Citation Nr: 1031211 Decision Date: 08/19/10 Archive Date: 08/24/10 DOCKET NO. 07-13 636A ) DATE ) ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Muskogee, Oklahoma THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for residuals of a left femur fracture. 2. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for a scar on the left hand. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Shamil Patel, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1997 to September 2002. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from two rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma. In May 2006, the RO granted service connection for residuals of a left femur fracture and a residual scar on the left hand. Both disabilities were assigned 0 percent (noncompensable) ratings effective February 14, 2006. In September 2006, the RO denied service connection for residuals of a right shoulder injury. In his May 2007 VA Form 9 Substantive Appeal, the Veteran requested a Travel Board hearing. However, he subsequently withdrew that request in correspondence dated February 2008. Therefore, the Board will proceed. The Board notes that the Veteran also perfected an appeal for service connection for a low back disability, which was also denied in the September 2006 rating decision promulgated by the RO. However, in a May 2008 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for degenerative disc disease and assigned a 20 percent rating effective February 14, 2006. This represents a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal. Therefore, that issue is no longer before the Board, as a "case or controversy" involving a pending adverse determination that the Veteran has taken exception to does not currently exist with respect to that issue. See Shoen v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 456, 457 (1994) (quoting Waterhouse v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 473 (1992)). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's residuals of a left femur fracture do not result in limitation of motion or abnormal movement, and is not manifested by a knee or hip disability. 2. The Veteran's left hand scar is stable and superficial; there is no indication of limited motion or pain on examination. 3. The Veteran does not have a right shoulder disability etiologically related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for a compensable rating for residuals of a left femur fracture have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107(b) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.2, 4.7, 4.10, 4.31, 4.40, 4.45, 4.69, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5255 (2009). 2. The criteria for a compensable rating for a scar on the left hand have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.2, 4.7, 4.31, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7804 (2009). 3. A right shoulder disability was not incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002 & Supp. 2009); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309 (2009). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) Under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA), when VA receives a complete or substantially complete application for benefits, it must notify the claimant of the information and evidence not of record that is necessary to substantiate a claim, which information and evidence VA will obtain, and which information and evidence the claimant is expected to provide. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2009). Such notice must include notice that a disability rating and an effective date for the award of benefits will be assigned if there is a favorable disposition of the claim. Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006); 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.326; see also Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112, 120-21 (2004) (Pelegrini II). The Board notes that effective May 30, 2008, VA amended its regulations governing VA's duty to provide notice to a claimant regarding the information necessary to substantiate a claim. The new version of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1), removes the portion of the regulation which states that VA will request that the claimant provide any evidence in his possession that pertains to the claim. See 73 Fed. Reg. 23353-54 (April 30, 2008). Prior to the initial adjudication of the Veteran's claims, a letter dated in March 2006 was sent to the Veteran in accordance with the duty to notify provisions of the VCAA. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187 (2002). The Veteran was notified of the evidence that was needed to substantiate his claim; what information and evidence that VA will seek to provide and what information and evidence the Veteran was expected to provide, and that VA would assist him in obtaining evidence, but that it was his responsibility to provide VA with any evidence pertaining to his claims. See Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112, 120-21 (2004) (Pelegrini II). With respect to the Veteran's service connection claim, in Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006), the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that, upon receipt of an application for a service-connection claim, 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) require VA to review the information and the evidence presented with the claim and to provide the claimant with notice of what information and evidence not previously provided, if any, will assist in substantiating, or is necessary to substantiate, each of the five elements of the claim, including notice of what is required to establish service connection and that a disability rating and an effective date for the award of benefits will be assigned if service connection is awarded. In this case, although the notice provided did not address either the rating criteria or effective date provisions that are pertinent to the appellant's claim, such error was harmless given that service connection is being denied, and hence no rating or effective date will be assigned with respect to this claimed condition. With respect to the Veteran's claims for increased ratings, the Veteran is challenging the initial evaluation assigned following the grant of service connection. In Dingess, the Court held that in cases where service connection has been granted and an initial disability rating and effective date have been assigned, the typical service-connection claim has been more than substantiated, it has been proven, thereby rendering section 5103(a) notice no longer required because the purpose that the notice is intended to serve has been fulfilled. Id. at 490-91. Thus, because the notice that was provided before service connection was granted was legally sufficient, VA's duty to notify in this case has been satisfied. Moreover, in the Veteran's December 2006 notice of disagreement (NOD), he took issue with the initial disability ratings assigned and is presumed to be seeking the maximum benefits available under the law for each issue. Dingess; see also AB v. Brown. Therefore, in accordance with 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103(a) and 7105(d), the RO properly issued a June 2007 statement of the case (SOC) which contained, in part, the pertinent criteria for establishing a higher rating. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(1). Therefore, VA complied with the procedural statutory requirements of 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5104(b) and 7105(d), as well as the regulatory requirements in 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(b). See also Dingess. The claimant was allowed a meaningful opportunity to participate in the adjudication of the claim. Thus, even though the initial VCAA notice did not address a higher rating, subsequent documentation addressed this matter; there is no prejudice to the claimant. See Overton v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 427 (2006). The Veteran's service treatment records, VA treatment records, and VA authorized examination report have been associated with the claims file. The Board specifically notes that the Veteran was afforded VA examinations with respect to his claims for increased ratings. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). As set forth in greater detail below, the Board finds that the VA examinations obtained in this case are adequate as they contain a description of the history of the disabilities at issue; document and consider the relevant medical facts and principles; and record the relevant findings for rating the Veteran's left femur fracture residuals and left hand scar. The Board notes that there is no indication in the examination reports that the claims file was reviewed by the examiner. However, as discussed below, the present level of disability is of primary concern, and the evidence including history provided therein appears consistent with the other evidence of record. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). Accordingly, the Board finds that VA's duty to assist with respect to obtaining a VA examination or opinion with respect to the issue on appeal has been met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (4). The Board notes that no medical examination has been conducted and no medical opinion has been obtained with respect to the Veteran's claims for service connection for a right shoulder disability. However, the Board finds that the evidence, which does not reflect competent evidence of current symptoms or a relationship to service or a service-connected disability, warrants the conclusion that a remand for examinations and/or opinions is not necessary to decide the claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). Under McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006), in service connection claims, VA must provide a VA medical examination when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, and (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran's service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the VA to make a decision on the claim. As discussed below, the evidence does not satisfy the standards of McLendon, as there is no indication of recurrent symptoms or a relationship between a claimed disability and service. VA has provided the Veteran with opportunity to submit evidence and arguments in support of his claim. The Veteran and his representative have not made the Board aware of any additional evidence that needs to be obtained prior to appellate review. The record is complete and the case is ready for review. B. Law and Analysis 1. Increased Ratings Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The percentage ratings are based on the average impairment of earning capacity and individual disabilities are assigned separate diagnostic codes. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (2009). If two evaluations are potentially applicable, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that evaluation; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (2009). Any reasonable doubt regarding a degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3 (2009). Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and increase in disability rating is at issue, present level of disability is of primary concern. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). Therefore, although the Board has thoroughly reviewed all evidence of record, the more critical evidence consists of the evidence generated during the appeal period. VA must assess the level of disability from the date of initial application for service connection and determine whether the level of disability warrants the assignment of different disability ratings at different times over the life of the claim, a practice known as a "staged rating." See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App 119 (1999). The Court has also held that staged ratings are appropriate for an increased rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2008). Pertinent regulations do not require that all cases show all findings specified by the Rating Schedule, but that findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the resulting disability and above all, coordination of rating with impairment of function will be expected in all cases. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21. Therefore, the Board has considered the potential application of various other provisions of the regulations governing VA benefits, irrespective of whether the Veteran raised them, as well as the entire history of his disability in reaching its decision. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). Generally, the Board has been directed to consider only those factors contained wholly in the rating criteria. See Massey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 204, 208 (1994); but see Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436 (2002) (finding it appropriate to consider factors outside the specific rating criteria in determining level of occupational and social impairment). When rating a disability of the musculoskeletal system, functional loss due to pain, weakened movement, fatigability, and pain on movement are factors to be considered. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45 (2009); DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995). In determining the degree of limitation of motion, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59 are for consideration. See DeLuca. However, in that regard, the Board notes that the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 and 38 C.F.R. § 4.45, should only be considered in conjunction with the Diagnostic Codes predicated on limitation of motion. Johnson v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 7 (1996). The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 state that a disability affecting the musculoskeletal system is primarily the inability, due to damage or inflammation in parts of the system, to perform normal working movements of the body with normal excursion, strength, speed, coordination and endurance. Functional loss may be due to the absence of part, or all, of the necessary bones, joints and muscles, or associated structures. It may also be due to pain supported by adequate pathology and evidenced by visible behavior of the claimant undertaking the motion. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 (2009). A rating of 0 percent is assigned when the Rating Schedule does not provide a 0 percent evaluation for a diagnostic code and the requirements for a compensable evaluation have not been met, as is the case here. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31. a. Residuals of Left Femur Fracture The Veteran is currently assigned a noncompensable rating under Diagnostic Code 5255 (impairment of femur) for residuals of a left femur fracture. Under Diagnostic Code 5255, malunion of the femur with slight knee or hip disability warrants a 10 percent evaluation. Malunion of the femur with moderate knee or hip disability warrants a 20 percent evaluation. Malunion of the femur with marked knee or hip disability warrants a 30 percent evaluation. Fracture of surgical neck of the femur, with false joint or fracture of the shaft or anatomical neck of the femur with nonunion, without loose motion, weight bearing preserved with aid of brace warrants a 60 percent evaluation. Fracture of the shaft or anatomical neck of the femur with nonunion, with loose motion, (spiral or oblique fracture) warrants an 80 percent evaluation. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5255. Normal range of motion of the hip is 125 degrees of flexion and 45 degrees abduction. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Plate II. Normal range of motion for the knee is 140 degrees of flexion and 0 degrees of extension. Id. The Board has also considered Diagnostic Codes relating to disabilities of the hip and knee. However, as discussed below, the evidence does not reflect any significant impairment of either the left hip or the left knee. Therefore, consideration of those Diagnostic Codes is not warranted. VA treatment records dated July 2005 reflect that the Veteran was seen complaints of numbness in his left arm and left leg. No neurological deficits were noted. The Veteran was afforded a VA QTC examination in May 2007. The examiner noted the Veteran sustained a stress fracture in his left femur during service. The Veteran indicated that his condition did not cause him any pain, and that he was not being treated for it. On examination, leg length was measured at 108 centimeters bilaterally. There was no sign of abnormal weight bearing. The Veteran's gait and posture were normal. Examination of the femurs was within normal limits bilaterally. The Veteran did not utilize any assistive devices to ambulate. An x-ray of the left femur was within normal limits. There were no signs of edema, effusion, weakness, tenderness, redness, heat, abnormal movement, subluxation, or guarding of the bilateral hips. Hip flexion was 125 degrees, extension was 30 degrees, adduction was 25 degrees, abduction was 45 degrees, external rotation was 60 degrees, and internal rotation was 40 degrees, bilaterally. Hip function was not additionally limited by pain, fatigue, weakness, lack of endurance, or incoordination after repetitive use. There were no signs of edema, effusion, weakness, tenderness, redness, heat, abnormal movement, subluxation, or guarding of the bilateral knees. There was no indication of recurrent subluxation, "locking" pain, joint effusion, or crepitus. Range of motion was 140 degrees of flexion and 0 degrees of extension, bilaterally. Knee function was not additionally limited by pain, fatigue, weakness, lack of endurance, or incoordination after repetitive use. The anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments, and medial and lateral meniscus were within normal limits, bilaterally. The examiner indicated that there were no significant residuals of a left femur fracture, and that the Veteran's condition did not affect his occupational duties or his activities of daily living. Based on the evidence of record, the Board finds that a compensable rating for residuals of a left femur fracture is not warranted. There is no indication that such residuals result in a slight knee or hip disability, as contemplated by the 10 percent rating in Diagnostic Code 5255. On examination, the Veteran had full range of motion of both hips and both knees, with no indication of any pain, effusion, instability, or other impairment. Joint function in the hips and knees was normal. As discussed above, the Board has considered additional rating criteria for the hips and knees. However, as the evidence of record indicates no impairment for those joints, consideration of other Diagnostic Codes is not warranted. b. Left Hand Scar The Board notes that the schedular criteria pertaining to disabilities of the skin were revised effective August 30, 2002. However, Diagnostic Code 7805 was unaffected by such revisions. Both prior to and as of August 30, 2002, that Code section instructed the rater to evaluate scars based on limitation of function of the part affected. The applicable rating criteria for skin disorders, 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, were again revised effective October 23, 2008. See 73 Fed. Reg. 54,710 (Sept. 23, 2008). However, as noted in the Federal Register, the revised criteria apply to all applications for benefits received by VA on or after the effective date of October 23, 2008. Id. Because the Veteran's claim was received prior to October 23, 2008, the revised criteria are not for application in this case. The Veteran left hand scar is currently assigned a noncompensable rating under Diagnostic Code 7805. Scars, other than head, face, or neck, that are deep or that caused limited motion warrant a 10 percent rating if the area or areas exceed 6 square inches (39 sq. cm). In order for a 20 percent rating to be warranted, the area or areas must exceed 12 square inches (77 square centimeters). A deep scar is one associated with underlying soft tissue damage. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7801 (2008). Scars, other than head, face, or neck, that are superficial and that do not cause limited motion warrant a 10 percent rating for area or areas of 144 square inches (929 sq. cm.) or greater. A superficial scar is one not associated with underlying soft tissue damage. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7802 (2008). A 10 percent rating may be assigned for scars which are superficial and unstable. An unstable scar is one where, for any reason, there is frequent loss of covering of skin over the scar. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7803 (2008). A 10 percent rating is assigned for scars which are superficial and painful on examination. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7804 (2008). Scars may also be rated based on limitation of function of the affected part. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, DC 7805 (2008). The Veteran underwent a VA QTC examination in May 2007. The examiner noted that the scar resulted from a knife cut. The Veteran reported no current symptoms and no functional impairment as a result of the scar. On examination, there was a level scar at the left hand hypothenar eminence which measured about 4 centimeters by .25 centimeters. There was no tenderness, disfigurement, ulceration, adherence, instability, tissue loss, inflammation, edema, keloid formation, hypopigmentation, hyperpigmentation, or abnormal texture. The examiner indicated that there were no residuals of the left hand scar. Based on the evidence of record, the Board finds that a compensable rating for the Veteran's left hand scar is not warranted. There is no indication that the Veteran's scar is deep or unstable. There was no pain on examination. The scar covered an area less than 1 square inch. The Veteran indicated that there was no loss of function as a result of the scar. A comparison between these findings and the criteria listed above reflects that the Veteran's symptoms do not correspond to symptoms contemplated by the compensable ratings in Diagnostic Codes 7801 through 7805. c. Extraschedular Consideration In evaluating the Veteran's claims for higher ratings, the Board also has considered whether the Veteran is entitled to a greater level of compensation on an extraschedular basis. Ordinarily, the VA Schedule will apply unless there are exceptional or unusual factors which would render application of the schedule impractical. See Fisher v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 57, 60 (1993). According to the regulation, an extraschedular disability rating is warranted based upon a finding that the case presents such an exceptional or unusual disability picture with such related factors as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization that would render impractical the application of the regular schedular standards. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). An exceptional case is said to include such factors as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization as to render impracticable the application of the regular schedular standards. See Fanning v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 225, 229 (1993). Under Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet App 111 (2008), there is a three-step inquiry for determining whether a veteran is entitled to an extraschedular rating. First, the Board must first determine whether the evidence presents such an exceptional disability picture that the available schedular evaluations for that service-connected disability are inadequate. Second, if the schedular evaluation does not contemplate the claimant's level of disability and symptomatology and is found inadequate, the Board must determine whether the claimant's disability picture exhibits other related factors such as those provided by the regulation as "governing norms." Third, if the rating schedule is inadequate to evaluate a veteran's disability picture and that picture has attendant thereto related factors such as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization, then the case must be referred to the Under Secretary for Benefits or the Director of the Compensation and Pension Service to determine whether, to accord justice, the veteran's disability picture requires the assignment of an extraschedular rating. With respect to the first prong of Thun, the evidence in this case does not show such an exceptional disability picture that the available schedular evaluation for the service-connected disabilities is inadequate. A comparison between the level of severity and symptomatology of the left femur fracture residuals and left hand scar with the established criteria found in the rating schedule for those disabilities shows that the rating criteria reasonably describes the Veteran's disability level and symptomatology, as discussed above. The Board further observes that, even if the available schedular evaluation for the disability is inadequate (which it manifestly is not), the Veteran does not exhibit other related factors such as those provided by the regulation as "governing norms." The record does not show that the Veteran has required frequent hospitalizations for his disabilities. Indeed, it does not appear from the record that he has been hospitalized at all for those disabilities. There is no persuasive evidence in the record to indicate that these service-connected disabilities on appeal would cause any impairment with employment over and above that which is already contemplated in the assigned schedular rating. The May 2007 examination specifically noted that the Veteran's usual occupation as a stocker was not affected by injury. The Board therefore has determined that referral of this case for extraschedular consideration pursuant to 38 C.F.R. 3.321(b)(1) is not warranted. Further, 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 specifically sets out that "[g]enerally, the degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability." Factors such as requiring periodic medical attention are clearly contemplated in the Schedule and provided for in the evaluations assigned herein. What the evidence does not demonstrate in this case is that the manifestations of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities have resulted in unusual disability or impairment that has rendered the criteria and/or degrees of disability contemplated in the Schedule impractical or inadequate. Accordingly, consideration of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) is not warranted in this case. 2. Service Connection In order to establish service connection for a claimed disability, the facts must demonstrate that a disease or injury resulting in current disability was incurred in active military service or, if pre-existing active service, was aggravated therein. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2009). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (2009). In addition, certain chronic diseases, including arthritis, may be presumed to have been incurred or aggravated during service if they become disabling to a compensable degree within one year of separation from active duty. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112 (West 2002 & Supp. 2009); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (2009). Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004), citing Hansen v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 110, 111 (2002); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). The Veteran underwent an enlistment examination in January 1997. No relevant abnormalities were noted. The Veteran indicated his current health was "good." In December 1997, the Veteran was seen for right-sided upper shoulder pain. He reportedly injured himself while weightlifting. He was diagnosed with a possible cervical strain on the right side. He was treated with Naprosyn and instructed to avoid weightlifting for 3 days. Records dated June 2002 show the Veteran denied a history of shoulder problems during an examination. During his July 2002 discharge examination, he again denied a history of a painful or "trick" shoulder, and no shoulder abnormalities were noted on examination. VA treatment records show the Veteran was seen for right shoulder pain in January 2007. Strength in the upper extremities was 5/5. An x-ray of the right shoulder revealed no abnormalities. No diagnosis was rendered. Based on the evidence of record, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted. Although the Veteran complained of right shoulder pain on one occasion during service, there is no indication that this injury resulted in a chronic disability. There were no further complaints documented during the remaining 3 years of the Veteran's service, and the shoulder was found to be normal at the time of the Veteran's separation from service. Furthermore, the evidence does not demonstrate a current right shoulder disability. Although the Veteran was seen for shoulder pain in January 2007, there were no objective findings of a disability, and no diagnosis was rendered. The Court has held that statements as to subjective symptomatology alone (such as pain), without a diagnosed or identifiable underlying malady or condition, does not in and of itself constitute a disability for which service connection may be granted. Sanchez-Benitez v. West, 13 Vet. App. 282 (1999), aff'd in part, vacated and remanded in part on other grounds by 259 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328 (1997) (holding that the VA's and the Court's interpretation of sections 1110 and 1131 of the statute as requiring the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes cannot be considered arbitrary and therefore the decision based on that interpretation must be affirmed); see also Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143- 44 (1992). Therefore, service connection is not warranted. ORDER A compensable rating for residuals of a left femur fracture is denied. A compensable rating for a scar on the left hand is denied. Service connection for a right shoulder disability is denied. ____________________________________________ S. L. Kennedy Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs