Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02564
Original file (PD-2014-02564.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    CASE: PD-2014-02564
BRANCH OF SERVICE: Army  BOARD DATE: 20141120
SEPARATION DATE: 20070607


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty SGT/E-5 (15P/Aviation Operation Specialist) medically separated for a right wrist condition. The condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of his Military Occupational Specialty. He was issued a permanent U3 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The MEB referred “chronic wrist pain” to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) as medically unacceptable IAW AR 40-501. No other conditions were submitted by the MEB. The Informal PEB adjudicated “radial sensory neuritis right (dominant) hand status post radial shaft fracture…” as unfitting, rated at 10% citing criteria of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION: “My service connected conditions are worsening. I wanted to stay Active Duty, but my surgery by Army Physicians did not go well.”


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 right wrist 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 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, operating under a different set of laws. 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.


 RATING COMPARISON :

Service IPEB – Dated 20070420
 VA - (~1 Mos. Post-Separation)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Radial Sensory Neuritis Right (Dominant) Hand… 8614 20% Residuals, Fracture, Right Radius 5212 10% 20070618
Other x 0 (Not In Scope)
 Combined: 40%
Combined: 20%


ANALYSIS SUMMARY: The Board noted the narrative summary (NARSUM) examination to be dated 28 March 2006. The Board unanimously agreed this to be a typo and the correct date to be 28 March 2007.

Right Wrist Condition. This right hand dominant CI suffered a blunt injury to his right mid forearm of conflicting circumstances on 3 July 2005. Initial X-rays revealed a minimally displaced traverse fracture of the right forearm bone (radius) at a point two thirds the distance from the elbow to the wrist, with no other bony injury. The fracture required no reduction at that time and was treated with a forearm splint. On orthopedic evaluation 4 days later, the fracture was determined to require surgical reduction and stabilization. Surgical reduction and fracture stabilization was performed on 14 July 2005, with placement of a pin within the bone across the fracture site through a 2 cm wrist incision (intramedullary pin through the radial styloid). Good alignment and reduction of the fracture site was achieved. After surgery the fracture healed without malunion or deformity. X-rays obtained in January 2006, revealed the fracture to be “nearly healed with good anatomic alignment.” Post-operatively the CI developed pain in the wrist, weakness of grip and numbness on the back of his hand. On an occupational therapy (OT) evaluation on 24 March 2006, range-of-motion (ROM) of the wrist was palmar flexion (PF-palm toward the ground) of 45 degrees and dorsiflexion/extension (DF/EX-back of hand toward the sky) of 60 degrees (Normal: 80 and 70 degrees respectively). The CI could make a full fist, but grip strength was decreased in the right hand compared to the left (Right - 95 pounds; left - 103 pounds). Numbness was present on the back of the hand. In August 2006, the fracture was felt healed and the pin was removed through the original operative incision in the wrist. On an OT exam on 13 November 2006, ROM of the wrist was unchanged from evaluation of March 2006. The CI could make a full fist. Right grip strength has slightly decreased (Right: 83 pounds; Left: 119 pounds), but finger “pinch strength” in the right and left hands was equal. On an OT hand evaluation on 19 March 2007, the therapist reported the CI to “perceive his right disability as mild.” Grip strength was 79 pounds on the right and 110 pounds on the left. ROM of the right hand fingers was normal with full opposition of the thumb to all digits. Pinch strength of the right and left hand fingers was equal. Quantative sensory testing (Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments) was reported as revealing decreased sensation over the back of the hand, and thumb and first two digits but not the finger tips. On DASH testing (Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand), to determine degree of disability a score of 34 was achieved, suggesting the condition to be “mild.” On an OT evaluation on 20 March 2007, PF of the right wrist was 60 degrees and DF/EX 41 degrees. Flexion and extension of the right elbow was normal. On an orthopedic evaluation performed on 28 March 2007, decrease of light touch sensation was present in the right hand, but “less than before surgery.”

At the MEB/NARSUM exam performed on 28 March 2007 (3 months prior to separation), the hand was described as having “excellent motion and clinical strength.” The surgical scar was described as supple, but “hypersensitive and tender to palpation.” Results of the OT evaluations of March 2007, discussed above, were referenced.

At the VA Compensation and Pension exam performed (approximately 2 weeks after separation), the CI reported working as a “bar bag man” and having missed no work in 12 months. He reported being able to do all activities of daily living (ADL), but noted intermittent pain mainly in the right wrist when “he uses arm and hand with hand tools.” He reported wearing a wrist brace. On examination, good dexterity with full ROM of all digits was noted. PF of the right wrist was 60 degrees and DF/EX was 55degrees. Sensory exam of the hands and all reflexes were normal. Motor strength was clinically normal (5/5) in the upper extremities except the right hand where grip strength was decreased to 4/5.

The Board directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB rated the hand condition 20% under code 8614 (neuritis radial nerve/mild), IAW §4.123 citing slight decreased grip strength, hand pain and sensitivity. A higher rating under this code, 30%, for the dominant hand, requires the condition to be moderate. The VA rated the hand condition 10% coded 5212 (radius, impairment/ malunion). A higher rating of 20% requires “non-union” of the bone. The Board unanimously agreed that the wrist condition was not compensable under the codes for reduced ROM of the wrist (code 5215), or forearm (codes 5206, 5207 and 5208). The Board considered a rating under code 8614, neuritis of the radial nerve, IAW §4.123. The Board agreed that a neuropathy involving the radial nerve was present with both motor and sensory components. The Board opined that the sensory component was mild, involving only a portion of the back of the right hand and three fingers, but not the finger tips and had no functional implication.

The Board agreed that the motor component involved some decreased strength in the wrist and grip but not finger motion or function. The Board noted the strengths in the upper arms were normal except for a clinical assessment of 4/5 in the right grip. The Board unanimously agreed that this motor decrease was mild in its functional impact given the results of the activity statements, impact on employment, ADL and the DASH evaluation in record. The Board unanimously agreed the neuropathy condition was ‘mild’ and did not rise to the level of ‘moderate’ for 30% rating. The Board noted the surgical scar to be described as tender and hypersensitive and considered a rating under code 7804, (scars), IAW §4.118. The record recorded the scar to be small, two cm in length, well healed, not irritated and having no stated difficulty with the wearing of a wrist brace. The Board unanimously agreed that no additional rating could be recommended. The Board found no other appropriate codes for consideration and no pathway to a rating higher than 20%. 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 Hand 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 hand condition and IAW VASRD §4.123, 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 20140529, 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, AR20150010621 (PD201402564)


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 | CY2012 | PD2012-00677

    Original file (PD2012-00677.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s authority as defined in DoDI 6040.44, however, resides in evaluating the fairness of DES fitness determinations and rating decisions for disability at the time of separation and is limited to conditions adjudicated by the PEB as either unfitting or not unfitting. At the VA Compensation and Pension exam performed a month prior to separation, the CI reported decreased sensation, continued weakness, and poor range‐of‐motion of the left thumb and hand. The VA rated the left thumb...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00163

    Original file (PD2010-00163.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI was placed on Limited Duty (LIMDU) on 20050908 for the GSW to the chest and RUE. Chest Condition . In light of the evidence of impairment indicated by the numerous treatment notes for chest pain (also see the PTSD condition with chest pain as a contributor), the NMA statement, and the post-separation continued disability due to the chest condition, the CI’s chest condition should be recharacterized as a separate unfitting and ratable disability at the time of separation.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00800

    Original file (PD2011-00800.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB adjudicated the cervical spondylosis with neck pain and chronic mild left arm conditions as unfitting, rated at 20% for mild, incomplete paralysis. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) was performed in 2002 and although the radiologist’s report is not present in the record, both the original MEB NARSUM in May 2002 and the updated MEB NARSUM in December 2002 noted this test documented diffuse spondylitic changes from C3-4 to C6-7, severe spinal stenosis at C5-6, moderate spinal stenosis...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02218

    Original file (PD-2013-02218.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The upper extremity condition, characterized as “right shoulder stiffness, bilateral upper extremity pain and residual disability” was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AR 40-501.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The Informal PEB adjudicated “left non-dominant forearm and hand injury, with reduced grip strength and chronic left upper extremity pain,”as unfitting rated 10% and 10%, with likely application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD)and the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00921

    Original file (PD 2012 00921.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board next considered the VA chosen musculoskeletal codes for both the wrist 5215 (limitation of motion of the wrist) rated 10% for painful limitation of motion and the elbow 5213 (impairment of supination and pronation) rated 30% for pain limited motion analogous to the 5010 code (arthritis due to trauma) which is consistent with the VA exam at that time. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), §4.45(f) (the joints) and...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01245

    Original file (PD-2014-01245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Multiple subsequent X-raysfrom this time through the time of separation from the military revealed good healing of the fracture sites without malunion, arthritic changes or hardware difficulty.On orthopedic evaluation performed on 2 October 2008, the CI reported “stiffness of the wrist.”Motor and neurologic evaluations of the hand were normal and operative sites were healing well.On occupational therapy (OT) evaluation performed on 11 December 2008, the CI reported wrist pain with lifting...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00487

    Original file (PD2011-00487.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    “Hand pain and weakness” was adjudicated as related to the right hand hypothenar hammer syndrome and was discussed above in rating the right hand condition. Additionally, thoracic strain; bilateral knee patellofemoral syndrome; left foot plantar fasciitis; right foot plantar fasciitis with right little toe; left ankle strain; right ankle strain; cervical strain; bilateral tinnitus; impairment of hand-eye coordination and several other non-acute conditions were noted in the VA rating...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02764

    Original file (PD-2013-02764.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The InformalPEBadjudicated right hand pain secondary to a fracture of the little finger condition as unfitting, rated 0%with cited application of the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy.The CI made no appeals and was medically separated. Despite physical and occupational therapy, his right hand pain continued.The MEB narrative summary completed on22 February 2006 (2 months prior to separation) provided a detailed and chronological history of the CI’s condition with...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00641

    Original file (PD-2014-00641.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 VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. She had what was diagnosed as right CTSmarked by pain and paresthesias with decreased manual dexterity along with problems of lifting and carrying, lack of stamina,and decreased strength.At the time of the VA examination, she was not employed.Temporally remote (more...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01972

    Original file (PD-2013-01972.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Informal PEB adjudicated “median nerve injury, left (dominant) upper extremity consisting primarily of sensory deficit,” and “chronic pain, left arm, s/p humerus fracture”as unfitting, rated 10% and 10% respectively,citing the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain for the arm, and the VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD) for the nerve.The CI made no appeals and was medically separated. She was described as an “invaluable asset to any team.” The permanent profile listed...