Citation Nr: 21002192 Decision Date: 01/13/21 Archive Date: 01/13/21 DOCKET NO. 10-28 692 DATE: January 13, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent prior to June 19, 2010, and in excess of 30 percent thereafter for a cervical strain is denied. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent prior to June 19, 2010, and in excess of 40 percent thereafter for a lumbar strain is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Prior to June 19, 2010, the Veteran’s cervical strain was characterized by forward flexion to greater than 15 degrees, without any favorable or unfavorable ankylosis, neurological impairment, or intervertebral disc syndrome. 2. Effective June 19, 2010, the Veteran’s cervical strain is characterized by some degree of forward flexion of the cervical spine, without ankylosis, neurological impairment, or intervertebral disc syndrome 3. Prior to June 19, 2010, the Veteran’s lumbar strain was characterized by forward flexion greater than 60 degrees and a combined range of motion greater than 120 degrees, without intervertebral disc syndrome; muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait; abnormal spinal contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or; abnormal kyphosis. 4. Effective June 19, 2010, the Veteran’s lumbar strain is characterized by some degree of forward flexion of the lumbosacral spine, without ankylosis, neurological impairment, or intervertebral disc syndrome. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent prior to June 19, 2010, and in excess of 30 percent thereafter for a cervical strain. have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1-4.7, 4.40, 4.45, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5235-43. 2. The criteria for entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent prior to June 19, 2010, and in excess of 40 percent thereafter for a lumbar strain. have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1-4.7, 4.40, 4.45, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5235-43. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from March 2001 to March 2007. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2008 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. The RO’s September 2008 rating decision continued the previously assigned 20 percent and 10 percent ratings, respectively, for the Veteran’s service-connected cervical and thoracolumbar spine disabilities. An intervening May 2011 rating decision increased the evaluation of the Veteran’s cervical spine disability from 20 percent to 30 percent, effective June 19, 2010. That same rating decision increased the evaluation of the Veteran’s thoracolumbar spine disability from 10 percent to 40 percent, effective June 19, 2010. As the Veteran has not received a total grant of benefits sought on appeal for her service-connected cervical and thoracolumbar spine disabilities, these issues remain before the Board. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). These issues have previously been before the Board in December 2013, August 2017, and March 2019. On each occasion, they were remanded for additional development. They have now been returned to the Board. Increased Rating 1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent prior to June 19, 2010, and in excess of 30 percent thereafter for a cervical strain. The Veteran seeks increased initial ratings for her service-connected cervical strain. She asserts this disability has increased in severity, and increased initial ratings are therefore warranted. Disability evaluations are based upon the average impairment of earning capacity as contemplated by the schedule for rating disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. In order to evaluate the level of disability and any changes in condition, it is necessary to consider the complete medical history of the Veteran’s condition. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 594 (1991). In adjudicating increased rating claims, the level of disability in all periods since the effective date of the grant of service connection must be taken into account, to include the possibility that a staged rating may be assigned. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). As such, the Board will consider whether staged ratings are appropriate to the pending appeals. In cases in which a reasonable doubt arises as to the appropriate degree of disability to be assigned, such doubt shall be resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. With any form of arthritis or other orthopedic disorders, painful motion is an important factor of disability. Joints that are actually painful, unstable, or misaligned, due to healed injury, should be entitled to at least the minimum compensable rating for the joint. Special note should be taken of objective indications of pain on pressure or manipulation, muscle spasm, crepitation, and active and passive range of motion of both the damaged joint and the opposite undamaged joint. 38 C.F.R. § 4.59; see also Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32, 44 (2011). While pain alone does not constitute functional loss, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has clearly indicated that the Board must consider the effects of pain, particularly as to any adverse impact on the normal working movements of the body. Mitchell, 25 Vet. App at 44 (noting that although “pain itself does not rise to the level of functional loss,” pain which “affects some aspect of ‘the normal working movements of the body’ such as ‘excursion, strength, speed, coordination, and endurance,’” may constitute functional loss). Additionally, the Board must consider pain on both active and passive motion of the affected joint, in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing and, if possible, with the range of the opposite undamaged joint. See Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). The Veteran’s lumbosacral spine disability has been awarded a noncompensable initial rating effective from May 3, 2010, and a 10 percent rating effective May 13, 2011, under Diagnostic Code (DC) 5239, for spondylolisthesis of the spine. Disabilities of the spine are rated under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine (for Diagnostic Codes 5235 to 5243, unless 5243 is evaluated under the Formula for Rating Intervertebral Disc Syndrome Based on Incapacitating Episodes). Ratings under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine are made with or without symptoms such as pain (whether or not it radiates), stiffness, or aching in the area of the spine affected by residuals of injury or disease. The General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine provides the following: With or without symptoms such as pain (whether or not it radiates), stiffness, or aching in the area of the spine affected by residuals of injury or disease Unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine 100 Unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine 50 Unfavorable ankylosis of the entire cervical spine; or, forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine 30 degrees or less; or, favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine 40 Forward flexion of the cervical spine 15 degrees or less; or, favorable ankylosis of the entire cervical spine 30 Forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees; or, forward flexion of the cervical spine greater than 15 degrees but not greater than 30 degrees; or, the combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120 degrees; or, the combined range of motion of the cervical spine not greater than 170 degrees; or, muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis 20 Forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 60 degrees but not greater than 85 degrees; or, forward flexion of the cervical spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 40 degrees; or, combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 120 degrees but not greater than 235 degrees; or, combined range of motion of the cervical spine greater than 170 degrees but not greater than 335 degrees; or, muscle spasm, guarding, or localized tenderness not resulting in abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour; or, vertebral body fracture with loss of 50 percent or more of the height 10 Note (1): Evaluate any associated objective neurologic abnormalities, including, but not limited to, bowel or bladder impairment, separately, under an appropriate diagnostic code. Note (2): (See also Plate V.) For VA compensation purposes, normal forward flexion of the cervical spine is zero to 45 degrees, extension is zero to 45 degrees, left and right lateral flexion are zero to 45 degrees, and left and right lateral rotation are zero to 80 degrees. Normal forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is zero to 90 degrees, extension is zero to 30 degrees, left and right lateral flexion are zero to 30 degrees, and left and right lateral rotation are zero to 30 degrees. The combined range of motion refers to the sum of the range of forward flexion, extension, left and right lateral flexion, and left and right rotation. The normal combined range of motion of the cervical spine is 340 degrees and of the thoracolumbar spine is 240 degrees. The normal ranges of motion for each component of spinal motion provided in this note are the maximum that can be used for calculation of the combined range of motion. Note (3): In exceptional cases, an examiner may state that because of age, body habitus, neurologic disease, or other factors not the result of disease or injury of the spine, the range of motion of the spine in a particular individual should be considered normal for that individual, even though it does not conform to the normal range of motion stated in Note (2). Provided that the examiner supplies an explanation, the examiner’s assessment that the range of motion is normal for that individual will be accepted. Note (4): Round each range of motion measurement to the nearest five degrees. Note (5): For VA compensation purposes, unfavorable ankylosis is a condition in which the entire cervical spine, the entire thoracolumbar spine, or the entire spine is fixed in flexion or extension, and the ankylosis results in one or more of the following: difficulty walking because of a limited line of vision; restricted opening of the mouth and chewing; breathing limited to diaphragmatic respiration; gastrointestinal symptoms due to pressure of the costal margin on the abdomen; dyspnea or dysphagia; atlantoaxial or cervical subluxation or dislocation; or neurologic symptoms due to nerve root stretching. Fixation of a spinal segment in neutral position (zero degrees) always represents favorable ankylosis. Note (6): Separately evaluate disability of the thoracolumbar and cervical spine segments, except when there is unfavorable ankylosis of both segments, which will be rated as a single disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5235-43. Spinal disabilities may also be rated under DC 5243, for intervertebral disc syndrome. Intervertebral disc syndrome with incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 6 weeks during the past 12 months warranted a 60 percent rating. With incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 4 weeks but less than six weeks during the past 12 months, a 40 percent rating is warranted. With incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 2 weeks but less than 4 weeks during the past 12 months, a 20 percent rating is warranted. With incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 1 week but less than 2 weeks during the past 12 months, a 10 percent rating is warranted. An “incapacitating episode” is a period of acute signs and symptoms due to IVDS that requires bed rest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5243, Note 1. Considering first the period prior to June 19, 2010, the Veteran has been granted a 20 percent rating for this period. The competent evidence for this period, including private and VA treatment records and examination reports, do not reflect forward flexion of the cervical spine 15 degrees or less or, favorable ankylosis of the entire cervical spine, as would warrant the next higher rating of 30 percent. On VA examination in February 2007, the Veteran had forward flexion of the cervical spine to 45 degrees, and extension to 45 degrees. No additional limitation of motion was noted to result from repetitive use, or such factors as pain, weakness, fatigue, lack of endurance, or incoordination. No intervertebral disc syndrome was noted. Reflexes, sensory response, and muscle strength were all grossly within normal limits. An August 2008 VA examination found forward flexion of the cervical spine to 40 degrees. No additional limitation of motion was noted to result from repetitive use, or such factors as pain, weakness, fatigue, lack of endurance, or incoordination. Likewise, on VA examination in September 2009, the Veteran had forward flexion of the cervical spine to 22 degrees. Again, no additional limitation of motion was noted to result from repetitive use, or such factors as pain, weakness, fatigue, lack of endurance, or incoordination. While the Veteran has undergone VA and private outpatient treatment during this time period, those records do not reflect findings significantly different from the examination reports above. Both examinations were negative for any deficits in reflexes, sensory response, or muscle strength of the cervical spine. Another VA examination was afforded the Veteran in March 2010. Range of motion testing indicated forward flexion to 30 degrees. No additional limitation of motion was noted to result from pain or due to repetitive motion. No deficits in muscle strength, reflexes, or sensory response were noted. Thus, based on this competent evidence, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence prior to June 19, 2010, is against the award of an initial rating in excess of 20 percent, as the Veteran does not have forward flexion of the cervical spine limited to 15 degrees or less or, favorable ankylosis of the entire cervical spine, as would warrant the next higher rating of 30 percent. Additionally, the VA examiners did not find the Veteran experienced further limitation of forward flexion to 15 degrees or less following repetitive motion, with or without weightbearing, or due to such factors as pain, fatiguability, incoordination, weakness, or pain on motion. Therefore, even when considering pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, and incoordination, including during flare-ups, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence is against the grant of a higher initial rating based upon limitation of flexion of the cervical spine. While the various VA examination reports reflected reported pain on motion, the examiners specifically performed repetitive testing and found no additional functional loss which would support a higher rating. In this regard, the Court has clearly indicated that painful motion does not equate to limited motion. In fact, the Court considered the argument that pain throughout all ranges should warrant the maximum rating and found that the “Secretary has persuasively argued that such an interpretation would lead to absurd results.” Mitchell, 25 Vet. App. at 41, 43. Without any evidence of functional loss from the reported pain, an increased evaluation based solely on pain is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.45, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5235-43. Finally, the examination reports are negative for intervertebral disc syndrome of the cervical spine for this period, and thus an increased initial rating on that basis is likewise not warranted. The Board has also considered whether separate ratings may be awarded for this period based on any objective neurological abnormalities resulting from the Veteran’s cervical strain. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Note (1). All the VA examinations were, however, negative for radiculopathy or loss of muscle strength, sensory response and bowel or bladder problems. Overall, the Board finds insufficient evidence of objective neurological impairment to support separate compensable ratings prior to June 19, 2010. Considering next the period beginning June 19, 2010, the Veteran has been granted a 30 percent rating for this period. As the preponderance of the record is against a finding of unfavorable ankylosis of the cervical spine at any time during this period, the next higher rating of 40 percent is not warranted. A March 2014 VA examination noted the Veteran’s cervical spine had forward flexion to 45 degrees, with pain beginning at 35 degrees. Repetitive motion did not result in any additional limitation of motion. Reflexes, muscle strength, and sensory response were all within normal limits. Neither ankylosis nor radiculopathy were present, according to the examiner. No intervertebral disc syndrome was noted. Similarly, VA examinations in November 2016 and April 2019 were negative for any ankylosis of the cervical spine, or deficits in muscle strength, reflexes, or sensory response. Thus, based on the above, a disability rating in excess of 30 percent is not warranted on or after June 19, 2010, as ankylosis of any type of the cervical spine has not been demonstrated, and thus the criteria for a 40 percent rating are not met. Even when considering pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, and incoordination, including during flare-ups, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence is against the grant of a higher rating based upon ankylosis or overall limitation of motion of the cervical spine. While the various VA examination reports reflected reported pain on motion, the examiners specifically performed repetitive testing and did not find the functional equivalent of ankylosis which would support a higher rating. Without any evidence of functional loss from the reported pain, an increased evaluation based solely on pain is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.45, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5235-43. Considering next an increased rating under DC 5243, for intervertebral disc syndrome, the various VA examination reports were negative for this diagnosis, as well as any incapacitating episodes resulting therefrom. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence is against a disability rating in excess of 30 percent under DC 5243 at this time. The Board has also considered whether separate ratings may be awarded for any objective neurological abnormalities resulting from the Veteran’s cervical strain. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Note (1). All the VA examinations were, however, negative for radiculopathy or loss of muscle strength, sensory response, or bowel or bladder problems. Reflexes in the upper and lower extremities were 2+ (normal) on the VA examinations, including the most recent 2019 examination. Muscle atrophy was also not present. Overall, the Board finds insufficient evidence of objective neurological impairment to support separate compensable ratings. In conclusion, the preponderance of the evidence is against an initial rating in excess of 20 percent prior to June 19, 2010 or in excess of 30 percent thereafter for the Veteran’s cervical strain. As a preponderance of the evidence is against the award of an increased rating, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 2. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent prior to June 19, 2010, and in excess of 40 percent thereafter for a lumbar strain. The Veteran seeks an increased initial rating for her lumbar strain. She asserts this disability has increased in severity, and an increased initial rating is therefore warranted. As noted above, the Veteran has been granted an initial rating of 10 percent prior to June 19, 2010, and a disability rating of 40 percent thereafter. The criteria for the evaluation of spinal disabilities has been noted above. Considering first the period prior to June 19, 2010, the preponderance of the evidence is against the next higher evaluation of 20 percent, as the Veteran has not demonstrated forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees; or, the combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120 degrees; or, muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis. On VA examination in February 2007, the Veteran had forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine to 90 degrees, extension to 30 degrees, and lateral flexion and rotation to 30 degrees each bilaterally. Pain was reported at the extremes of motion. Straight leg raising was negative bilaterally. Intervertebral disc syndrome was not present, according to the examiner. No additional limitation of motion was noted to result from repetitive use, or due to such factors as pain, weakness, fatigue, lack of endurance, or incoordination. An August 2008 VA examination found forward flexion to 90, extension to 25 degrees, and lateral rotation and flexion to 30 degrees each bilaterally. No additional limitation of motion was noted to result from repetitive use, or such factors as pain, weakness, fatigue, lack of endurance, or incoordination. Lasègue’s Romberg’s, and Babinski’s signs were all negative. Deep tendon reflexes were within normal limits. Motor examination indicated no evidence of muscle atrophy of the upper or lower extremities. Sensory examination was also negative for sensory deficits. Likewise, a September 2009 VA examination did not include range of motion findings for the lumbosacral spine, but did note an absence of scoliosis, lordosis, kyphosis, or other abnormal curvature of the spine. The Veteran was also without muscle spasm, localized tenderness, or guarding. No deficits in muscle strength, reflexes, or sensory response were noted. Another VA examination was afforded the Veteran in March 2010. Range of motion testing indicated forward flexion to 70 degrees, extension to 70, and lateral flexion and rotation to 30 degrees each bilaterally. No additional limitation of motion was noted to result from pain or due to repetitive motion. The Veteran was also without muscle spasm, localized tenderness, or guarding. No deficits in muscle strength, reflexes, or sensory response were noted. Based on this competent evidence, the Board finds the preponderance of the record to be against an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran’s lumbar strain at any time prior to June 19, 2010. Considering first the general rating criteria for spinal disabilities, the Veteran has not exhibited at any time during the period of the appeal at issue forward flexion of the lumbosacral spine limited to 60 degrees or less, as would warrant the next higher rating of 20 percent. Her forward flexion was, at worst, to 90 degrees on VA examinations in 2007 and 2008. Her combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine was also not 120 degrees or less, as would also support a 20 percent rating. Additionally, the VA examiners did not find the Veteran experienced further limitation of motion to 60 degrees or less following repetitive motion, with or without weightbearing, or due to such factors as pain, fatiguability, incoordination, weakness, or pain on motion. Therefore, even when considering pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, and incoordination, including during flare-ups, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence is against the grant of a higher initial rating based upon limitation of flexion or overall limitation of motion of the thoracolumbar spine. While the various VA examination reports reflected reported pain on motion, the examiners specifically performed repetitive testing and found no additional functional loss which would support a higher rating. In this regard, the Court has clearly indicated that painful motion does not equate to limited motion. In fact, the Court considered the argument that pain throughout all ranges should warrant the maximum rating and found that the “Secretary has persuasively argued that such an interpretation would lead to absurd results.” Mitchell, 25 Vet. App. at 41, 43. Without any evidence of functional loss from the reported pain, an increased evaluation based solely on pain is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.45, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5235-43. Finally, the Veteran has not demonstrated muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis, as would warrant a 20 percent rating. Considering next an increased rating under DC 5243, for intervertebral disc syndrome, the various VA examination reports were negative for this diagnosis, as well as any incapacitating episodes resulting therefrom. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence is against a disability rating in excess of 10 percent under DC 5243 at this time. The Board has also considered whether separate ratings may be awarded for this period based on any objective neurological abnormalities resulting from the Veteran’s lumbar strain. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Note (1). All the VA examinations were, however, negative for radiculopathy or loss of muscle strength, sensory response and bowel or bladder problems. Overall, the Board finds insufficient evidence of objective neurological impairment to support separate compensable ratings prior to June 19, 2010. Considering next the period beginning June 19, 2010, the Veteran has been granted a 40 percent rating for this period. Upon consideration of the totality of the applicable record, the preponderance of the evidence is against a disability rating in excess of 40 percent for this period, as the evidence does not reflect unfavorable ankylosis of the thoracolumbar spine. A March 2014 VA examination noted the Veteran’s lumbosacral spine had forward flexion to 85 degrees, with pain beginning at 80 degrees. Repetitive motion resulted in forward flexion reduced to 80 degrees. Reflexes, muscle strength, and sensory response were all within normal limits. Neither ankylosis nor radiculopathy were present, according to the examiner. No intervertebral disc syndrome was noted. Similarly, VA examinations in November 2016 and April 2019 were negative for any ankylosis of the lumbosacral spine, or deficits in muscle strength, reflexes, or sensory response. Thus, based on the above, a disability rating in excess of 40 percent is not warranted on or after June 19, 2010, as ankylosis of any type of the lumbosacral spine has not been demonstrated. Even when considering pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, and incoordination, including during flare-ups, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence is against the grant of a higher rating based upon ankylosis or overall limitation of motion of the thoracolumbar spine. While the various VA examination reports reflected reported pain on motion, the examiners specifically performed repetitive testing and did not find the functional equivalent of ankylosis which would support a higher rating. Without any evidence of functional loss from the reported pain, an increased evaluation based solely on pain is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.45, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5235-43. Considering next an increased rating under DC 5243, for intervertebral disc syndrome, the various VA examination reports were negative for this diagnosis, as well as any incapacitating episodes resulting therefrom. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence is against a disability rating in excess of 40 percent under DC 5243 at this time. The Board has also considered whether separate ratings may be awarded for any objective neurological abnormalities resulting from the Veteran’s lumbosacral strain. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Note (1). All the VA examinations were, however, negative for radiculopathy or loss of muscle strength, sensory response and bowel or bladder problems. Reflexes in the lower extremities were 2+ (normal) on the VA examinations, including the most recent 2019 examination. Muscle atrophy was also not present. Overall, the Board finds insufficient evidence of objective neurological impairment to support separate compensable ratings. In conclusion, the preponderance of the evidence is against an initial rating in excess of 10 percent prior to June 19, 2010 or in excess of 40 percent thereafter for the Veteran’s lumbosacral strain. As a preponderance of the evidence is against the award of an increased rating, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Michael Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Thomas D. Jones, 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.