Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 01883
Original file (PD 2014 01883.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX      CASE: PD -20 14 - 0 1883
BRANCH OF SERVICE: MARINE CORPS   BOARD DATE: 201 4 0815
Separation Date: 2009033 1


SUMMARY OF CASE : Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty Cpl/E-4 (1833/Amphibious Assault Vehicle Crewman) medically separated for a seizure disorder. The condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of his Military Occupational Specialty or satisfy physical fitness standards. He was placed on limited duty (LIMDU) and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The record of evidence did not contain the MEB. The Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) adjudicated the following three Category I conditions: “other convulsions,” “possible pseudo-seizures” and “seizure disorder” as unfitting, existing prior to service (EPTS) and not aggravated by service. In addition, the IPEB found “unspecified psychoactive substance abuse with Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Program [SARP] treatment completed” as a Category IV condition (“Conditions which does not constitute a physical disability”). The IPEB recommended the CI be separated due to physical disability, without benefits. The CI requested a reconsideration of the IPEB finding, specifically refuting the finding of EPTS for his seizure disorder. The IPEB initially confirmed its original finding, but upon further reconsideration, changed its finding to unfit, ratable and compensable at 20% disabling, with no mention of EPTS or service aggravation. The IPEB also re-categorized the conditions, calling the “seizure disorder” Category I, and annotating the “other convulsions” and “possible pseudo-seizures” conditions as Category II conditions (“Conditions that contribute to the unfitting condition”). The Category IV condition remained as previously specified. The CI withdrew his demand for a formal hearing and accepted the reconsidered IPEB findings. The CI was then medically separated.


CI CONTENTION : “Please consider all conditions”.


 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 seizure disorder as well as related Category II conditions, are addressed below. The Board will also consider the Category IV condition regarding substance abuse, only as far as this condition can be found related to a compensable condition. 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 Board for Correction of Naval Records.


invalid font number 31502


RATING COMPARISON :

Service Recon IPEB – Dated 20090130
 VA - (7 Mos. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Seizure Disorder 8910 20% Seizure Disorder 8910 20% 20091102
Other Convulsions Category II
Possible Pseudo-Seizures Category II
Psychoactive Substance Abuse Category IV No VA Entry
Other x0 (Not in Scope)
 Other x9 20091102
Combined: 20%
 Combined: 30%
Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20090331 (most proximate to date of separation [DOS])
 VARD 20120404 increased DC 8910 to 40%, effective 20120112


ANALYSIS SUMMARY : The PEB coded the o ther c onvulsion s condition and p ossible p seudo seizures as Category II conditions (“Conditions that contribute to the unfitting condition”) and will be discussed under the s eizure d isorder condition.

Seizure Disorder Condition . On the morning of 26 July 2007 the CI had some nausea and vomiting and vertigo after breakfast and then had episodes of convulsing and felt drained. He went to the Battalion Aid station and had a witnessed seizure with tonic clonic activity. He had a normal CT scan and was started on medication for a seizure disorder (Keppra). The CI und erwent an electroencephalogram ( measures brain wave activity which was normal ) . The CI was placed on LIMDU on 30 July 2007 for seizure disorder until 30 January 2008 with restrictions of no deployment, no driving, no swimming and no operating a weapon or any activity that could result in a loss of consciousness with could result in injury to self or others. The CI was followed by n eurology and reported two unwitnessed “seizures” which the examiner deemed doubtful and although he considered them to probably be sync opal episodes , he was in agreement to stop the Keppra and start Topamax. The CI experienced two episodes of unwitnessed loss of conscience and reported that he had a history of kidney stones and was having problems with Topamax. The examiner agreed to change the medication to Depakote. A magnetic resonance imaging of the brain revealed some temporal horn asymmetry , however otherwise normal imaging. The medication Valium was added as a “ whenever necessary ” medication to the seizure disorder treatment regime. A head CT scan was normal. The c ommander’s s tatement noted that the CI could not operate any type of motor vehicle or participate in any type of physical training due to the danger of seizures and injuring himself or others. The MEB narrative summary exam approximately 14 months prior to separation documented that the CI had at least one, possibly two episodes of changes in awareness consistent with a seizure disorder. The neurological exam was normal with no further witnessed episodes of seizures. The examiner suggested a possibility of pseudo seizures as well as a definite seizure disorder. The CI was placed on a second LIMDU from 2 February 2008 to 4 August 2008 for seizure disorder with the same limitations as the previous LIMDU. The MEB a ddendum from the Battalion Surgeon approximately 7 months prior to separation noted that based on the low Depakote blood level that the CI was non-compliant and was the likely cause of the breakthrough seizures. The lack of medication compliance placed the CI at risk for further seizures. The examiner reported that the CI experienced a change in awareness and thought that someone had broken into his home, called the police and was extremely agitated. He was taken to the emergency room ( ER ) and there was concern about his use of Valium and other benzodiazepines. A drug screen was done and was positive for cocaine. The CI was extremely agitated at this visit about the drug test and possible consequences. The blood test for Depakote was 19.6 ( normal range 50-125 ) and this level indicate d non - compliance with the medication. The CI underwent treatment through the SARP program. The CI was reevaluated and placed on a 6- month LI M DU and denied any other episodes of c hanges or awareness since 7 Mar ch 2008. The VA Compensation and Pension exam approximately 7 months after separation documented that although t he CI did not keep a seizure diary, he had 20 unwitnessed “ attacks ” in total averaging 2 each month . He continued with functional impairments of an inability to drive or operate any machinery, an inability to swim or be left alone - for fear of a seizure. The neurological exam showed physical findings of a somewhat slowed cognitive thought processing and delayed pupillary reflex. The examiner documented that the medications for seizure control were Depakote and Valium. The VA examiner diagnosed seizure disorder and possible pseudos-seizures .

The Board directs attenti on to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence . The PEB coded the s eizure d isorder condition as 8910 ( e pilepsy, grand mal ) and rated at 20% “ At least 1 major seizure in the last 2 years or at least two minor seizures in the last 6 months. ” The VA used the same coding and rating as the PEB. The CI had one major seizure on 26 July 2007 , which was witnessed and confirmed by the ER staff. The MEB examiner documented that the CI had at least one, possibly two episodes of changes in awareness consistent with a seizure disorder. The VA examiner diagnosed seizure disorder and possible pseudo -seizures. The Board considered the 40% criteria of “At least 1 major seizure in the last 6 months or 2 in the last year; or averaging at least 5 to 8 minor seizures weekly” ; however both the MEB n eurologist and the VA examiner attributed the unwitnessed “attacks” as possible pseudo seizures. Considering the totality of the evidence and mindful of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities ( VASRD ) §4.3 (reasonable doubt), members agreed that a disability rating of 20% for the s eizure d isorder condition was appropriately recommended in this case.

 Contended PEB Conditions : The contended conditions adjudicated as not unfitting by the PEB were o ther c onvulsions, p ossible p seudo seizures and p sychoactive s ubstance a buse . 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 . An established principle for fitness determinations is that they are performance-based and requires a preponderance of evidence to counter a PEB’s fitness adjudication. The PEB adjudicated the o ther c onvulsions and p ossible p seudo seizures as related Category II conditions which were considered under the Category I unfitting condition. The PEB adjudicated the p sychoactive s ubstance a buse condition as a Category IV condition (“Conditions which does not constitute a physical disability”). None of these conditions were profiled; none were implicated in the c ommander’s s tatement; and, none were judged to fail retention standards. All were reviewed by the a ction o fficer and considered by the Board. There was no indication from the record that any of these conditions significantly interfered with satisfactory duty performance. 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 the a ny of the contended conditions and, therefore, no additional disability ratings can be 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. In the matter of the s eizure d isorder condition and IAW VASRD §4. 124 , the Board unanimously recommends no change in the PEB adjudication. In the matter of the contended o ther c onvulsions, p ossible p seudo seizures and p sychoactive s ubstance a buse conditions, the Board unanimously recommends no change from the PEB determinations as not unfitting. 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 20 140428 , w/atchs
Exhib it B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans ’ Affairs Treatment Record




XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
President
Physical Disability Board of Review

MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY COUNCIL OF REVIEW
BOARDS

Subj: PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW (PDBR) RECOMMENDATIONS

Ref: (a) DoDI 6040.44
(b) CORB ltr dtd 8 Apr 15

In accordance with reference (a), I have reviewed the cases forwarded by reference (b), and, for the reasons provided in their forwarding memorandums, approve the recommendations of the PDBR that the following individual’s records not be corrected to reflect a change in either characterization of separation or in the disability rating previously assigned by the Department of the Navy’s Physical Evaluation Board:

- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN



                                                      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                                            Assistant General Counsel
                                                      (Manpower & Reserve Affairs)

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02627

    Original file (PD-2013-02627.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20050902 The rating for the unfitting seizure disorder condition is addressed below. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and defaulting to VASRD §4.3, the Board recommends a 20% rating for the seizure disorder; proposing code 8910 (epilepsy, grand mal) for its clinical compatibility.The Category III demyelinating disorder was, more likely than not, the cause of the seizure disorder; but, in itself was manifested only by the seizures as rated above.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00442

    Original file (PD2012-00442.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Although the VA assumed the occurrence of five seizures during the year prior to the VA examination, this frequency was not deemed to average “at least 1 major seizure in 4 months over the last year,” and thus did not justify a 60% rating. In the matter of the generalized seizure disorder condition, the Board unanimously recommends a disability rating of 20%, coded 8910 IAW VASRD §4.124a. Service Treatment Record Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00011

    Original file (PD2012-00011.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The VA chose code 8911 (epilepsy, petit mal) and rated 40% defined as at least 1 major seizure in the last 6 months or 2 in the last year; or averaging at least five to eight minor seizures weekly based on the CI report that the seizures occur without warning and occur approximately once every 6 months. The challenge before the Board was to evaluate the hard subjective evidence and consider the tally of the CI’s major and minor seizure activity in order to apply the appropriate VASRD code...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00712

    Original file (PD2010-00712.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The medical record documents three major seizures in the first year of diagnosis, in November 2002, March 2003, and July 2003. VA treatment report on 20 November 2008, also stated last the major seizure was March 2008. The FPEB noted that the CI had another seizure in March 2008.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01517

    Original file (PD-2013-01517.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The conversion disorder condition, characterized as “conversion disorder (mild-moderate)”was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW SECNAVINST 1850.4E. Her GAF was 55 and the diagnosis of conversion (pseudo seizures) continued.At the VA Compensation and Pension mental evaluation on 15 October 2004, approximately 4 months after separation, the CI reported a history of one inpatient psychiatry admission in 2004 (24 hours), briefly took anti-epileptic medication and had...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD-2012-00059

    Original file (PD-2012-00059.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. Post-Separation) Effective - 20100401 Condition Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam Epilepsy, Partial Motor w/ Secondary Generalization 8999-8910 10% Seizure Disorder 8910 10%* 20110815 No Additional MEB/PEB Entries Other x 2 20110815 Combined: 10% Combined: 20% Derived from...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01335

    Original file (PD2012 01335.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was issued a permanent P3 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).The epilepsy condition, characterized as partial onset epilepsy with secondary generalization was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501 as medically unacceptable.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The PEBadjudicated partial onset epilepsy with secondary generalization as unfitting and rated 20% with application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00278

    Original file (PD2009-00278.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB found the seizure disorder to be unfitting, code 8910, and recommended separation from the TDRL with a 10% permanent rating. Seizure disorder891040%10% COMBINED40%10% ______________________________________________________________________________ I have reviewed the subject case pursuant to reference (a) and, for the reasons set forth in reference (b), approve the recommendation of the Physical Disability Board of Review Mr. XXXXXX’s records not be corrected to reflect a change in...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01455

    Original file (PD-2013-01455.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The rating for the unfitting epilepsy 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 Board for Correction of Military Records.The Board acknowledges the CI’s information regarding Department of Veteran Affairs (DAV) compensation rating change from 20% to 10%...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01572

    Original file (PD-2013-01572.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board gives consideration to VA evidence, particularly within 12 months of separation, but only to the extent that it reasonably reflects the severity of the disability at the time of separation. The MEB examiner noted the headaches were secondary to a head injury and the CI was being treated with medication. 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...