Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02089
Original file (PD-2014-02089.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    CASE: PD-2014-02089
BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army  BOARD DATE: 20150310
SEPARATION DATE: 20040126


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an activated National Guard E-4 (Military Police) medically separated for a right knee condition. The condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of his Military Occupational Specialty or satisfy physical fitness standards. He was issued a permanent L3 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The “degenerative joint disease (DJD) right knee” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501. No other condition was submitted by the MEB. The Informal PEB adjudicated the condition as unfitting, rated 10%, with likely application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The CI made no appeals and was 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 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 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 :

IPEB – Dated 20031203
 VA* (8 Mos. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
DJD, Right Knee 5003 10% DJD, Right Knee 5261 10% 20040916
Other x 0 (Not In Scope)
 Other x 8
RATING: 10%
 RATING: 20%
* Derived from VA Rating Decision (VA RD ) dated 200 50729 (most proximate to date of separation ( DOS ) ) .


ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Right Knee Condition. The service treatment record (STR) indicated an initial sports injury to the right knee in September 2001 (on a drill weekend), and imaging at that time demonstrated a meniscal tear. The CI was referred to orthopedics (military), and in November 2002 (13 months prior to separation), underwent surgery (arthroscopic meniscectomy). A physical therapy entry from March 2003 documented a full range-of-motion (ROM) and uncomplicated operative recovery. After that, the CI was deployed to Kuwait/Iraq; and, a line-of-duty statement documented a right knee injury from a reported fall off a guard tower ladder in Kuwait on 13 June 2003, with medical evacuation (to CONUS) 5 days later. Subsequent STR entries indicated a trial of conservative treatment with improvement, but insufficient for retention. Several entries documented measured ROM, with flexion ranging from 110-125 degrees (normal 140 degrees; minimum compensable 45 degrees); and, multiple exams documented the absence of instability, persistent effusion, or signs of cartilage impingement (mechanical locking).

The narrative summary (NARSUM) conducted on 3 October 2003 (4 months prior to separation), attributed the knee pain to the physical rigors of deployment without mention of discrete injury. The examiner stated that the “knee pops and hurts sometimes, mostly at night, sitting with the knee bent and on getting up and walking up and down steps” with pain rated “intermittent and slight.” The physical exam documented that the CI “walks, sits, and stands well,” noting the absence of tenderness and a stable joint. The NARSUM measured ROM was 105 degrees flexion and minus 8 degrees extension (normal 0 degrees, minimum compensable minus 10 degrees).

A VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination conducted on 16 September 2004 (8 months after separation) did not characterize the severity of the knee pain; the examiner stated, “His knee is alright until he walks long time or stands up a long time.” The VA physical exam documented a “minimal limp,” the absence of effusion (no comment on tenderness), stability to stress testing, and no signs of cartilage impingement. The VA measured ROM was 115 degrees flexion annotating painful motion. Measured extension was not provided, but the examiner commented, “sitting in chair he lacks about 15 degrees of full extension.”

The Board directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB’s 10% rating analogous to 5003 (degenerative arthritis) was consistent with VASRD §4.71a criteria for the MEB and NARSUM evidence and ROM. The VA’s 10% rating under 5261 (limitation of extension) referenced the C&P comment above. It is noted that a 10% rating under 5259 (cartilage, semilunar, removal of, symptomatic) is likewise appropriate to this case. There is no evidence for compensable ROM impairment, frequent effusions, or locking which would support a rating higher than 10% under any applicable code; and, no grounds for additional rating of instability. 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 of the right knee 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 right knee 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 20140415, 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, AR20150013720 (PD201402089)


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-2013-01456

    Original file (PD-2013-01456.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Post-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam DJD,Bilateral Knees...[Surgical Residuals]500320%Left Knee DJD, post Meniscectomy5010-525910%20031208Right Knee DJD, post ACL Repair5010-526010%20031208Other x 0 (Not in Scope)Other x 4 (Including 0% R and L Knee Surgical Scars)20031208 Combined: 20%Combined: 40%Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20040310 ( most proximate to date of separation [DOS]). Bilateral Knee Condition . In the matter of the combined bilateral knee...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02716

    Original file (PD-2014-02716.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 Bilateral Knee Pain ...5099-500310%Right Knee PFS526010%20080128Left Knee PFS526010%20080128Other MEB/PEB Conditions x 0 (Not In Scope)Other x 4...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02209

    Original file (PD-2013-02209.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered that the evidence in record supports that the CI had painful, limited ROM with imaging evidence of DJD following right knee injury and surgery, without significant instability. Left knee examination was the same as the right, except no effusion was present and physical therapy noted ROM of 0 degrees-130 degrees, without painful motion.At the VA C&P exam performed a week after separation the CI reported problems in the left knee due to compensation for his right knee. ...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01379

    Original file (PD-2013-01379.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the MEB NARSUM examination(approximately 3 months prior to separation), the CI reported left hip pain. 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 22202-3557SUBJECT: Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation forXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, AR20150006430 (PD201301379) I have reviewed the enclosed Department of Defense Physical Disability...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00284

    Original file (PD-2014-00284.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Prior to separation examinations noted lumbar spine ROMs were normal; however, 9 months after separation, at a follow-up VA examination flexion was decreased and was associated with moderately severe pain. Therefore, a rating of 10% was a consideration using code 5292 (slight) or code 5295 (pain on motion). In the matter of the right knee condition, the Board recommends a disability rating of 10%, coded 5024 IAW VASRD §4.71a.There were no other conditions within the Board’s scope of review...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00832

    Original file (PD2011-00832.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The FPEB and VA each coded the individual knees at 10% using the criteria for arthritis (5003), with the VA indicating a traumatic onset by using code 5010. Left Knee : With regards to the left knee, the Board considered that the preponderance of the record supported the 10% rating for the left knee for limited motion. 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 01851

    Original file (PD 2012 01851.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20030731 At the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam (a month prior to separation), the CI was walking with a brace and had a limp of the right leg. The Board determined that potential codes for the right knee condition could include 5014 (Osteomalacia) or 5024 (Tenosynovitis), but that these would be rated under the same criteria as either code 5003 or 5019 under §4.71a at 10%.The Board considered whether a higher combined rating might be indicated under any other codes...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00093

    Original file (PD-2014-00093.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. 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...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01365

    Original file (PD-2013-01365.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At retention physical dated 4 September 2002, the examiner documented a prior history of bilateral hip osteoarthritis, a 2001 right hip replacement, and noted “decreased ROM left hip” (no measurements were documented). Thus, the Board cannot recommend a separate service rating for this condition. In the matter of the osteoarthritis bilateral knees condition, the Board unanimously determined that neither knee was separately unfitting and that the condition EPTS and was not permanently...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02134

    Original file (PD-2014-02134.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Left Knee Condition . (Normal: 140 and 0 degrees).On an orthopedic exam on 7 May 2001, surgical incisions were well healed and the knee had no lateral instability (varus/valgus) but mild “laxity” at the ACL repair site (1A Lachman test).At the MEB/NARSUM evaluationon 25 June 2001, 4 months prior to separation, the CI reported a continued inability to walk or run without knee pain. Mild anterior laxity was again noted (1A Lachman test).ROM results are in the chart below.On the DD Form 2808...