Citation Nr: 21065168 Decision Date: 10/25/21 Archive Date: 10/25/21 DOCKET NO. 16-55 449 DATE: October 25, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a compensable rating for eczema is denied. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable rating for right ear hearing loss is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's eczema disability has manifested in characteristic lesions involving at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of the entire body affected; or at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of exposed areas affected; or intermittent systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, PUVA, or other immunosuppressive drugs required for a total duration of less than 6 weeks over the past 12- month period. 2. The Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder has been manifested by symptomatology more nearly approximating occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, but less than total occupational and social impairment. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for a compensable rating for an eczema disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7806. 2. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 70 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder, have not been met. 38U.S.C. §§1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130, DC 9410. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 1992 to March 1994, and from August 2005 to March 2011. Increased Rating Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which is based on the average impairment of earning capacity. Individual disabilities are assigned separate diagnostic codes. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. The basis of disability evaluations is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. In determining the severity of a disability, the Board is required to consider the potential application of various other provisions of the regulations governing VA benefits, whether or not they were raised by the Veteran, as well as the entire history of the Veteran's disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1, 4.2 (2017); Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 595 (1991). If the disability more closely approximates the criteria for the higher of two ratings, the higher rating will be assigned; otherwise, the lower rating is assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. When after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding the degree of disability such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. The evaluation of the same disability under several diagnostic codes, known as pyramiding, must be avoided. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14. Separate ratings may be assigned for distinct disabilities resulting from the same injury so long as the symptomatology for one condition is not duplicative of or overlapping with the symptomatology of the other condition. Id. 1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for eczema The Veteran seeks a compensable rating for his eczema disability. Specifically, the Veteran claims that he suffers from intermittent rashes and exacerbations of his skin condition, to include on his upper and lower extremities, and back. However, a close review of the medical evidence of record, to include VA treatment records and several examinations, reveal no rashes or notable signs and symptoms of the Veteran's eczema. As such, the Board finds that the Veteran's skin condition does not meet the criteria for a higher/compensable rating, and therefore the claim must be denied. The Veteran's eczema disability is rated under DC 7806. As an initial matter, VA amended the criteria for rating skin disabilities effective from August 13, 2018. These new regulations apply to all applications for benefits received by VA or that are pending before the agency of original jurisdiction on or after August 13, 2018. Claims pending prior to the effective date will be considered under both old and new rating criteria, and whatever criteria is more favorable to the veteran will be applied. The Board may not apply a current regulation prior to its effective date, unless the regulation explicitly provides otherwise. Kuzma v. Principi, 341 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003). However, the Board is not precluded from applying prior versions of the applicable regulation to the period on or after the effective dates of the new regulation if the prior version was in effect during the pendency of the appeal. Here, as the Veteran's claim for an increased rating was filed prior to the effective date (August 13, 2018), both criteria are applicable. Under the new General Rating Formula for the Skin, a noncompensable rating is assigned for no more than topical therapy required over the past 12-month period and at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving less than 5 percent of the entire body affected; or characteristic lesions involving less than 5 percent of exposed areas affected. A 10 percent rating is assigned for at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of the entire body affected; or at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of exposed areas affected; or intermittent systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, PUVA, or other immunosuppressive drugs required for a total duration of less than 6 weeks over the past 12- month period. A 30 percent rating is assigned at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving more than 20 to 40 percent of the entire body or 20 to 40 percent of exposed areas affected; or systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, PUVA, or other immunosuppressive drugs required for a total duration of 6 weeks or more, but not constantly, over the past 12-month period. A 60 percent rating is assigned for at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving more than 40 percent of the entire body or more than 40 percent of exposed areas affected; or constant or near-constant systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, psoralen with long-wave ultraviolet-A light (PUVA), or other immunosuppressive drugs required over the past 12-month period. Or rate as disfigurement of the head, face, or neck (DC 7800) or scars (DC's 7801, 7802, 7803, 7804, or 7805), depending on the predominant disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, General Rating for the Skin for DCs 7806, 7809, 7813-7816, 7820-7822, and 7824. Prior to August 2018, under DC 7806, a noncompensable disability rating is warranted for dermatitis or eczema affecting less that 5 percent of the entire body or less than 5 percent of exposed areas, and; no more than topical therapy required during the past 12-month period. A 10 percent disability rating is warranted for dermatitis or eczema affecting at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of the entire body, or at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of exposed areas, or; requiring intermittent systemic therapy such as corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs for a total duration of less than six weeks during the past 12-month period. A 30 percent disability rating is warranted for dermatitis or eczema affecting 20 to 40 percent of the entire body or 20 to 40 percent of exposed areas, or; requiring systemic therapy such as corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs for a total duration of six weeks or more, but not constantly, during the past 12-month period. A maximum schedular 60 percent disability rating is warranted for dermatitis or eczema affecting more than 40 percent of the entire body or more than 40 percent of exposed areas, or; requiring constant or near-constant systemic therapy such as corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs during the past 12-month period. Alternatively, the condition is to be rated as disfigurement of the head, face, or neck (DC 7800) or scars (DCs 7801-05), depending upon the predominant disability. Here, a close review of the evidence demonstrates that the predominant disability is eczema which the Veteran claims results in occasional or intermittent rashes, and/or exacerbations of the upper and lower extremities, and his back. Upon review of the pertinent evidence, the Board finds that there is no evidence that he is entitled to a compensable rating for his eczema disability. Although the Veteran submitted lay statements asserting that he experiences rashes on his arms, legs, and back, such exacerbations were occasional by the Veteran's own admittance, and has not been recorded by the medical evidence of record, to include in his treatment records, or VA examinations during the pendency of the entire claims period. Indeed, a review of the VA examinations of record conducted in November 2014 and July 2021, noted no actual symptoms of his eczema. Specifically, in his November 2014 VA examination report, the Veteran reported "intermittent" itchy rash on his legs and right hand that occurred at most once or twice a year, with the last "exacerbation" of rash eight or nine years ago. [emphasis added]. During the physical examination the Veteran was noted to exhibit no skin condition, scarring, or disfigurement, finding that the Veteran's eczema affected no visible part of the Veteran's body, exposed or otherwise. The examiner noted use of topical treatment for the condition of less than six weeks over the last year. Such findings from the November 2014 VA examination were similarly reflected in the Veteran's July 2021 VA examination, where the Veteran again noted intermittent itchy skin with rashes on his upper and lower extremities and back. The Veteran noted the last time in which symptoms appeared was in May, earlier that year. Upon examination, again, no skin condition was noted, to include any scars or disfigurements. Topical Cortizone cream was noted to be occasionally used, but for a time duration of less than six weeks in the last twelve months. No other symptoms or manifestations were noted upon examination, and the Veteran's eczema was noted to affect zero percent of his body. The Board also find that a close review of the VA treatment record evidence also reveals no instance in which the Veteran was noted complaining of, or treated for, any specific skin condition, to include rashes and itchy skin. Ostensibly, for the entire claims period, any reference to the Veteran's skin noted it to be normal. Based on the current medical evidence, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the assignment of a compensable rating under either the pre- or post-August 13, 2018 regulations. Specifically, while the Veteran's claims of exacerbation of itchy skin with rashes, such occasions have been noted even by the Veteran himself to be occasional, or even sparse, with no evidence of such occurrence during any treatment or VA examinations during the near decade long claims period. Accordingly, as there is no evidence that his eczema condition has increased in severity sufficient to meet the criteria of a 10 percent rating, he is not entitled to a compensable rating for his eczema disability. The Board has further considered whether a separate rating is warranted for any scars related to the Veteran's eczema disability. However, there is no evidence of scars related to his eczema. The evidence further does not reflect that he would be entitled to a higher rating under a different diagnostic code. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.118. The Board has further considered whether a VA examination is warranted to determine the current severity of his disability. However, as the evidence fails to show that his eczema has increase in severity, a VA examination is not warranted at this moment. Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); 38 C.F.R. § 3.327. The Board has also considered the Veteran's lay statements regarding his service-connected skin disability. The Veteran is competent to report his own observations with regard to the description of his observed symptoms. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran's reported symptoms are consistent with the findings of the VA examinations and the noncompensable rating currently assigned. To the extent that the Veteran's appeal indicates that he believes he should meet the criteria for a 10 percent rating or higher, his assertions must be weighed against the other evidence of record. Here, the specific examination findings of trained health care professionals are of greater probative weight than the Veteran's more general lay assertions. In conclusion, the Board finds that preponderance of the evidence is against his claim for a compensable rating for his eczema disability. In denying such a rating, the Board finds the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable. As such, his claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder The Veteran claims that his currently assigned a 70 percent rating for his acquired psychiatric disability does not fully contemplate the severity of his disability, and that higher rating is warranted. The Board finds that a thorough review of the relevant evidence of record, to include extensive medical treatment records and VA examinations, reveal that the Veteran's psychiatric condition is not productive of total occupational and social impairment. As such, for the reasons described below, the Board finds that a rating higher than70 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder is not warranted. Under the appropriate DC a 100 percent rating is warranted only when there is total occupational and social impairment due to such symptoms as gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; and memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. In order to be assigned a particular rating, a Veteran need not demonstrate the presence of all, most, or even some, of the symptoms listed as examples in the rating criteria. See Mauerhan v. Principi,16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). The key element for a rating under the General Formula for Mental Disorders is the degree of social and occupational impairment caused by those symptoms. Further, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has acknowledged the "symptom-driven nature" of the General Rating Formula and that "a Veteran may only qualify for a given disability rating under § 4.130 by demonstrating the particular symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration." Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki,713 F.3d 112, 116 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Federal Circuit has explained that "symptomatology should be the fact-finder's primary focus when deciding entitlement to a given disability rating." Id. at 117. The Veteran was afforded VA examinations to assess the nature and severity of his psychiatric disability in October 2014, and June 2021. In addition to these VA examinations, the Veteran has also submitted psychiatric examination reports, completed on VA Forms, conducted by medical professionals from July 2016 and February 2018. The Board will discuss these in turn. In January 2013, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination for his acquired psychiatric disability, when he was diagnosed with unspecified anxiety disorder and alcohol use disorder. Upon interview, the Veteran was noted to be married to the same woman for the last 39 years, with two children to which he noted a "good" relationship. He noted hobbies such as house chores and gardening, which he stated that he "enjoys". At the time, he had just retired in 2011 after working for more than 20 years for the federal government, with no significant occupational impairment during that time. On observation, the VA examiner noted that the Veteran's condition included symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, and disturbance in motivation and mood. The examiner noted that the Veteran was calm, coherent, oriented, and cooperative, with no evidence of psychomotor agitation. In addition, the Veteran was noted to be appropriately dressed and exhibited good hygiene, with no evidence of suicidal or homicidal ideations or thoughts. Overall, the examiner concluded that the Veteran's psychiatric condition was only productive of occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. The Veteran was afforded another VA examination in June 2021 to assess the nature and severity of his psychiatric disabilities. During the examination the Veteran was again diagnosed with general anxiety disorder, and alcohol use disorder. Upon interview, most of the same results as the previous VA examination were noted, ostensibly that he has remained married to the same person for, now, 46 years, and described his relationship with his wife and adult children as "positive". His wife, who participate in the examination interview, noted that the Veteran has been less emotional and affectionate since his active service, and demonstrated irritability. The Veteran noted hobbies such as gardening, walking, and house chores; he also noted an active social life, nothing that he enjoyed socializing with others at the track. The Veteran also indicated an increase in his drinking, described as often drinking nine beers a day for the last few years. The VA examiner noted symptoms related to the Veteran's psychiatric disability to include anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, impaired judgment, difficulty adapting to stress, and difficulty establishing and maintaining effective relationships. The Veteran, however, was noted to be oriented, logical, coherent, and goal oriented, with good eye contact, normal speech, and no evidence of cognitive impairment; to this end, the Veteran was also noted to be appropriately dressed, with clean clothing, and had good hygiene. Overall, the VA examiner concluded that the Veteran's condition was productive of occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. In addition to the VA examinations, the Veteran has also submitted two separate psychiatric reports filled out on VA psychiatric Disabilities Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) Forms, completed by private physicians. However, a close review of both private reports reveals no psychiatric condition that can be concluded to be productive of total occupational and social impairment. Specifically, both the private examiners in the July 2016 and February 2018 reports concluded explicitly that the Veteran's condition was only productive of occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most area; or in other words, the same level of impairment noted by the VA examiners. Upon close review of both private examination reports, the symptoms related to the Veteran's condition are ostensibly the same as those identified in the VA examination, to include anxiety, lack of motivation, irritability, and emotional withdrawal. The Board notes that such findings in the VA examinations are bolstered by the copious amounts of VA treatment evidence of record for the claims period, which include voluminous amounts of psychiatric treatment records. Review of these records reveals treatment and encounters akin to those described in the VA examinations. Significantly, these treatment records reflect a functioning individual who has not only maintained a nearly half a century marriage, but has hobbies, and maintains some social life. Notably, at no point in any treatment has the Veteran presented disoriented, disheveled, or presented to any indication in which he was unable to maintain his own personal hygiene. Likewise, no psychiatric treatment note during the course of the claims period has noted a level of irritability, anger, or outward behavior that alludes to danger to the Veteran himself, or to other. Upon careful review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder symptoms more closely approximate those warranting a 70 percent rating throughout the appellate period. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered both the medical and lay testimony describing the Veteran's symptoms. As cited above, a 100 percent rating for any psychiatric disability must demonstration a condition that is productive of total occupational and social impairment due to such symptoms as gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; and memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name The competent and credible evidence establishes that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder was manifested by symptoms such as irritability, anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, and emotional withdrawal; he also most recently endorsed evidence of lack of motivation and memory loss. Collectively, these symptoms are of the type, extent, severity, and/or frequency indicative of occupational and social impairment in most areas of the Veteran's life, including work, social relations, judgment, thinking, or mood. The record does not reflect total occupational and total social impairment during the appellate period. Regarding social impairment, the Veteran endorsed an ability to maintain relationships with his wife of nearly a half a century, and his adult children; to this end, during the VA examinations, the Veteran talked of maintaining hobbies and socializing with others at the track. Further, the Veteran has not exhibited any gross impairment in thought processes, nor demonstrate memory loss, lack of orientation, or any indication of suicidal or homicidal ideation; in fact, throughout the claims period, and upon examination, he consistently demonstrated normal thought processes, normal orientation, cooperation, and normal insight. Finally, the Veteran has never been noted to be a persistent danger to himself or others or reported any hallucinations or delusions. As such, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence supports the award of a 70 percent rating for an acquired psychiatric disorder. However, in light of the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran's symptoms do not more nearly approximate a rating higher than 70 percent under the General Rating Formula for the appellate period. The most probative evidence does not show total occupational and total social impairment. Thus, the criteria for a 100 percent rating for his acquired psychiatric disorder have not been met. The Veteran's claim for an increased rating in excess of 70 percent for acquired psychiatric disability is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a compensable rating for right ear hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran's claim for service connection for left ear hearing loss was previously remanded by the Board after a determination that the pervious VA examination of record were inadequate for adjudication on the merits. To this end, the pervious Board remand directed the RO to obtain an adequate opinion with regards to service connection. Here, however, the acquired May 2021 VA opinion is again found to be inadequate. The Board notes that a close review of the May 2021 VA examination reveals that, while the VA examiner addressed both direct and secondary causation, with associated rationale for each conclusion, however, the examiner failed to properly address secondary aggravation. While the VA examiner was not required to provide an opinion regarding a secondary nexus to the Veteran's service-connected right ear hearing loss, by the last remand directive from the Board, in doing so, the opinion must be an adequate one. The Board notes that the VA's statutory duty to assist the Veteran includes the duty to conduct a thorough and contemporaneous examination so that the evaluation of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one. Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121 (1991); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). Assistance by VA includes providing a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on a claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). When the medical evidence is inadequate, as it is here, VA must supplement the record by seeking an advisory opinion or ordering another medical examination. Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991); Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 213 (1992). The Board, however, finds this opinion to be inadequate. As the VA examiner has taken on secondary service connection nexus, such opinion must also contain a finding and rationale regarding secondary aggravation. The examination report is silent on any opinion regarding aggravation by the service-connected right ear hearing loss, and thus, such opinion must be found to be inadequate. Therefore, remand is required for the VA to fulfill its duty to the Veteran. Finally, as the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss has been remanded herein, the Board finds that further development with regards to the left ear, to include acquired another VA examination or grant of such disability, may affect the basis in which the right ear hearing loss is evaluated. As such, the Board must find that such issues are inextricably intertwined with the resolution of the remanded issue. The appropriate remedy where a pending claim is inextricably intertwined with a claim currently on appeal is to defer the claim on appeal pending the adjudication of the inextricably intertwined claim. Accordingly, this issue is remanded for readjudication following evidentiary development. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. Likewise, the Board finds that the VA examination afforded to the Veteran in June 2021, to assess the nature and etiology of his claimed neck disability is similarly inadequate. Specifically, while the June 2021 VA examiner concluded a finding that the Veteran's neck disability was not due to his active service, the rationale provided by the VA examiner was based on an inadequate factual premise and is both contradictory to both the examiner's own examination report and the other evidence already of record. As such, without an adequate rationale, such nexus opinion must be considered inadequate, and remand is required. Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993); see also Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97, 107 (2012) ("If the opinion is based on an inaccurate factual premise, then it is correct to discount it entirely."). Here, the Board notes that the VA examiner's rationale is based on a lack of finding of any evidence of a neck disability, complaint, or treatment during the Veteran's active service, and as such, the Veteran's neck condition did not arise and was not incurred during active service. The Board finds that such rationale to ignore previous findings within the claims file to explicitly include the Veteran's lay testimony regarding experiencing neck pain during service, and the previous November 2014 VA examination report which made a finding of neck strain during the Veteran's active service. Such rationale also contradicts the examiner's own notes from interviewing and examining the Veteran, where he noted that the Veteran noted incurrence of neck pain during active service due to the various physical activities, to include training. As such, the Board must find that the VA examiner has provided an inadequate rationale and remand is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all VA treatment medical records not already of record. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for service connection for left ear hearing loss. The examiner must review the claims file and should note that review in the report. All testing deemed necessary should be performed. A complete rationale for all opinions should be provided in the examination report. The examiner is asked to provide opinions regarding the nature and etiology of the claimed left ear hearing loss, to include a current diagnosis. The examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the left ear hearing loss was incurred in service or are the result of any incident in service. Additionally, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the disability is due to or the result of any service-connected disabilities or any medications taken for service-connected disabilities, to specifically include the service-connected right ear hearing loss. Further, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the disability has been aggravated (permanently worsened beyond the natural progress of the disorder) by service-connected disabilities or any medications taken for service-connected disabilities, to specifically include the service-connected right ear hearing loss. The examiner should reconcile his/her opinion with previous opinions and should discuss prior diagnoses and must explicitly discuss lay assertions from the Veteran. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any neck disability found. The examination should be conducted by a medical doctor who has not previously examined the Veteran in conjunction with this claim. The examiner must review the claims file and should note that review in the report. The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any neck disability is causally related to the Veteran's active-duty service. The examiner must reconcile the opinions with the evidence already of record and must show explicitly consideration of the Veteran's lay statements regarding symptoms. DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Ziheng Zhu, 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.