A medical coder reviewing claim data on screen with paperwork at a desk

Diabetic Neuropathy ICD-10 Codes: E11.40, E11.42 and When Each Applies

by

Diabetic neuropathy is coded from the E11.4- family, not from the G-codes. The last character does all the work, and it is decided by what the chart says about distribution — not by what the coder knows about the disease.

Written by Dr. Tom Biernacki, DPM, FACFAS, a double board-certified foot and ankle surgeon. A coding reference, not a diagnosis. Descriptors below are the official FY2026 ICD-10-CM long descriptions.

The short version

For type 2 diabetes, the codes are E11.40 (diabetic neuropathy, unspecified), E11.41 (mononeuropathy), E11.42 (polyneuropathy), E11.43 (autonomic (poly)neuropathy), E11.44 (amyotrophy) and E11.49 (other diabetic neurological complication). E11.4 itself is a header and is not billable.

Because neuropathy sits under “with” in the Alphabetic Index entry for diabetes, the classification presumes the two are related. The provider does not have to write the word diabetic. You code the link unless the record attributes the neuropathy to something else.

E11.42 normally stands alone. G63 and G99.0 both carry an Excludes1 note naming the diabetes codes, so they cannot be reported with E11.42 or E11.43. The same six last characters apply to E10.4- (type 1), E09.4- (drug or chemical induced), E08.4- (due to an underlying condition) and E13.4- (other specified).

Clinician in gloves examining the toes of a patient's bare foot during a diabetic foot check
Examining the toes during a diabetic foot check. What the examiner documents about sensation is what the neuropathy code has to rest on.

The E11.4- family, with the official descriptors

These are the FY2026 long descriptions exactly as they appear in the CMS code descriptions file. No descriptor in this family changed between 1 October 2025 and the April 2026 update, and none changes in the FY2027 code set that takes effect on 1 October 2026: its code descriptions and tabular addenda leave the E11.4- family, G62.9, G63 and G99.0 exactly as they are.

CodeOfficial FY2026 descriptorWhat the record has to show
E11.4Type 2 diabetes mellitus with neurological complicationsHeader only. Not valid for submission. A claim carrying E11.4 is rejected on format, not on merit.
E11.40Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, unspecifiedNeuropathy documented with no further detail. This is where the Index sends “neuropathy, diabetic” and where it sends loss of protective sensation when that is all the note says.
E11.41Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic mononeuropathyA single nerve. The Index entry reads “Mononeuropathy, diabetic NEC”, so a nerve lesion with its own named entry is also indexed on its own terms.
E11.42Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic polyneuropathyMore than one nerve, or a symmetrical distal pattern. The inclusion term under this code is diabetic neuralgia, so documented painful diabetic neuropathy lands here, not on E11.40.
E11.43Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic autonomic (poly)neuropathyAutonomic involvement. The inclusion term is diabetic gastroparesis; the Index also routes gastroparalysis here.
E11.44Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic amyotrophyProximal wasting and weakness — lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy. The Index sends diabetes with myasthenia here too.
E11.49Type 2 diabetes mellitus with other diabetic neurological complicationA named diabetic neurological complication that is none of the above. The Index entry is “neurologic complication NEC”. It is not a substitute for E11.40.

None of these codes take laterality or a seventh character

All six are complete at five characters and all six are valid for submission. There is no right/left split and nothing to append. Laterality enters this chart only through the ulcer code (L97.-) or the mononeuropathy site code, never through E11.4-.

The same last character, every type of diabetes

The E11 series is the one everyone reaches for, and it is also the default: if the type is not documented, the Official Guidelines send you to E11.-, and if the note records insulin use without naming a type, it is still E11.- with a Z79 code added. The other four categories use identical last characters.

Type of diabetesCategoryNeuropathy codesExtra requirement
Type 2 — and the default when type is not documentedE11E11.40 · E11.41 · E11.42 · E11.43 · E11.44 · E11.49Use additional code to identify control: Z79.4 insulin, Z79.84 oral agents, Z79.85 injectable non-insulin agents.
Type 1E10E10.40 · E10.41 · E10.42 · E10.43 · E10.44 · E10.49E10 is the one category that carries no “use additional code” instruction for Z79. Insulin use is intrinsic to type 1, so Z79.4 is not added.
Drug or chemical inducedE09E09.40 · E09.41 · E09.42 · E09.43 · E09.44 · E09.49Code first poisoning if applicable; use an additional code for adverse effect to identify the drug.
Due to an underlying conditionE08E08.40 · E08.41 · E08.42 · E08.43 · E08.44 · E08.49Code first the underlying condition — cystic fibrosis, malignant neoplasm, pancreatitis, Cushing syndrome, malnutrition.
Other specified, including postpancreatectomy and postproceduralE13E13.40 · E13.41 · E13.42 · E13.43 · E13.44 · E13.49For postpancreatectomy diabetes, E13 is first-listed with Z90.41- added.

One wording trap in the E09 series: the official descriptors read Drug or chemical induced diabetes mellitus with neurological complications with diabetic polyneuropathy, with the phrase “with neurological complications” appearing twice. That is the descriptor as published. It is not a transcription error in your encoder.

E08, E09, E11 and E13 carry the instruction to add a Z79 code for long-term drug control; E10 does not. All five are mutually exclusive by Excludes1 — a patient is coded from one category, not two.

The “with” convention, and where it goes wrong

Section I.A.15 of the Official Guidelines is the single most important rule on this page. The word “with” or “in” is to be read as “associated with” or “due to” wherever it appears in a code title, in the Index, or in a Tabular instructional note. The classification presumes a causal relationship between the two conditions linked by those terms, and the guideline says such conditions “should be coded as related even in the absence of provider documentation explicitly linking them”.

In practice that means a note reading Type 2 diabetes. Peripheral neuropathy, both feet. supports E11.42 without the word diabetic appearing anywhere. You do not need a query to make the link. This is the rule most often argued about, and it is the one you are on firmest ground defending.

Four places it goes wrong:

It is presumed, not proven — and it can be rebutted

The presumption falls away when the documentation clearly states the conditions are unrelated. A note reading peripheral neuropathy, chemotherapy-induced in a diabetic patient is an explicit alternative attribution. Code the stated cause, not E11.42.

It links, it does not specify

The convention gets you into E11.4-. It does not choose the last character for you. If the record says only “neuropathy”, the presumption gives you E11.40 — it does not authorize E11.42 because polyneuropathy is the commoner pattern.

The Index subterms are not alphabetical

The guideline states plainly that “with” is sequenced immediately after the main term, not in alphabetical order. Under Diabetes, the whole complication list sits under that first “with” subterm. Coders scanning alphabetically walk straight past it.

It only works for terms the classification links

The presumption applies to conditions actually joined by “with” or “in” in the Index or Tabular List. For anything not linked there, the provider still has to document the relationship before you may code it as related.

Decision path from the wording in the chart to the diabetic neuropathy codeA decision diagram for choosing a diabetic neuropathy code from documentation. The first test is whether the record attributes the neuropathy to another cause such as alcohol, chemotherapy, vitamin B12 deficiency or CIDP; if it does, that cause is coded instead, and if it does not, the with convention links the neuropathy to the diabetes. Six documentation patterns then map to six codes. Diabetic neuropathy, peripheral neuropathy or loss of protective sensation with nothing more specific maps to E11.40, diabetic neuropathy unspecified. Polyneuropathy, distal symmetric wording, a stocking distribution or diabetic neuralgia maps to E11.42, diabetic polyneuropathy. One named nerve such as carpal tunnel, a peroneal palsy or a cranial nerve palsy maps to E11.41, diabetic mononeuropathy. Gastroparesis, orthostatic hypotension, neurogenic bladder or sudomotor loss maps to E11.43, diabetic autonomic polyneuropathy. Proximal thigh pain with wasting and weakness, lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy, maps to E11.44, diabetic amyotrophy. A named diabetic neurological complication that is none of the above maps to E11.49. Finally, type 1 diabetes uses E10.4 dash, drug or chemical induced uses E09.4 dash, diabetes due to an underlying condition uses E08.4 dash and other specified diabetes uses E13.4 dash; only the category changes, because the last character means the same thing in each.From the chart note to the codeType 2 shown. The last character means the same thing in E10, E09, E08 and E13.First: does the record blame another cause — alcohol, chemotherapy, B12, CIDP?If yes, code that cause. If no, the “with” convention links it to the diabetes.“Diabetic neuropathy”, “peripheral neuropathy”,“LOPS” — and nothing more specificE11.40neuropathy, unspecified“Polyneuropathy”, “distal symmetric”, a stockingdistribution, or diabetic neuralgiaE11.42diabetic polyneuropathyOne named nerve — carpal tunnel, a peronealpalsy, a cranial nerve palsyE11.41diabetic mononeuropathyGastroparesis, orthostatic hypotension,neurogenic bladder, sudomotor lossE11.43autonomic (poly)neuropathyProximal thigh pain with wasting and weakness— lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathyE11.44diabetic amyotrophyA named diabetic neurological complicationthat is none of the aboveE11.49other neurological compl.Type 1 → E10.4- · drug or chemical induced → E09.4- · underlying condition → E08.4-Other specified → E13.4-. Only the category changes.
Decision path from the wording in the chart to the diabetic neuropathy codeA decision diagram for choosing a diabetic neuropathy code from documentation. The first test is whether the record attributes the neuropathy to another cause such as alcohol, chemotherapy, vitamin B12 deficiency or CIDP; if it does, that cause is coded instead. Six documentation patterns then map to six codes. Neuropathy, peripheral neuropathy or loss of protective sensation with nothing more specific maps to E11.40, neuropathy unspecified. Polyneuropathy, distal symmetric wording, a stocking distribution or neuralgia maps to E11.42, polyneuropathy. One named nerve such as carpal tunnel or a peroneal or cranial nerve palsy maps to E11.41, mononeuropathy. Gastroparesis, an orthostatic drop, neurogenic bladder or sudomotor loss maps to E11.43, autonomic polyneuropathy. Proximal thigh pain with wasting and weakness maps to E11.44, amyotrophy. A named diabetic neurological complication that is none of these maps to E11.49. Finally, type 1 diabetes uses E10.4 dash, drug or chemical induced uses E09.4 dash, diabetes due to an underlying condition uses E08.4 dash and other specified diabetes uses E13.4 dash.From chart note to codeType 2 shown; E10, E09, E08, E13 match.First: does the record blame anothercause — alcohol, chemo, B12, CIDP?Yes → code that cause instead.E11.40neuropathy, unspecified“Neuropathy”, “peripheral neuropathy”,“LOPS” — nothing more specificE11.42polyneuropathy“Polyneuropathy”, “distal symmetric”,a stocking distribution, or neuralgiaE11.41mononeuropathyOne named nerve — carpal tunnel,a peroneal or cranial nerve palsyE11.43autonomic (poly)neuropathyGastroparesis, orthostatic drop,neurogenic bladder, sudomotor lossE11.44amyotrophyProximal thigh pain with wastingand weaknessE11.49other neurological compl.A named diabetic neurologicalcomplication that is none of theseType 1 → E10.4- · drug/chemical → E09.4-Underlying condition → E08.4-Other specified → E13.4-
The chart wording decides the last character. The rebuttal test comes first, because an explicit alternative attribution takes the case out of E11.4- entirely. After that, the only question is what the note says about distribution. Original diagram, Diabetic Foot Guide.

When a G-code belongs on the claim, and when it does not

The commonest avoidable error on these claims is adding a neurology code to a complete diabetes code. Two of them are barred outright by Excludes1 notes, which means the two codes may never be reported together for the same condition.

CodeOfficial descriptorWith a diabetic neuropathy?
G63Polyneuropathy in diseases classified elsewhereNo. Its Excludes1 names “diabetes mellitus (E08-E13 with .42)” directly. Its code-first list explicitly reads “endocrine disease, except diabetes”.
G99.0Autonomic neuropathy in diseases classified elsewhereNo. Excludes1: diabetic autonomic neuropathy (E08-E13 with .43). E11.43 is the whole code.
G62.9Polyneuropathy, unspecifiedNot for the diabetic neuropathy. There is no Excludes1 here, but the Index routes “Neuropathy, diabetic” to E08-E13 with .40 and never to G62.9. Use G62.9 for a documented non-diabetic polyneuropathy, in which case it may sit alongside the diabetes code for a different condition.
G60.9Hereditary and idiopathic neuropathy, unspecifiedNo. A neuropathy presumed to be diabetic is neither hereditary nor idiopathic. This code is for a genuinely hereditary or idiopathic picture.
G90.09Other idiopathic peripheral autonomic neuropathyNo. Note the word idiopathic in the descriptor. If the autonomic neuropathy is attributed to the diabetes, it is E11.43.
G56.- / G57.-Mononeuropathies of upper / lower limbSometimes. E11.41 is indexed as “Mononeuropathy, diabetic NEC” and no Excludes1 bars a site-specific code. A documented diabetic carpal tunnel syndrome or tarsal tunnel syndrome carries its own site and laterality code as well.

This is why E11.42 usually stands alone. It is a combination code: it already carries the type of diabetes, the body system, and the complication. Adding G62.9 or G63 to it does not add specificity — it adds either a redundancy or an Excludes1 conflict that an editor will strip.

Sequencing: neuropathy with an ulcer, Charcot or PAD

Diabetes codes are combination codes, and the guideline for the whole chapter is simple: assign as many codes from E08–E13 as are needed to describe everything the patient has, and sequence them by the reason for the encounter. The pairs below have fixed internal order because of Tabular instructions; the order between diabetes codes is yours to decide from the note.

SituationCodesWhich goes first
Polyneuropathy plus an ulcer of another part of the left foot with fat layer exposed, seen for the ulcerE11.621, L97.522, E11.42E11.621 leads, because the ulcer is the reason for the visit. The L97 code immediately follows it — E11.621 carries “use additional code to identify site of ulcer (L97.4-, L97.5-)”, and L97 carries the reciprocal “code first” naming E11.621. That pair order never reverses. E11.42 is reported as an additional diabetes code.
The same patient, seen in a neuropathy clinic for painful neuropathy, ulcer healing and incidentalE11.42, E11.621, L97.522E11.42 leads, because the neuropathy is the reason for the encounter. The ulcer pair keeps its own internal order behind it.
Charcot neuroarthropathy of the foot in a type 2 diabeticE11.610E11.610 alone. M14.6 carries an Excludes1 reading “Charcôt’s joint in diabetes mellitus (E08-E13 with .610)”, so M14.671 and M14.672 are not added to it. E11.610 also does not replace E11.42 — if polyneuropathy is separately documented, both are reported.
Neuropathy plus documented peripheral arterial disease, no gangreneE11.51, E11.42 (and I70.2- if atherosclerosis is named)By reason for the encounter. E11.51 is the diabetes-side code for diabetic peripheral angiopathy and is reached by the same “with” presumption. Nothing bars an atherosclerosis code alongside it when the record names atherosclerotic disease.
The same with gangreneE11.52E11.52 already contains the gangrene — its inclusion term is “Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic gangrene”. Reporting E11.51 alongside it would assert the angiopathy is both with and without gangrene, so only one of the pair is used.

The ulcer and Charcot side of this is covered in depth on the companion reference, diabetic foot ICD-10 codes, including the full L97.4- and L97.5- severity grid.

Documentation that makes each code defensible

Diabetic neuropathy is a diagnosis of exclusion, and up to half of diabetic peripheral neuropathies are asymptomatic — found on examination rather than reported by the patient. That combination is exactly why the note, not the diagnosis line, is what an auditor reads. Roughly three quarters of diabetic neuropathies are chronic distal symmetric polyneuropathy, so E11.42 is usually the clinically correct code. It is only the correct coded answer when the record says so.

CodeWhat supports it in the note
E11.42A distribution statement. 10 g monofilament results at named sites, absent or reduced vibration at the hallux with a 128 Hz tuning fork, or the words symmetrical, distal, both feet, stocking. Monofilament testing has the best support when done at three plantar sites — the great toe, the third metatarsal and the fifth metatarsal.
E11.40Neuropathy stated without a distribution. Defensible, but it is a statement that the record was not more specific. If the exam in the same note describes bilateral sensory loss, E11.42 was available and E11.40 understates it.
E11.41The nerve named, the side named, and a finding consistent with that nerve. Laterality here lives on the G56-/G57- code, not on E11.41.
E11.43The autonomic manifestation named — gastroparesis, orthostatic hypotension with figures, neurogenic bladder, loss of sweating. “Autonomic symptoms” alone is thin.
E11.44Proximal weakness and wasting described, with the distinction from a radiculopathy addressed.
Every one of themThe type of diabetes, and Z79.4 where the patient is on long-term insulin. Z79.4 is not reported when insulin is given temporarily to bring a type 2 patient’s glucose down during an encounter, and it is not reported with type 1.

Laterality and ulcer depth may come from a clinician who is not the provider

Section I.B.14 lists a short set of data elements that may be coded from documentation by clinicians other than the patient’s provider. Laterality and depth of non-pressure chronic ulcers are both on that list. The underlying diagnosis — the neuropathy, the ulcer — still has to come from the provider, and conflicting documentation still requires a query.

What actually gets these claims rejected or downcoded: an Excludes1 pair that an editor catches; an unspecified code where a payer policy lists only the specific ones; a diagnosis on the claim that the note does not support at that level of detail; and E11.9 sitting in the problem list next to a documented complication, which is an internal contradiction any reviewer can see. For the clinical background behind the exam findings, see the diabetic foot exam.

Five mistakes that repeat

  1. E11.9 when a complication is documented

    E11.9 is Type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications. If the same note records neuropathy, that code is not merely vague, it is wrong — it asserts the absence of the thing the note describes. This is the single most common error in this family.

  2. E11.40 when the record plainly describes polyneuropathy

    An exam documenting insensate monofilament at multiple sites on both feet is a description of polyneuropathy. Coding E11.40 on that note is under-coding, and on repeat visits it produces a problem list that never matches the exam.

  3. A G-code alone in a diabetic patient

    G62.9 on its own leaves the diabetes uncoded and discards a combination code the classification built for exactly this. The Index does not route diabetic neuropathy to G62.9 at all.

  4. Stacking G63 or G99.0 onto E11.42 or E11.43

    Both carry Excludes1 notes naming the diabetes codes. Excludes1 means the two conditions cannot occur together, so both codes cannot be reported for the same condition. This is an edit failure, not a style preference.

  5. Adding M14.671 or M14.672 to E11.610

    M14.6 carries an Excludes1 for Charcôt’s joint in diabetes mellitus. The diabetic Charcot foot is coded E11.610 without the M14.67- site code. Laterality for a Charcot foot is captured in the note and in any ulcer or procedure coding, not here.

The clinical line under all of this

  • An insensate foot with a new wound, however small, needs to be seen within days — the patient will not feel it get worse.
  • Redness spreading up the foot, discharge, fever or a sudden loss of glucose control with a wound present is a same-day problem.
  • A newly warm, swollen, red foot in a neuropathic patient with no wound is Charcot until proven otherwise, and it is an urgent referral, not a routine one.
  • A coding query is never a substitute for that assessment. If the record is ambiguous about a foot that sounds unwell, the clinician needs to know.

Common questions

What is the ICD-10 code for diabetic neuropathy?

E11.40, Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, unspecified, is the default when the record says only that a type 2 diabetic has neuropathy. If the documentation describes polyneuropathy or a symmetrical distal pattern, the correct code is E11.42. For type 1, the equivalents are E10.40 and E10.42.

What is the ICD-10 code for diabetic peripheral neuropathy?

There is no code with that exact title. “Diabetic peripheral neuropathy” is a clinical phrase, not an ICD-10-CM descriptor. It is coded E11.42 when the note supports a polyneuropathy, and E11.40 when it says no more than that peripheral neuropathy exists. The word peripheral on its own does not get you to .42.

What is the difference between E11.40 and E11.42?

Only distribution. E11.40 is neuropathy, unspecified; E11.42 is polyneuropathy — many nerves, typically symmetrical and distal. Both are five-character billable codes with no laterality. E11.42 also carries diabetic neuralgia as an inclusion term, so documented painful diabetic neuropathy belongs there rather than on E11.40.

Does the doctor have to write “diabetic neuropathy” for me to code E11.42?

No. Section I.A.15 of the Official Guidelines states that conditions linked by “with” in the Index or Tabular List are coded as related even without explicit provider documentation linking them. Neuropathy sits under “with” in the Diabetes entry. The only thing that defeats this is documentation clearly attributing the neuropathy to another cause.

Can you code G62.9 and E11.42 together?

Not for the same neuropathy. There is no Excludes1 between them, but the Alphabetic Index never routes a diabetic neuropathy to G62.9, and E11.42 already describes the condition completely. G63 and G99.0 are a harder no — both carry Excludes1 notes naming the diabetes codes.

Do I report Z79.4 with the neuropathy code?

Report Z79.4 when a type 2 or secondary diabetic is on long-term insulin; the E08, E09, E11 and E13 categories all carry a “use additional code” instruction for it. Do not report it with type 1, and do not report it when insulin is given only temporarily during an encounter to bring glucose down. Oral agents take Z79.84 and injectable non-insulin agents take Z79.85.

What was the ICD-9 code for diabetic neuropathy?

In ICD-9-CM it took two codes: 250.6x, diabetes with neurological manifestations, followed by 357.2, polyneuropathy in diabetes. The fifth digit of the 250 code carried type and control: 250.60 for type 2 or unspecified, 250.61 for type 1, and 250.62 and 250.63 for the uncontrolled versions. ICD-10-CM folds the pair into one combination code: 250.60 with 357.2 corresponds to E11.42 (E10.42 for type 1), and 250.60 on its own to E11.40. ICD-9 codes have not been valid on claims since 1 October 2015 and matter now only for reading older records.

Sources

Code descriptors and instructional notes are taken from the official CMS ICD-10-CM files; clinical claims are from the peer-reviewed literature.

  1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, National Center for Health Statistics. ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting, FY 2026 — the “with” convention at I.A.15, the diabetes chapter guidance at I.C.4.a including the E11 default and the Z79 rules, non-pressure ulcer guidance at I.C.12.b, and the I.B.14 list of elements codable from non-provider documentation. The FY 2027 edition, effective 1 October 2026, leaves all four sections unchanged.
  2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. cms.gov — ICD-10-CM code descriptions and tabular list files, FY 2026, the 1 April 2026 update and FY 2027 — every code descriptor, billable/header status, inclusion term and Excludes1 note quoted on this page, including the G63 and G99.0 exclusions and the M14.6 exclusion.
  3. National Center for Health Statistics, CDC. cdc.gov — ICD-10-CM — the NCHS home for the classification and its browser tool, the authority for the Alphabetic Index entries used here.
  4. Pop-Busui R, Boulton AJM, Feldman EL, et al. Diabetic Neuropathy: A Position Statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(1):136-154. doi:10.2337/dc16-2042 — diabetic neuropathy as a diagnosis of exclusion, up to 50% of diabetic peripheral neuropathies being asymptomatic, distal symmetric polyneuropathy accounting for about 75% of diabetic neuropathies, and the 10 g monofilament plus 128 Hz tuning fork screening combination.
  5. Hicks CW, Selvin E. Epidemiology of Peripheral Neuropathy and Lower Extremity Disease in Diabetes. Curr Diab Rep. 2019;19(10):86. doi:10.1007/s11892-019-1212-8 — diabetic peripheral neuropathy eventually affecting nearly half of adults with diabetes, and the range of reported prevalence across populations.
  6. Feng Y, Schlösser FJ, Sumpio BE. The Semmes Weinstein monofilament examination as a screening tool for diabetic peripheral neuropathy. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50(3):675-682.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2009.05.017 — the three-site plantar monofilament protocol at the great toe, the third metatarsal and the fifth metatarsal.
  7. Schaper NC, van Netten JJ, Apelqvist J, et al. Practical guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetes-related foot disease (IWGDF 2023 update). Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2024;40(3):e3657. doi:10.1002/dmrr.3657 — the foot screening and risk-stratification framework, and the governing guidance behind the urgency thresholds in the red box on this page.
  8. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS — ICD-9-CM diagnosis code titles, version 32, and the 2018 General Equivalence Mappings — the legacy 250.6x and 357.2 codes and their ICD-10-CM equivalents.

Related guides

Diabetic foot ICD-10 codes

The companion reference: ulcer, Charcot and angiopathy coding, with the full L97 severity grid.

The diabetic foot exam

What the monofilament and tuning fork findings in the note actually mean.

What diabetes does to feet

The clinical picture behind every code on this page.

Diabetic foot ulcers

The complication that most often shares a claim with E11.42.

Charcot foot

Why E11.610 is a different diagnosis from E11.42, not a more specific version of it.

Neuropathy pain at home

What to tell the patient whose chart you just coded E11.42.

Neuropathy care in Michigan

Balance Foot & Ankle assesses and documents diabetic neuropathy in Howell and Bloomfield Hills, including monofilament and vibration testing, footwear and offloading. Notes are written to carry the diagnosis they describe.

Educational content for coders, billers and clinicians. Descriptors and instructional notes were taken from the FY 2026 ICD-10-CM files current at publication; verify against your own current code set each 1 October, and follow any payer policy that is more restrictive. Coding decisions rest on the documentation in front of you. A numb foot with a new wound should be seen within days, and the same day if there is redness, discharge or fever.