Citation Nr: 20021925 Decision Date: 03/27/20 Archive Date: 03/27/20 DOCKET NO. 17-16 979A DATE: March 27, 2020 ORDER New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability; to this extent only the appeal is granted. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left finger deformity as a residual of a laceration is denied. Entitlement to rating in excess of 10 percent for a painful scar of the left fifth finger is denied. REMANDED The appeal for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability on a de novo basis is remanded. The appeal of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. The appeal of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. The appeal of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for a disability of the lumbar spine is remanded. The appeal for entitlement to service connection for a left leg disability is remanded. The appeal for entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for a right shoulder disability is remanded. The appeal for entitlement to an effective date prior to November 10, 2010 for a 10 percent rating for a painful scar of the left fifth finger is remanded. The appeal for entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability was initially denied in a January 2009 rating decision; the Veteran did not submit a timely notice of disagreement, and new and material evidence was not received within the one-year appeal period. 2. Evidence received since January 2009 includes a private medical opinion that states the Veteran’s current psychiatric disability began during active service and has continued uninterrupted to the present; this information was not considered in the January 2009 rating decision, and the absence of such information was the basis for the original denial. 3. The Veteran has ankylosis of the left little finger, and he is in receipt of a 10 percent rating for limitation of motion of this finger under the rating criteria for degenerative arthritis. 4. The Veteran is service connected for a single painful scar of the left little finger that is one centimeter in length, and is not unstable, deep, or nonlinear. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The January 2009 rating decision that denied entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105(a), 3.156(b) (2019). 2. New and material evidence has been received since the January 2009 rating decision, and the claim for service connection for a psychiatric disability is reopened. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2019). 3. The criteria for a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left finger deformity as a residual of a laceration have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.10, 4.71a, Codes 5003, 5227 (2019). 4. The criteria for a rating in excess of 10 percent for a painful scar of the left fifth finger have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.10, 4.118, Code 7804 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from July 1983 to May 1986. New and Material Evidence The Veteran contends that he developed an acquired psychiatric disability due to events during active service. He asserts that this disability is the result of being required to perform physical training such as push-ups and other demanding duties during service while a painful wrist injury was ignored by his superiors. The record shows that the Veteran’s initial claim for service connection for a claimed mental disorder was adjudicated in a January 2009 rating decision which denied entitlement to service connection for an intermittent explosive disorder. The Veteran was notified of this decision and provided his appellate rights in a January 2009 letter. He did not attempt to initiate an appeal of this rating decision by submitting a notice of disagreement until November 10, 2010. However, as this was received well after the end of the one-year period provided in which to initiate an appeal, it was not accepted. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (2010). A November 26, 2010 letter from VA notified the Veteran that his communication could not be accepted as a timely notice of disagreement. New and material evidence was not received prior to the expiration of the period in which to appeal. Therefore, the January 2009 rating decision is final and is not subject to revision on the same factual basis. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105(a), 3.156(b). A finally adjudicated claim may be reopened by submitting new and material evidence. New evidence is defined as existing evidence not previously submitted to the 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 newly presented evidence is presumed to be credible for purposes of determining whether or not it is new and material. Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488 (1997). The Court has stated that for the purpose of determining whether or not new and material evidence has been presented to reopen a claim, the evidence for consideration is that which has been presented or secured since the last time the claim was finally disallowed on any basis, and not only since the last time it was disallowed on the merits. Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 273, 285 (1996). The evidence considered by the January 2009 rating decision included the Veteran’s service treatment records, VA treatment records, and the findings and opinion of a VA examination. The decision found that there was no evidence of the psychiatric disability during service. Furthermore, the VA examiner opined that the currently diagnosed intermittent explosive disorder was not related to service. Evidence received since January 2009 includes the report of a private examination and record review conducted in May 2019. This examiner opined that the Veteran suffers from an unspecified anxiety disorder that more likely than not began in military service and had continued uninterrupted to the present. The Board finds that the May 2019 private examination report is evidence that is both new and material. The evidence is new because it includes information that was not considered by the January 2009 adjudicators, particularly the opinion that the Veteran’s current psychiatric disability began during service. This evidence is also material because the basis of the January 2009 denial was in part due to the lack of evidence of a nexus between his current disability and active service. This nexus is one of the elements required to establish service connection. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2019). Therefore, as the Veteran has submitted evidence that is both new and material, his claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability is reopened. Once a claim has been reopened, it is to be reconsidered based on the entire evidentiary record. The de novo consideration of the Veteran’s claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability will be addressed in the remand section at the end of this decision. Increased Rating The Veteran contends that the 10 percent rating assigned to both his deformity of the left little finger and his scar of that same finger are inadequate to reflect the impairment caused by each disability. The evaluation of service-connected disabilities is based on the average impairment of earning capacity they produce, as determined by considering current symptomatology in the light of appropriate rating criteria. 38 U.S.C. § 1155. Consideration is given to the potential application of the various provisions of 38 C.F.R. Parts 3 and 4, whether or not they are raised by the veteran, as required by Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). In addition, the entire history of the veteran's disability is also considered. Consideration must be given to the ability of the veteran to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. If there is a question as to which of two evaluations should apply, the higher rating is assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating is assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, the present level of disability is of primary concern. Although a rating specialist is directed to review the recorded history of a disability in order to make a more accurate evaluation, see 38 C.F.R. § 4.2, the regulations do not give past medical reports precedence over current findings. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55 (1994). However, the Board will consider whether a staged rating is appropriate for the period on appeal. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 510 (2007). As a preliminary consideration, the Board observes that the Veteran’s claim for an increased rating for his right shoulder disability will be remanded in part to obtain medical records from the Social Security Administration (SSA). VA has a duty to assist the Veteran by obtaining all relevant records that are in the custody of a federal agency. However, the Board finds that it can proceed with the adjudication of the Veteran’s appeals for increased ratings for his disabilities of the left little finger. As will be seen, he is already in receipt of the highest rating available for each disability. Furthermore, the October 2010 SSA decision that is already included in the record does not include the left finger disability or scar in the list of impairments. Therefore, remanding these appeals to obtain and consider SSA records cannot result in any benefit to the Veteran. Consideration of these appeals at this time can result in no possible harm to Veteran, so the Board will proceed with their adjudication. The record shows that entitlement to service connection for the residuals of laceration of the left little finger was granted in a July 1986 rating, which assigned a zero percent rating. An October 2002 rating decision characterized the Veteran’s finger diagnosis as deformity and scar, residuals of laceration of the left little finger. This is the first time that the diagnosis of scar was included, although the deformity and the scar continued to be evaluated as a single disability at zero percent. In the May 2013 rating decision on appeal, the deformity and scar continued to be evaluated together as zero percent. However, an April 2017 rating decision issued during this appeal assigned a 10 percent rating for deformity of the left little finger with ankylosis. It also assigned a separate 10 percent rating for a painful scar of the left little finger. Both ratings were effective from the November 10, 2010 date of the Veteran’s claim. As the Veteran has not expressed satisfaction with either rating, they remain on appeal. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993). 1. Left finger deformity as a residual of a laceration The Veteran’s deformity with ankylosis due to residual laceration of the left little finger is evaluated under the rating criteria for ankylosis of the ring or little finger, and the rating criteria for degenerative arthritis. Both favorable and unfavorable ankylosis of the ring or little finger is evaluated as zero percent disabling for either the major or minor hand. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Code 5227. Degenerative arthritis established by X-ray findings will be rated on the basis of limitation of motion under the appropriate codes for the specific joint or joints involved. If the limitation of motion is noncompensable, a rating of 10 percent is for application for each such major joint or group of minor joints affected by limitation of motion, to be combined, not added under diagnostic code 5003. Limitation of motion must be objectively confirmed by findings such as swelling, muscle spasm, or satisfactory evidence of painful motion. In the absence of limitation of motion, a 20 percent evaluation is merited for X-ray evidence of involvement of two or more major joints or two or more minor joint groups, with occasional incapacitating exacerbations. A 10 percent evaluation is merited for X-ray evidence of involvement of two or more major joints or two or more minor joint groups. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Code 5003. The Board observes that the 10 percent rating for the Veteran’s deformity with ankylosis of the left little finger is the highest rating provided by the applicable rating criteria. The rating criteria for ankylosis provides for only a zero percent rating. However, if limitation of motion is noncompensable, as it is under Code 5227, the rating criteria for degenerative arthritis provides for a 10 percent rating for each group of minor joints affected by limitation of motion. This is the basis for the 10 percent rating that has been assigned for the ankylosis of the Veteran’s left little finger. This 10 percent rating is the highest that is available under the appropriate rating criteria for a single joint or group of minor joints, as is the case here. Therefore, no further discussion is required. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Codes 5227, 5230; Johnston v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 80, 85 (1995). The Board has considered an evaluation under a different rating code, but there are no codes more appropriate. 2. Painful scar of the left fifth finger Under the criteria for 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Code 7804, one or two scars that are unstable or painful warrant a 10 percent evaluation. Three or four scars that are unstable or painful warrant a 20 percent evaluation. Five or more scars that are unstable or painful warrants a 30 percent rating. Note (1) to Diagnostic Code 7804 provides that an unstable scar is one where, for any reason, there is frequent loss of covering of skin over the scar. Note (2) to Diagnostic Code 7804 provides that if one or more scars are both unstable and painful, add 10 percent to the evaluation that is based on the total number of unstable or painful scars. Note (3) to Diagnostic Code 7804 provides that scars evaluated under diagnostic codes 7800, 7801, 7802, or 7805 may also receive an evaluation under Diagnostic Code 7804, when applicable. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Code 7804. As noted on the November 2015 VA examination for scars and disfigurement, the Veteran has a single scar of the distal dorsal side of the left fifth finger. This scar was one centimeter in length, was not unstable, and was not both painful and unstable. The scar was neither deep nor non-linear. The Veteran did report numbness along the scar. The Board concludes that entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for his painful scar of the left fifth finger is not warranted. Service connection has been established for just the one scar of the little finger. Under the rating criteria, 10 percent is the highest rating that can be assigned for a single painful scar. Although the Note (2) to this rating code provides for an additional 10 percent if a scar is both unstable and painful, the November 2015 VA examination states the scar was not unstable. It follows that the current 10 percent rating is the highest available under the rating criteria, and no additional discussion is required. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Code 7804. The Board has considered whether there is a possibility of a higher rating under a different rating code; however, after review of applicable code, it finds that there is not. In this regard, the Veteran’s scar is not located on his head, face, or neck, and it is neither deep nor nonlinear. This precludes a rating under the criteria of 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Codes 7800, 7801. The criteria for 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Codes 7803 provide for no more than a 10 percent rating. The only other disabling effects not considered by these rating criteria are those evaluated under the rating criteria for ankylosis and degenerative arthritis, but a separate rating has already been assigned under those codes. The Board concludes there is no possibility for a rating in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran’s painful scar of the left little finger. REASONS FOR REMAND Regarding each of the issues listed below, the Board observes the Veteran was granted SSA disability benefits in an October 2010 decision by that agency. Copies of this decision were provided by the Veteran and his representative. A copy of an October 2008 psychiatric examination that appears to have been considered in the SSA decision was also provided by the Veteran’s representative in August 2019. An October 2008 functional assessment is also in the claims file which appears to have been obtained by SSA, and this was provided to VA by the Veteran’s representative with the April 2017 Substantive Appeal. Finally, the Veteran appears to have submitted partial copies of an October 2008 orthopedic examination on which he added his own comments. It is unclear if this examination was part of the SSA process, although given the date it is likely. Unfortunately, a review of the claims file shows that SSA was never contacted by VA in order to obtain a complete set of the medical records considered by the SSA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in October 2010. That decision found that the Veteran’s severe impairments include a depressive disorder, anger problems, right shoulder pain, arthritis, knee pain, and back pain. These are the same disabilities that are under appellate consideration by the Board, but to date the only medical evidence in the claims file that may have been considered by SSA in October 2012 are the partial records provided by the Veteran. Furthermore, this ALJ found that medical improvement was expected with appropriate treatment and recommended a new review of the Veteran’s condition in 24 months. There is nothing in the record to show whether this review was conducted and, if it was, the medical evidence that was considered at that time. The Board notes that VA has a duty to obtain all relevant records in the custody of a Federal agency. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). All SSA records to date have been supplied by the Veteran and his representative, and as noted they appear to be incomplete. As it is likely there are relevant SSA records that have not been obtained relating to the October 2010 decision and a possible follow-up review, remand is required to obtain them. Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 1. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability on a de novo basis. The Veteran’s claim for service connection for a psychiatric disability is among those potentially affected by the SSA decision and records. Furthermore, the Veteran has submitted the report of a May 2019 psychiatric examination conducted by a private examiner in which this examiner states the Veteran has a diagnosis of an unspecified anxiety disorder. She also opines that this disorder more likely than not began during military service and had been further aggravated by his service-connected right shoulder, left wrist, and left-hand disabilities. However, in spite of the length of this report, she has not supplied any reasons and bases to support her opinion. She has described the Veteran’s past treatment at length and cited to several medical journal articles that state Veterans generally have mental health problems at a higher rate than non-Veterans. However, the Board observes that correlation and causation are different matters, and notes that there are no reasons and bases to support her opinion as to why this particular Veteran has an anxiety disorder due to his active service, to include his circumstances and experience therein. The Board notes that the Veteran has not been provided a VA examination of his psychiatric disability. The Board finds that he should be afforded such an examination in order to determine if his claimed disability is an acquired psychiatric disability and, if so, if it was incurred or aggravated by active service. Finally, there are indications in the record that the Veteran wished to remain in service, but that it was recommended he not be accepted for further service. The Veteran’s personnel records have not yet been obtained and, as they may have some bearing on this appeal, the Board finds an attempt to obtain them and add them to the claims file should be made. 2. New and material evidence for a right knee disability. 3. New and material evidence for a left knee disability. 4. New and material evidence for a low back disability. The record shows that the Veteran’s initial claims for service connection for a right knee disability, a left knee disability, and a low back disability were denied in the same January 2009 rating decision which denied entitlement to service connection for an intermittent explosive disorder. As noted, the Veteran was notified of this decision and provided his appellate rights in a January 2009 letter. He did not attempt to initiate an appeal of this rating decision by submitting a notice of disagreement until November 10, 2010, which was not timely. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (2019). Furthermore, new and material evidence was not received prior to the expiration of the period in which to appeal, and the January 2009 rating decision is final and is not subject to revision on the same factual basis. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105(a), 3.156(b). It follows that new and material evidence is required to reopen the claims for service connection for a right knee disability, a left knee disability, and a low back disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). The Board has characterized these three issues accordingly. When a claim has previously been denied and new and material evidence is required to reopen, VA has a limited duty to assist. However, that duty includes obtaining records from federal agencies such as SSA. Therefore, these appeals must be remanded until the SSA records have been obtained.   5. Service connection for a left leg disability. A remand for this appeal is required in order to obtain the SSA records. 6. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for a right shoulder disability. This is an appeal of the initial rating assigned for the Veteran’s right shoulder disability, effective from November 10, 2010. In determining an initial rating, the entire record from the effective date of service connection to the present is of importance in determining the proper rating of disability, and staged ratings are to be considered in order to reflect the changing level of severity of a disability during this period. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). Although the SSA decision in question is dated October 2010, which is one month prior to the effective date of service connection for the right shoulder disability, the medical records considered in that decision may have a bearing on the initial evaluation that was assigned. Furthermore, any medical records regarding the right shoulder that were obtained as part of the recommended reevaluation by SSA are potentially relevant to the evaluation of this disability by VA, as they would fall well within the period on appeal. Furthermore, the most recent VA examination of the Veteran’s right shoulder was conducted in November 2015. As this examination is now more than four years old, the Board will take this opportunity to schedule the Veteran for a new examination to obtain both the active and passive range of motions and fully describes the effects of any flare-ups that he may now be experiencing. 7. Entitlement to an effective date prior to November 10, 2010 for a 10 percent rating for a painful scar of the left fifth finger The Veteran has appealed the November 10, 2010 effective date for the separate 10 percent rating for the scar of his left fifth finger. Prior to this date, the deformity of the finger and the scar were assigned a zero percent rating as part of a single disability. No specific contentions regarding why the November 10, 2010 date is incorrect or what earlier date should be assigned have been provided. The current November 10, 2010 effective date is the date of the receipt of the claim for an increased rating. For increased ratings, the effective date will be the receipt of the claim or date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o). The effective date of an increase in disability compensation is the earliest date as of which it is factually ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred if the claim is received within one year from such date. Otherwise, the effective date is the date of receipt of the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2). If an increase in disability occurred within one year prior to the claim, the increase is effective as of the date the increase was “factually ascertainable.” If the increase occurred more than one year prior to the claim, the increase is effective the date of claim. If the increase occurred after the date of claim, the effective date is the date of increase. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(2); Harper v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 125 (1997); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(1)(2); VAOPGCPREC 12-98 (1998). Therefore, the Board must review the record to ascertain whether it is factually ascertainable that the Veteran’s disability had increased in severity to such an extent that a separate rating for the scar was appropriate within one year prior to the receipt of the November 10, 2010 claim. As it is possible the October 2010 SSA decision includes medical records relevant to the Veteran’s finger that date within one year prior to the claim, this review must be deferred until the records have been obtained. 8. TDIU The Board recognizes that a claim for an increased rating encompasses a claim for TDIU if raised by the record or the Veteran. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009). The record shows that the Veteran has been awarded SSA disability benefits based in part on his service-connected right shoulder disability. The Veteran also contends he is unable to be employed due to his service-connected disabilities of the left wrist and right shoulder. The Board finds that a claim for TDIU has been raised. However, as the development requested in this remand, to include the SSA records, is likely relevant to this claim, consideration is deferred until the development has been completed. These matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from May 2019 to the Present. 2. Obtain the Veteran’s complete service personnel records. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. 3. Obtain the Veteran’s federal records from the Social Security Agency. This should include all medical records considered in their October 2010 decision. In addition, determine whether there was a review of this decision approximately 24 months later. If there was a review decision by the Social Security Administration, obtain a copy of that decision and all medical records that were considered in that decision. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. 4. After completing #1-3 above, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any psychiatric disability. The examiner should review the entire claims file, to include the report of the May 2019 private examination. The examiner must opine whether the Veteran currently has a diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disability. Then, for any acquired psychiatric disability, the examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including the injury to his left wrist. If the answer to the above questions are negative, the examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not that an acquired psychiatric disability was proximately due to service-connected disabilities (right shoulder, left wrist, and left hand). If the answer remains negative, then, for any currently diagnosed acquired disability or personality disorder, the examiner must opine whether it was aggravated beyond its natural progression by one or more to these service-connected disabilities. If the examiner believes there has been aggravation, they should attempt to describe a baseline in severity of the disability prior to aggravation. The examiner is to provide a comprehensive rationale for all opinions. Any negative opinion regarding the relationship of any current diagnosis to service cannot be based solely on the lack of evidence of a disability in the service treatment records. If the examiner has a difference in opinion with the May 2019 private examiner, they should explain the basis for this difference. If the examiner is unable to provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, then state whether the inability is due to the limits of their knowledge, the limits of medical knowledge in general, or there is additional evidence that, if obtained, would permit the opinion to be provided. 4. After completing #1-3 above, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected right shoulder. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. In so doing, the examiner must test the Veteran’s active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). (Continued on the next page)   Furthermore, the examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement based on direct observation, the examiner should provide an estimate, if possible, of the additional impairment due to flare-ups based on the other evidence of record and the Veteran’s statements. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). (CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE)   5. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, including the inextricably intertwined issue of entitlement to a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities. If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. Paul Sorisio Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board John L. Prichard 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.