secondary chronic left knee pain” as unfitting, rated 10%, with likely application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01589

    Original file (PD-2013-01589.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pre -Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam BILATERAL Knee Pain5009 50030%BILATERAL Knee Pain5009 501010%20041202Mental Health ConditionNot AdjudicatedAdjustment D/O944010%20041130Other x 0 (Not in Scope) Rated: 0%Combined: 20% * Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20050233 (most proximate to date of separation (DOS)) ANALYSIS SUMMARY :The PEB combined the left and right knee pain conditions as a single unfitting condition rated as 5099-5003 (analogous to arthritis)...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00502

    Original file (PD2009-00502.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    CI was referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), found unfit for continued naval service and separated at 0% disability using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Navy and Department of Defense regulations. In both knees, flexion was limited by 5 degrees by pain and extension was limited by 15 degrees by pain on both active and passive motion. The first and only documentation of any significant ROM impairment was at the VA rating examination...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01635

    Original file (PD 2012 01635.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 any of the left knee conditions, so no additional disability ratings can be recommended.The Board next considered the CI’s right knee condition for its rating recommendation. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00440

    Original file (PD-2012-00440.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RATING COMPARISON: Service FPEB – Dated 20090417 Condition Code Left Leg Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome Right Leg Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome Left Leg Chronic Compartment Syndrome Right Leg Chronic Compartment Syndrome Mild Exercise Induced Asthma Low Back Bilateral Pes Planus Bilateral Planter Fasciitis Atypical Non‐Cardiac Chest Pain 5099‐5003 Rating 10% 5099‐5003 10% 5099‐5003 5099‐5003 0% 0% Not Unfitting Not Unfitting Not Unfitting Not Unfitting Not Unfitting VA (2 Weeks Pre‐Separation)...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 02245

    Original file (PD 2014 02245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The left knee condition, characterized as “left knee pain with chondromalacia patella” by the MEB, was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AFI 48-123. The Board directs attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.Although the final PEB diagnosis was persistent knee pain “due to Patellofemoral Syndrome” and the MEB diagnosis was due to “chondromalacia patella,” the NARSUM diagnosis was due to “subluxation.” Radiographs indicated degenerative changes...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00333

    Original file (PD2012-00333.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated the chronic bilateral knee pain condition as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy. The Board noted that PEBs often combine multiple conditions under a single rating when those conditions considered individually are not separately unfitting and would not cause the member to be referred into the DES or be found unfit because of physical disability (DoDI 1332.38, paragraph...