Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00728
Original file (PD-2014-00728.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    CASE: PD-2014-00728
BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army  BOARD DATE: 20150205
SEPARATION DATE: 20031218


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E-4 (Field Artillery Surveyor) medically separated for a right foot condition. The 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). “Painful right 5th metatarsal, status post osteotomy” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. No other conditions were submitted by the MEB. The Informal PEB adjudicated “chronic pain, right foot, status post fifth metatarsal osteotomy” unfitting, rated 10% citing criteria of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy. The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION: “To ensure accuracy and fairness, also to update records.”


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 when specifically requested by the CI, those conditions identified by the PEB, but determined to be not unfitting. Any conditions outside the Board’s defined scope of review and any contention not requested in this application may remain eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military/Naval Records. Furthermore, the Board’s authority is limited to assessing the fairness and accuracy of PEB rating determinations and recommending corrections, where appropriate. 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 has neither the role nor the authority to compensate for post-separation progression or complications of service-connected conditions. That role and authority is granted by Congress to the Department of Veterans Affairs, operating under a different set of laws. 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.


 RATING COMPARISON :

Service IPEB – Dated 20031124
 VA* - (1 Mo. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Chronic Pain, Right Foot, Status Post Fifth Metatarsal Osteotomy 5099-5003 10% Residuals of Hammertoe Repair and Osteotomy, with Open Reduction/Internal Fixation and Scars, Right Fifth Toe 5299-5280 10%* 20031216
Other x 0 (Not In Scope)
 Other x 1
Combined: 10%
 Combined: 20%
* Derived from VA Rating Decision (VA RD ) dated 200 40708 (most proximate to date of separation ( DOS ))



ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Chronic Pain, Right Foot, Status Post Fifth Metatarsal Osteotomy. The CI had a surgical repair of the right 5th hammertoe secondary to a bunionette (bunion on the outside of the foot near little toe) in September 2002. Post-operatively, the CI continued to have exquisite pain to the surgical site despite physical therapy and rehabilitation. A surgical revision with metatarsal osteotomy was performed in January 2003. While still under profiled restrictions, the CI deployed in March 2003 and was returned home in May 2003 due to his post-surgical right foot condition. Specifically, the deployed orthopedic surgeon authored, “X-rays reveal that the bones in [the CI’s] right foot have not healed properly (non-union).” The CI resumed podiatric rehabilitation, treated with external support and medications, and was referred for MEB. Interim electro-diagnostic studies were normal.

The MEB narrative summary examination on 2 October 2003; 10 weeks prior to separation listed the CI’s chief complaint as right 5th toe pain without further endorsement of subjective symptoms. The physical examination (PE) revealed painful motion of the right foot with tenderness and slight decrease in sensation about the little toe joint. X-rays performed in October 2003 did not note any arthritic or degenerative changes. The commanders’ statement of 11 July 2003 included, “[The CI] cannot physically exert himself in a manner that this MOS demands.” His final profile dated 12 August 2003 listed status post right foot surgery as the sole diagnosis.

The VA Compensation & Pension examination on 4 April 2007 14 weeks after separation the CI endorsed severe right foot pain with walking and standing with flare-ups causing 9/10 on a pain scale. The PE was detailed and revealed tenderness about the side of the 5th toe and painful motion of the metatarsophalangeal [surgical site] joint. There was no foot edema, muscle spasm, or muscle atrophy present. He had an altered gait due to the wearing of an external support walker.

The Board directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB rated the right foot condition at 10% under the analogous VASRD code 5099-5003 (degenerative arthritis). Board members first agreed that significant evidence of painful motion was present near the time of service separation to justify the PEB’s 10% IAW §4.59. Board members then considered various coding options which could possibly yield a higher rating under analogous diagnostic criteria. Members considered codes of 5282 (hammer toe) the CI’s original diagnosis, 5283 (metatarsal; non-union) as described by orthopedics, or 5284 (unilateral; other foot injuries), but none were supported over the PEB’s current 10% and therefore, provided no additional benefit to the CI. Code 5279 (metatarsalgia) was also considered, but its single rating is 10% as well. 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 right foot 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. As discussed above, PEB reliance on the USAPDA pain policy for rating the right foot was operant in this case and the condition was adjudicated independently of that policy by the Board. In the matter of the right foot 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 re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination.


The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20131125, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record






                                   
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
President
DoD 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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, AR20150010577 (PD201400728)


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              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                           Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
                           (Review Boards)
                                                     
CF:
( ) DoD PDBR
( ) DVA

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02003

    Original file (PD-2013-02003.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is limited to those conditions determined by the PEB to be unfitting for continued military service and when specifically requested by the CI, those conditions identified by the PEB, but determined to be not unfitting. 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...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00984

    Original file (PD2011-00984.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The right hallux valgus/limitus condition (bunion surgery and post-surgical result) was the principle cause of the right foot pain surgery and chronic right foot pain and was considered in rating the CI’s primary unfitting foot pain condition. The VA exam summary for pes planus is discussed above and all symptoms from the pes planus condition were considered in the rating of the foot pain condition. In the matter of the contended pes planus and hallux valgus conditions, the Board...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00036

    Original file (PD2012-00036.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    SUMMARY OF CASE : Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty SGT/E-5 (44B/Welder), medically separated for bilateral bunion pain status post surgical correction of the left and of the right foot (joint at base of big toe). The PEB combined the right foot bunion pain condition and left foot bunion pain condition as a single unfitting condition, coded analogously to 5280 and rated 0%. I direct that all the Department of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00119

    Original file (PD-2014-00119.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20070304 The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Right Foot Pain5299-528010%S/P Surgery Hallux Valgus Right Foot52800%20070510S/p Surgical Scar Hallux Valgus Right...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-00868

    Original file (PD-2013-00868.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20061020 The bilateral foot conditions, characterized by the MEB as “hallux valgus” and “bilateral pes planus,” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. There were no other MH treatment notes for review.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02563

    Original file (PD-2013-02563.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Right Foot/Lower ExtremityCondition (Heel Spur, Plantar Fasciitis, Hammer Toe,Achilles and Gastroc-Soleus Tendinitis) .The service treatment record (STR) contains a routine exam entry from 1997 (same year as enlistment) documenting hallux valgus (bunion deformity of the big toe); and, a clinic note from the same year noting a 4-month history of bilateral foot pain. The PEB rated the right foot condition analogously under 5279 (metatarsalgia) which provides for a maximum rating of 10%, under...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01849

    Original file (PD2012 01849.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Ratings for unfitting conditions will be reviewed in all cases. The initial VA Rating Decision (VARD) was based on the service treatment records (STR).The Board directs attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.The PEB and the VA rated pain right fifth metatarsal area as 5299-5279 (metatarsalgia) at 10%. The Board considered coding as 5283 (malununion of a metatarsal) but X-rays near separation indicated the fifth metatarsal had healed well with good alignment;...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01894

    Original file (PD2012 01894.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CI CONTENTION : “Medical Board combined Right and Left conditions as one and left off pes planus from diagnostic evaluation. All members agreed, however, that separate ratings (unilateral or bilateral) under separate codes was not compliant with VASRD §4.14 (avoidance of pyramiding), which specifies that “the evaluation of the same manifestation under different diagnoses are to be avoided.” Specifically a separate compensable rating for pes planus, as contended by the CI and conferred by...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01762

    Original file (PD-2013-01762.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Normal ankle and foot exam. For the ankle condition, the VA applied code 5271 (limited motion of the ankle) and rated it 10% consistent with “moderate” based on “minimal functional impairment.”Since the NARSUM and C&P exams addressed both the foot and ankle conditions together, the Board first considered which exam was the most probative exam on which to base its rating recommendation. Physical Disability Board of Review

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01914

    Original file (PD-2013-01914.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The left foot condition, characterized as “delayed union left 5 th metatarsal fracture” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAWSECNAVINST 1850.4E.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The informal PEB adjudicated “delayed union left fifth metatarsal fracture”as unfitting, rated 10%.The CI made no appeals and was medically separated. The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for...