Citation Nr: 18153850 Decision Date: 11/28/18 Archive Date: 11/28/18 DOCKET NO. 17-27 280 DATE: November 28, 2018 ORDER Service connection for a left eye corneal abrasion is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has no current diagnosis of a left eye disability; and there is no competent evidence showing that he currently has left eye symptoms that have resulted in functional impairment in earning capacity. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left eye corneal abrasion have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 4.9. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 2011 to March 2013. The Board has thoroughly reviewed the evidence in the Veteran’s VA files. In every decision, the Board must provide a statement of the reasons or bases for its determination, adequate to enable an appellant to understand the precise basis for the Board’s decision, as well as to facilitate review by the Court. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); see Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517, 527 (1995). Although the entire record must be reviewed by the Board, the Court has repeatedly found that the Board is not required to discuss, in detail, every piece of evidence. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143, 149 (2001) (rejecting the notion that the Veterans Claims Assistance Act mandates that the Board discuss all evidence). Rather, the law requires only that the Board address its reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the appellant. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000). The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence and on what this evidence shows, or fails to show, on the claim. The appellant must not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed herein. See id. Pertinent regulations for consideration were provided to the Veteran in the September 2016 Statement of the Case (SOC) and will not be repeated here in full. The Veteran has not raised any duty to notify or duty to assist issues. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). Service Connection The Veteran claims service connection for a left eye corneal abrasion. He contends that he has a current left eye disability manifested primarily as 20/30 visual acuity, which arose from a conceded, in-service left eye injury in July 2012. After a full review of the record, the Board finds that the claim must be denied. The Veteran has not been competently diagnosed with any current left eye disability, and there is no evidence that he has current left eye symptoms that have resulted in functional impairment in earning capacity. Therefore, he has no current left eye disability for which service connection may be granted. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in January 2015. No current left eye diagnoses, symptoms, or impairments were found on examination. The examiner competently and persuasively found that his left eye was currently healthy and that he had no current residual complications or corneal scarring from his in-service, July 2012 left eye corneal abrasion. The Board recognizes the Veteran’s contention that the January 2015 VA examination showed left eye visual acuity of 20/30, which he believes constitutes a current left eye disability. However, this assertion is factually inaccurate, as the 2015 VA examiner competently and affirmatively found excellent uncorrected vision of 20/20 bilaterally. Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that the Veteran currently has left eye visual acuity of 20/30, VA cannot grant service connection for refractive error of the eyes, including myopia, presbyopia and astigmatism, in the absence of superimposed disease or injury, even if visual acuity decreased in service. Such eye conditions are not considered diseases or injuries under applicable legislation for disability compensation purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.9. Here, there is no suggestion in the medical evidence the in-service eye injury led to or aggravated the refractive error. The Board also considered Saunders v. Wilkie, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 8467 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2018) (holding U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred as matter of law in finding veteran’s pain alone, absent specific diagnosis or otherwise identified disease or injury, could not constitute a disability under 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2016)) and other relevant authorities). These authorities do not support a finding that the Veteran has a current left eye disability. He notably has not asserted how any current, subjective left eye symptoms have resulted in specific functional impairments. See Read v. Shinseki, 651 F.3d 1296, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“disability” in VA regulations is “generally associated with the veteran’s inability to perform certain acts”). Moreover, even assuming the Veteran currently experiences subjective left eye symptoms such as pain, there is no objective medical evidence of record competently showing that any such symptoms have resulted in functional impairment in earning capacity. See Saunders, supra at *28 (holding that to establish the presence of a current disability, a veteran must show that his or her current symptoms such as pain reach the level of functional impairment of earning capacity; reasoning that this holding is consistent with “[t]he policy underlying veterans compensation…to compensate veterans whose ability to earn a living is impaired as a result of their military service….”). The presence of a disability at any time during the claim process can justify a grant of service connection, even when the most recent diagnosis is negative. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). However, Congress specifically has limited entitlement to service connection for disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in current disability. Therefore, when the evidence does not show a current disability upon which to predicate a grant of service connection, there can be no valid claim for that benefit. See Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). In conclusion, service connection for a left eye corneal abrasion is denied. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Janofsky, Associate Counsel