Citation Nr: 19189432 Decision Date: 11/26/19 Archive Date: 11/26/19 DOCKET NO. 16-19 351A DATE: November 26, 2019 ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for a left ear hearing loss disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability. 3. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder, to include as due to asbestos exposure. ORDER New and material evidence to reopen the claim for entitlement to service connection for a left earing hearing loss disability has been received; to this limited extent, the claim is granted. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is granted. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder, to include as due to asbestos exposure is remanded. FINDING OF FACT 1. In a November 1998 rating decision, the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for a left ear hearing loss disability was denied by the RO. That decision was not immediately appealed, and thus became final. 2. The evidence received since the November 1998 rating decision, by itself or in conjunction with previously considered evidence relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim for entitlement to service connection for a left ear hearing loss disability and raises a reasonable possibility of establishing the claim. 3. Resolving all doubt in his favor, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability is related to service. 4. Resolving all doubt in his favor, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s tinnitus is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. The November 1998 rating decision that denied service connection for a left ear hearing loss disability is final. The additional evidence received since the November 1998 rating decision is new and material to the claim for entitlement to service connection for a left ear hearing loss disability, therefore the claim is reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from December 1972 to December 1975. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from August 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which denied entitlement to the benefits currently sought on appeal. By way of background, the Veteran originally filed a claim for entitlement to service connection for a left ear hearing loss disability, which was denied in a November 1998 rating decision. The Veteran then attempted to reopen his claim of a left ear hearing loss disability, while simultaneously filing a claim for entitlement to service connection for a right ear hearing loss disability. Each were denied by the RO in an August 2015 rating decision. The Board notes that when a Veteran makes a claim, he is seeking service connection for symptoms regardless of how those symptoms are diagnosed or labeled. As such, following the Board’s determination of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a left ear hearing loss disability, the Board has re-characterized both claims of entitlement to service connection for a left and right ear hearing loss disability, as entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability. See, Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). The Veteran appeared at a Travel Board hearing at the RO in July 2019 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the Veteran’s claims file. The question of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim must be addressed in the first instance by the Board, because the issue goes to the Board’s jurisdiction to reach the underlying claim and adjudicate it on a de novo basis. See Jackson, 265 F.3d 1366; see also Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1996), aff’g 8 Vet. App. 1 (1995). 1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for a left ear hearing loss disability. Applicable law provides that a claim which is the subject of a prior final decision may be reopened upon presentation of new and material evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. The Board is required to address new and material claims in the first instance. The Board has the jurisdiction to address a new and material issue and to reach the underlying de novo claims. If the Board determines that new and material evidence has not been received, the adjudication of the particular claim ends, and further analysis is neither required nor permitted. Any decision that the AOJ may have made with regard to a new and material claim is irrelevant. Barnett, 83 F.3d at 1383. Thus, the Board will proceed in the following decision to adjudicate new and material issues in the first instance. New evidence is defined as existing evidence not previously submitted to VA, and material evidence is defined as existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a). The threshold for determining whether new and material evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating a claim is “low.” See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117 (2010). Furthermore, consideration is not limited to whether the newly submitted evidence relates specifically to the reason the claim was last denied, but instead should include whether the evidence could reasonably substantiate the claim were the claim to be reopened, either by triggering the Secretary’s duty to assist or through consideration of an alternative theory of entitlement. Id. at 118. Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has noted that new evidence could be sufficient to reopen a claim if it could contribute to a more complete picture of the circumstances surrounding the origin of a claimant’s injury or disability, even where it would not be enough to convince the Board to grant a claim. Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Only evidence presented since the last final denial on any basis (either upon the merits of the case, or upon a previous adjudication that no new and material evidence has been presented) will be evaluated in the context of the entire record. Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 273, 284 (1996). For the purpose of establishing whether new and material evidence has been received, the credibility of the evidence, but not its weight, is to be presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). However, VA is not bound to consider credible the patently incredible. Duran v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 216 (1994). As indicated above, the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for a left ear hearing loss disability was originally denied in November 1998. The RO denied the Veteran’s claim because, although the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) identified a diagnosis of left ear hearing loss on separation from service, it could not be shown that the Veteran had a current disability of left ear hearing loss. That decision was not immediately appealed, and thus became final. RO decisions become final one year from the date of the letter accompanying the decision in the absence of clear and unmistakable error and are not subject to revision except on receipt of new and material evidence. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 5109A(a), 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (b). Thus, for the purpose of reopening a claim based on new and material evidence, the Board must examine evidence submitted since the November 1998 decision, as it is the last prior final denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a). The Veteran’s claims file includes a medical treatment record from a private audiologist from September 2019. The private medical record indicates that the Veteran was given an in-person audiological evaluation, which included testing at all relevant frequency levels, as well as speech threshold and word discrimination scoring. The private audiologist diagnosed the Veteran with right ear “mild to severe/profound sensorineural hearing loss,” and left ear “severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss.” As noted, the claim was previously denied at the RO due to the Veteran not submitting any details regarding a current diagnosis of left ear hearing loss. The submitted private medical record is new, insofar as it was not previously submitted to the VA. The submitted record is also material, in that it goes to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim, specifically that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of left ear hearing loss. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a). Affording the Veteran the benefit of reasonable doubt, the Board finds that, under the circumstances of this case, rejecting the Veteran’s request to reopen his previously denied left ear hearing loss disability claim would be in conflict with the principles explained in Justus and Duran. For these reasons, the claim for service connection for a left ear hearing loss disability will be reopened. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a), see Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1998), see further Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117 (2010). Thus, the appeal has been reopened, and the Veteran’s claim now turns to the question of service connection on the merits. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability, and service connection for tinnitus. As indicated above, the Board has re-characterized the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for a left ear hearing loss disability to include his updated claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). The Veteran is claiming that his bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus are each related to service. To establish an entitlement to service connection, the Veteran must establish (1) the existence of a present disability, (2) an in-service occurrence 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. 38 C.F.R. § § 3.303(a). VA is required to give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim for disability benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a). Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Lay evidence cannot be determined to be not credible merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However, the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence can be considered and weighed against a Veteran’s lay statements. Id. Further, a negative inference may be drawn from the absence of complaints for an extended period. See Maxson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 453, 459 (1999), aff’d sub nom. Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In deciding the Veteran’s claim, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event; or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded the claimant. Turning to the evidence of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus, the Veteran has met the first criteria. 38 C.F.R. § § 3.303(a). As noted above, the Veteran’s claims file includes a medical record from a private audiological facility from September 2019. Following that in-person examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with right ear “mild to severe/profound sensorineural hearing loss,” and left ear “severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss.” Thus, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss. During the same evaluation, the private audiologist wrote “[plus] tinnitus.” While this likely indicates a positive diagnosis for tinnitus, the Board also notes that the Veteran is competent to diagnosis tinnitus on his own. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374-75 (2002). Thus, the first criteria have been met for each claimed disability, insofar as the Veteran has a current diagnosis. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Turning to the second criteria, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in July 2019 regarding his bilateral hearing loss disability and his tinnitus. During the hearing, the Veteran testified that his military occupational specialty (MOS) placed him “down in the four main machine boiler room.” He testified that he was subject to “really loud” noise exposure, and that “you could be standing next to somebody and you would have to lean over, almost put your mouth up to their ear so you could talk to them.” He further discussed the noise exposure, pointing to “the engine room … two boilers … plus we had generators and we had fuel pumps going.” He also argued that, as he was stationed on an aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, he would regularly hear “where they launched the planes … you can hear them take off and come back, and you’d hear them bang.” The Veteran testified as to not having hearing protection during his time in the service. Finally, the Veteran acknowledged that while he worked in a foundry “making car parts and stuff like that,” he was always “required to wear [proper hearing protection].” The Veteran’s Representative also pointed out that upon separation from service, the Veteran was diagnosed with high frequency hearing loss in his left ear. The Veteran’s separation exam from December 1975 confirms that upon discharge from service, he had left ear hearing loss. The Board also notes that the Veteran’s Military Personnel Records confirm that he served aboard the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk. Further records indicate that the Veteran’s MOS was “DG-9760,” which is classed as “electrical/mechanical equipment repairman.” Thus, as the statements and testimony of the Veteran have been confirmed by his service treatment records and military personnel records, the Board finds that the statements and testimony are entitled to probative weight. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This noise exposure, coupled with the confirmed in-service documentation of left ear hearing loss upon separation, are sufficient to meet the second criteria for entitlement to service connection for both bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Turning to the final criteria for entitlement to service connection, and as indicated above, the Veteran was seen for a private medical exam with an audiologist in September 2019. The Veteran was seen for an in-person examination, and indicated that the Veteran’s history of noise exposure was evaluated. In conjunction with the Veteran’s hearing evaluation, the private audiologist submitted the following statement: [the Veteran] was seen on September 25, 2019 for an audiological evaluation. He has a history of noise exposure [during] service in the military. He has a complaint of hearing loss and tinnitus. Proper hearing protection was not always available during his service time … in the Navy … it is at least as likely as not that [the Veteran’s] hearing loss and tinnitus is the result of noise exposure while serving in the military. The audiologist then recommended hearing aids and the proper use of hearing protection. Thus, a positive etiological opinion was rendered for each claimed disability. There is no evidence that examination from the private audiologist from September 2019 was not competent or credible, and as the report was based on accurate facts and objective examinations, the Board finds they are entitled to significant probative weight as to the Veteran’s disability. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). The Veteran was also seen for a VA examination in July 2015. The examiner indicated that the Veteran’s claims file was reviewed, and that he was seen for an in-person evaluation. During the examination, a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss and/or tinnitus could not be reached. The VA audiologist indicated that hearing loss testing could not be performed “due to poor reliability … [and that] the responses given by the Veteran were not consistent throughout testing.” The VA audiologist wrote that an etiological opinion for bilateral hearing loss could not be rendered until “reliable thresholds can be obtained for Veteran’s current hearing loss.” The VA audiologist continued that since test results were not available, an opinion for tinnitus could also not be rendered. The Board notes that during the Veteran’s July 2019 hearing, he testified that he feels as though he “couldn’t really understand” the examiners instructions, and that this miscommunication impacted the VA examiner’s findings. While there is nothing to indicate that the report provided by the July 2015 VA examiner was not competent or credible, test results were not able to be obtained due to poor reliability. The Veteran has not been given a follow-up VA examination. Thus, for the purposes of providing an etiological opinion regarding the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, the July 2015 VA examination has no bearing on the Veteran’s claims. See Nieves-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. 295. Turning to an analysis of the evidence, the Veteran has satisfied the criteria for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability and service connection for tinnitus. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). The Veteran has a clear diagnosis of both bilateral hearing loss as well as tinnitus. The Veteran has also provided competent and credible testimony regarding his in-service noise exposure, which the Board has confirmed through his military personnel records. The Board also recognizes the Veteran’s diagnosis of, at the very least, high frequency left ear hearing loss upon separation from service, further strengthening the value of the Veteran’s testimony, as well as the arguments of his Representative. Finally, the private audiological examination from September 2019 provided a positive etiological opinion for each of the Veteran’s claims, to which the Board has afforded probative weight. The VA examination from July 2015 was unable to render an opinion, either for or against the Veteran’s claims, and thus has no bearing on the Veteran’s claim. There is no evidence in the Veteran’s claims file, medical or otherwise, which is against the Veteran’s claims for service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability, as well as tinnitus. Therefore, reading the evidence in a way most favorable to the Veteran, and resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that the Veteran has satisfied the third criteria for each claimed disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Thus, the Veteran has met the criteria for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability, as well as service connection for tinnitus. As such, affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability, as well as service connection for tinnitus, is warranted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). REASONS FOR REMAND The Board finds that additional evidentiary development is required before the claims on appeal are adjudicated. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder, to include as due to asbestos exposure is remanded. The Board incorporates its discussion from the sections above by reference. The Veteran is claiming that his respiratory disorder is due to service. Specifically, the Veteran is claiming that his respiratory problems are due to exposure to asbestos, smoke-inhalation during an alleged fire, and/or from fumes while working in the boiler room aboard a Naval aircraft carrier. The Board notes that the Veteran has claimed that his respiratory problems may be due to asbestos exposure. In cases involving asbestos exposure, the claim must be analyzed under VA administrative protocols. Ennis v Brown, 4 Vet. App. 523 (1993), McGinty v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 428 (1993). Although there is no specific statutory or regulatory guidance regarding claims for residuals of asbestos exposure, VA has several guidelines for compensation claims based on asbestos exposure M21 1,VBA Adjudication Procedure Manual M21 1, part IV, Subpart ii, Ch 2, Section C (November 4, 2016). In this regard, the M21-1 provides the following non-exclusive list of asbestos-related diseases/abnormalities: asbestosis, interstitial pulmonary fibrosis, tumors, pleural effusions and fibrosis, pleural plaques, mesotheliomas of pleura and peritoneum, lung cancer, bronchial cancer, cancer of the larynx, cancer of the pharynx, cancer of the urogenital system (except the prostate), and cancers of the gastrointestinal tract. See M21-1, part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section C, 2 (b). The Veteran testified in July 2019 before the undersigned that his MOS had him working in an aircraft carrier boiler room, whereby there was “a lot of fumes and … the burning of the fuel and all those pipes, steam and that stuff.” The Veteran also testified that there was a fire on the ship, and “all that smoke came over to our compartment,” whereby he was breathing heavy smoke for “probably five minutes, six minutes.” He stated that he sought medical treatment after the fire, yet they “didn’t do anything about it,” and that throughout service he was never given any sort of breathing apparatus. The Veteran also testified that after the fire he noticed coughing and “sometimes there [would] be shortness of breath.” During the Veteran’s hearing, the Veteran’s Representative pointed to treatment notes of “wheezing and congestion” in September 1974. The Veteran further testified that he now uses asthma medication, a rescue inhaler, and that he was told that he “had COPD, but that it could have been emphysema.” The Veteran also indicated to the undersigned that he “smoked probably 25 years,” but he quit over twenty years ago, and that his lungs have not improved. During the Veteran’s hearing, the Veteran’s spouse also testified that the Veteran had breathing problems, and that “he’d be short of breath … [which] was just a couple years out from service.” The Veteran is competent to report as to his experience in service, including the breathing in of fumes due to his MOS. The Veteran’s spouse is competent to testify as to the Veteran’s shortness of breath. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As indicated above, the Veteran’s military personnel records include his MOS, and that he worked with electrical/mechanical equipment as a repairman. This works to confirm the Veteran’s claim that he worked in the boiler room of the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, an aircraft carrier. The Veteran’s service treatment records also contain complaints from September 1974 that the Veteran was seen for complaints of chest congestion, and experienced symptoms of wheezing. The Veteran’s records do not however contain in-service evidence of a fire. The Veteran was given a VA examination in July 2015. The VA examiner conducted an in person examination and indicated that they reviewed the Veteran’s personnel and service treatment records. The VA examiner wrote that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis of a respiratory condition. The VA examiner also conducted imaging studies, to include high resolution computed tomography to evaluate interstitial lung disease. The imaging revealed a “nonspecific minimal to mild amount of pleural thickening [with] no definite evidence of asbestosis of the lungs.” The VA examiner further wrote that “there is no clinical evidence or diagnosis to support a diagnosis of a respiratory condition, including asbestosis, at this time.” The Veteran’s claims file also includes a radiological examination from May 2018. During the examination, the lungs were found to be “clear with stable hyperinflation with stable minimal bilateral perihilar peribronchial thickening.” The examiner then gave the impression of “stable chronic changes characterized by emphysema and bronchitis.” A further report from July 2018 found that the lungs displayed “hyperinflation from COPD,” yet the final impression was “no acute cardiopulmonary findings.” A follow up examination for possible asbestos exposure found “a single calcified granuloma within the anterior aspect of the right upper lobe. Otherwise, no lung nodules.” The final impression from the radiologist was “nonspecific minimal to mild amount of pleural thickening [with] no definite evidence of asbestosis of the lungs.” Therefore, the available medical evidence is unclear as to whether or not the Veteran has a current diagnosis of a respiratory disorder. He testified that he was given an inhaler and breathing medication, and was told he had COPD, but that it could have ben emphysema. The July 2015 VA examination found no such diagnosis, while radiological reports from May to July 2018 indicate possible emphysema and/or bronchitis, however discount any possible asbestos exposure. Because the Veteran’s entire history is reviewed when making disability evaluations, the record must be complete for such service connection determinations to be made. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1995). Therefore, a remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim for an entitlement to service connection so that he is afforded every possible consideration. 38 U.S.C. § 5103 (A); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. A VA medical examination and medical opinion are required by VA’s duty to assist the Veteran in developing evidence to substantiate his claim to service connection. The VA examiner is asked to clarify the diagnosis of any respiratory disorder, and to provide an etiological opinion for any diagnosis found. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Make appropriate efforts to obtain and associate with the claims file any further private or VA medical records identified and authorized for release by the Veteran. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA medical examination with an appropriate physician for his claim of entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder. The entire claims file should be made available for the clinician to review, and the report should reflect that such review was accomplished. The examiner is asked to offer an opinion as to the following: (a.) Does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of a respiratory disorder? If a diagnosis can be confirmed, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s respiratory disorder was caused by a disease or injury in service? The examiner should consider the July 2019 testimony of the Veteran, and his claimed in-service exposure to steam inhalation from his mechanical work in a boiler room aboard the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk. If the examiner feels that the requested opinions cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (i.e. no one could respond given medical science and the known facts) or a deficiency in the record or the examiner (i.e. additional facts are required or the examiner doesn’t have the knowledge or training). Jones v Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382 (2010). The examiner is reminded that the term “as likely as not” does not mean “within the realm of medical possibility,” but rather that the evidence of record is so evenly divided that, in the examiner’s expert opinion, it is as medically sound to find in favor of the proposition as against it 3. After completing the above and ensuring that any other appropriate development of the claim is complete, readjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder, to include as due to asbestos exposure. If the appeal remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) to the Veteran and his representative, and allow an appropriate time for response. Thereafter, return the case to the Board. Michael A. Pappas Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Mulrain, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.