Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01873
Original file (PD-2014-01873.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    CASE: PD-2014-01873
BRANCH OF SERVICE: MARINE CORPS         BOARD DATE: 20150106
SEPARATION DATE: 20080430


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty LCpl/E-3 (6300/Avionics Technician) medically separated for chronic pain left foot, possibly secondary to sural neuralgia. 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 bilateral ankle conditions, characterized as “chronic bilat ankle instability” and “chronic ankle tenosynovitis, bilat,” were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW SECNAVINST 1850.4E. No other conditions were submitted by the MEB. The Informal PEB (IPEB) adjudicated “chronic bilateral ankle instability” as unfitting, rated 10% each foot, with likely application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and “chronic ankle tenosynovitis bilateral” as Category II ( contributing to unfit condition). The CI appealed to the Formal PEB (FPEB) but a subsequent Reconsideration PEB affirmed the IPEB’s findings and ratings. The CI appealed and was granted a FPEB which determined the “chronic pain left foot possibly secondary to sural neuralgia” as unfitting, rated 10% with likely application of the VASRD. The remaining conditions (chronic bilateral ankle instability, resolved status post [ s/p ] modified Brostrom; history of chronic bilateral ankle tenosynovitis; right ankle pain s/p modified Brostrom; and accessory ossicle [ partially unfused apophysis fifth metatarsal, congenital variant ] right foot) were determined to be C ategory III (not separately unfitting) . The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION: “I have stomach ulcers [sic], a heart condition which needs a procedure, and hearing loss and a surgical repair on my left foot. All are service-connected.”


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 left foot condition is addressed below. The Category III right ankle condition was not contended and therefore not within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of the Board. This and any condition 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.


 RATING COMPARISON :

Service FPEB – Dated 20071127
 VA* - Based on Service Treatment Records (STR)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Chronic Pain Left Foot, Possibly Secondary to Sural Neuralgia 8799-8725 10% Left Ankle Condition, Status Post Brostrom Surgery 5271 0% STR
Sural Nerve Pain/Neuroma 8799-8721 0% STR
Other x 0 (Not In Scope)
 Other x 2
Combined: 10%
 Combined: 0%
* Derived from VA Rating Decision (VA RD ) dated 20103009 (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 conditions continue to burden him. The Board also acknowledges the CI’s contention that suggests a higher rating should have been granted on the unfitting medical condition documented at the time of separation. 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; and, to review those fitness determinations within its scope (as elaborated above) consistent with performance-based criteria in evidence at separation.

The Board further acknowledges the CI’s contention that suggests ratings should have been conferred for other conditions documented at the time of separation. The Board wishes to clarify that it is subject to the same laws for service disability entitlements as those under which the Disability Evaluation System (DES) operates. While the DES considers all of the member's medical conditions, compensation can only be offered for those medical conditions that cut short a member’s career, and then only to the degree of severity present at the time of final disposition. However the Department of Veterans Affairs, operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, United States Code), is empowered to compensate all service-connected conditions and to periodically reevaluate said conditions for the purpose of adjusting the Veteran’s disability rating should the degree of impairment vary over time.

Left Foot Condition. The service treatment record (STR) indicated that the CI had multiple inversion (twisted inward) injuries of the left ankle in early 2006; and, all X-rays were absent boney abnormalities or acute changes. He suffered persistent ankle inversions associated with pain which was treated with LIMDU and conservative measures. After symptoms failed to improve, a surgical Broström repair (ligament stabilization surgery) was performed in October 2006. Post-operative X-rays revealed intact implanted hardware with expected post-surgical findings. The surgery improved his overall stability, but the pain worsened about the surgical site as well as the outside aspect of his left foot. The CI subsequently underwent sural and peroneal nerve blocks which provided temporary relief. Persistent pain with episodic numbness and tingling continued and he was referred to an MEB. At the narrative summary examination performed 11 months prior to separation, the CI reported limited range-of-motion (ROM) of both ankles, left greater than right. He endorsed the inability to engage in any high impact activity or prolonged standing without experiencing moderate to severe discomfort along the side of the left ankle. The physical examination noted an antalgic gait and ROM described as “limited” in both dorsiflexion and plantar flexion of the left ankle. Tenderness, edema, weakness, and discoloration were present about the left ankle. His strength parameters were described as 2-3 out of a 5 point scale. Crepitus was not present. Repeat X-rays were consistent with a stable ankle joint. The diagnosis was chronic, bilateral ankle instability and tenosynovitis. The commander’s statement implicated the CI’s inability to maintain fitness standards given his present physical condition.

There was no C&P examination in the file due to a “no show,” but pertinent historical medical information was obtained from a remote VARD summary dated 30 September 2010 which revealed a 0% rating. 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.






Left Ankle ROM
(Degrees)		 Pain Mgmt ~ 9 Mo. Pre-Sep
(20070810)
 Ortho ~ 5 Mo. Pre-Sep
(20071118)
Dorsiflexion (20 Normal) 10 15
Plantar Flexion (45) - - 45
Comment G uarding;
(+) nerve irritation		 T enderness; weakness
§4.71a Rating 10% 10%
invalid font number 31502
The Board directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. Board members first reviewed the PEB’s coding/rating determination in this case. While the diagnosis of persistent left foot pain is clear, the PEB’s ultimate determination of a nerve etiology in the presence of objective weakness left room for clarification of that specific diagnosis. It appeared that pain and paresthesia were the principle components to the CI’s condition, which would appropriately correspond to ‘total sensory’ nerve fibers such as the identified sural nerve. However, the objective weakness of associated foot muscles would indicate the pathology lies in a nerve that carries both ‘sensory’ and ‘motor’ fibers; therefore, Board members considered ratings under VASRD §4.124 (peripheral nerve) or §4.73 (muscle injuries) for a permanent rating. Anatomically, the most appropriate ‘combined fiber’ nerve in the lower leg is the superficial peroneal which would provide the combined findings of abnormal sensation and abnormal (weakened) motion/strength. The VASRD criterion for neuralgia in this case is 0% (mild), 10% (moderate) and 20% severe. Members agreed that the evidence of pain and weakness was not present above the moderate (10%) level.

Another VASRD compliant rating approach was directed at the corresponding muscle component linked to the observed weakness, which were the peroneal muscles depicted in Group XI (propulsion, plantar flexion of foot) VASRD muscle group IAW VASRD §4.73. The impairment criterion for this muscle group is 0% (slight), 10% (moderate), 20% (moderately severe), and 30% (severe). In this case, members agreed that the presenting muscle impairment was not present above the moderate (10%) level. Additionally, members considered 5271 (ankle; limited motion) and agreed that the minimal ROM decrement supported the greatest level of impairment as “moderate” at 10%. Lastly, the Board considered alternative VASRD foot and analogous codes, but all were equal or less applicable and not advantageous to the current PEB rating of 10%. 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 left 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. 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 left 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 20140515, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans Affairs Treatment Record





XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
President
DoD 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 18 May 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:

- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USN
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, former USMC



                           XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                          Assistant General Counsel
                           (Manpower & Reserve Affairs)
                                                     

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00281

    Original file (PD2009-00281.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The VA rated it using the code for ankle, limited range-of-motion (ROM) and rated the nerve condition separately as well. The Left Sural Nerve Neuralgia was not documented prior to second surgery (tendon repair) and the CI was not referred to the PEB until after he had left foot pain in addition to his left ankle pain. The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating XXXXXXXXXX be corrected to show that the diagnoses in his finding of unfitness were Chronic Left...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02247

    Original file (PD-2013-02247.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20070430 Members agreed that the evidence supports a 20% rating for Group XI moderately severe muscle disability due to cardinal signs and symptoms of muscle disability of marked muscle atrophy, loss of soft tissue, and weakness on examination and lowered threshold of fatigue, fatigue-pain, and uncertainty of movement/incoordination with repetitive ROM or extended standing and walking, and loss of power due to posterior scar tissue.The Board again considered the normal gait...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01144

    Original file (PD-2013-01144.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of her Military Occupational Specialty or satisfy physical fitness standards.She was referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The C&P examiner commented that her CRPS was secondary to a possible injury through the superficial sensory nerve. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows:

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00809

    Original file (PD 2012 00809.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The CI was then medically separated with a 10% disability rating. All records and exams refer to bilateral lower leg pain. In regards to the bilateral leg conditions combined under a single 5003 rating by the PEB, the Board unanimously recommends that each leg be individually unfitting and individually rated.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01998

    Original file (PD-2013-01998.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pain medication required.” *VARD dated 25 July 2008 rated Posterior Tibial Tendonitis, right ankle 10% using code 5271 effective 24 March 2008 and Posterior Tibial Tendonitis, left ankle 10% using code 5271 effective 24 March 2008 and retained a 30% rating using code 5299-5276 for bilateral pes planus and plantar fasciitis (previously evaluated as posterior tibial tendon dysfunction bilaterally, plantar fasciitis bilaterally) ANALYSIS SUMMARY :The Board acknowledges the CI’s information...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01464

    Original file (PD-2013-01464.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Post-Separation)ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Chronic Pain, Left Foot5099-500310%Left Lateral Ankle Shrapnel Wound with Ankle Fracture527110%20041230Post Traumatic Sural Neuropathy of the Left...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00721

    Original file (PD-2014-00721.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The examiner’s diagnoses were due to shrapnel blast injuries: permanent sciatic nerve damage left leg (peroneal and tibial nerves) with right foot and ankle complete weakness; shrapnel injuries to bilateral knees; right ankle anterior tibialis tendon subluxation and ankle instability; and, shrapnel wounds to both lower extremities. The VA rated the left sciatic neuropathy together with “ left knee pain from shrapnel” and “left ankle pain from shrapnel/tendon sublux” with code 8520 at 60%...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01969

    Original file (PD-2014-01969.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The left foot pain, characterized as “complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), left foot” was the only condition forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.The PEB adjudicated “chronic left foot pain”as unfitting, rated 10% with likely application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). 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...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00357

    Original file (PD-2014-00357.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board directed attention to its rating recommendationbased on the above evidence.Although not specified, it appeared that the PEB and VA combined both (surgical) feet as a single unfitting condition, coded as a peripheral nerve condition coded 8727 (neuralgia) and rated at 0%.The Board first agreed that there was sufficient evidence to support the unbundling of the feet based on the necessity for bilateral surgery and constant post-operative pain as well as abnormal sensation in each...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01845

    Original file (PD 2012 01845.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board must apply separate codes and ratings in its recommendations if compensable ratings for each condition are achieved IAW VASRD rating guidelines. Pain management notes in the service treatment record (STR) indicate that post tarsal tunnel release the CI continued with pain in both feet, rated at 6 to 7 out of 10 on the left and 9 out of 10 on the right. At the VA exam bilateral foot sensation was noted to be normal.