Citation Nr: 21007360 Decision Date: 02/09/21 Archive Date: 02/09/21 DOCKET NO. 16-19 036A DATE: February 9, 2021 ORDER From December 27, 2012, a higher initial disability rating of greater than 10 percent disabling for right knee effusion with degenerative joint disease is denied. From May 20, 2013, a higher initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for a right (dominant) thumb, index finger, and long finger disability is denied. From May 20, 2013, a compensable initial disability rating for a right (dominant) little finger disability is denied. From May 20, 2013, a compensable initial disability rating for a right (dominant) ring finger disability is denied. REMAND From May 20, 2013, a higher initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for right (dominant) wrist tendonitis is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. From December 27, 2012, the symptomatology and functional impairment of the service-connected right knee effusion with degenerative joint disease (right knee disability) manifested as painful, noncompensable limitation of flexion. 2. From December 27, 2012, with consideration of limitations due to pain and during flare-ups, the right knee disability has not manifested as compensable limitation of extension, ankylosis, removal or dislocation of the semilunar cartilage with frequent episodes of pain, “locking,” and effusion, nonunion or malunion of the tibia and fibula, or genu recurvatum. 3. From May 20, 2013, the service-connected right (dominant) thumb, index finger, and long finger disability (previously rated as right hand’s blunt trauma with residuals) did not more nearly approximate a gap of more than two inches between the thumb pad and the fingers, with the thumb attempting to oppose the fingers, and did not have amputation or favorable or unfavorable ankylosis. 4. From May 20, 2013, the service-connected right (dominant) little finger disability (previously rated as right hand’s blunt trauma with residuals) did not have amputation or favorable or unfavorable ankylosis. 5. From May 20, 2013, the service-connected right (dominant) ring finger disability (previously rated as right hand’s blunt trauma with residuals) did not have amputation or favorable or unfavorable ankylosis. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. For the initial rating period from December 27, 2012, the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for a right knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.21, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5003. 2. For the initial rating period from May 20, 2013, the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for a right (dominant) thumb, index finger, and long finger disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.14, 4.21, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5229. 3. For the initial rating period from May 20, 2013, the criteria for a compensable disability rating for a right (dominant) little finger disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.14, 4.21, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5230. 4. For the initial rating period from May 20, 2013, the criteria for a compensable disability rating for a right (dominant) ring finger disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.14, 4.21, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5230. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran, who is the appellant, had active duty service from June 1978 to January 1984. The instant case is on appeal from multiple Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) rating decisions. A March 2013 rating decision granted service connection for a right knee disability and assigned a 10 percent rating effective December 27, 2012. A June 2014 rating decision granted service connection for right hand’s blunt trauma with residual with an evaluation of 0 percent effective May 20, 2013. The Veteran appealed both initial ratings. While the appeal was pending, the RO recharacterized the right hand disability as 1) limitation of motion of the thumb, index finger, and long finger; 2) limitation of motion of the little finger; 3) limitation of motion of the ring finger; and 4) tendonitis in the wrist. See April 2016 rating decision. The instant case has been before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) previously, with the right knee disability and right finger disabilities being remanded for updated examinations that would be compliant with Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). Those examinations have occurred. Accordingly, the terms of the remand have been complied with and the case can be decided on the merits as to those issues. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The appeal for an initial disability rating for right wrist tendonitis requires additional development, which is covered in the REMAND section. The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and implementing regulations impose obligations on VA to provide claimants with notice and assistance. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156, 3.159, 3.326. The Board finds that the duties to notify and assist have been met. Disability Ratings Legal Criteria Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) found in 38 C.F.R. Part 4. 38 U.S.C. § 1155. It is not expected that all cases will show all the findings specified; however, findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the disability therefrom and coordination of rating with impairment of function will be expected in all instances. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21. Where there is a question as to which of two disability ratings shall be applied, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. It is the defined and consistently applied policy of VA to administer the law under a broad interpretation, consistent, however, with the facts shown in every case. 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. In an appeal for a higher initial rating after a grant of service connection, all evidence submitted in support of a veteran’s claim is to be considered. Separate ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts found, a practice known as “staged” ratings. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2; Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 125-26 (1999). In general, all disabilities, including those arising from a single disease entity, are rated separately, and all disability ratings are then combined in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.25. Pyramiding, the rating of the same disability, or the same manifestation of a disability, under different diagnostic codes, is to be avoided when rating a veteran’s service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14. It is possible for a veteran to have separate and distinct manifestations from the same injury which would permit rating under several diagnostic codes; however, the critical element in permitting the assignment of several ratings under various diagnostic codes is that none of the symptomatology for any one of the conditions is duplicative or overlapping with the symptomatology of the other condition. Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-62 (1994); Lyles v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 107 (2017) (holding that 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 prohibits compensating a veteran twice for the same symptoms or functional impairment). When rating disabilities of the musculoskeletal system, 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 allows for consideration of functional loss due to pain and weakness causing additional disability beyond that reflected on range of motion measurements. DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995). Further, 38 C.F.R. § 4.45 provides that consideration also be given to decreased movement, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, and pain on movement, swelling, and deformity or atrophy of disuse. Painful motion is considered limited motion at the point that pain actually sets in. See VAOPGCPREC 9-98. With any form of arthritis, painful motion is an important factor of disability, the facial expression, wincing, etc., on pressure or manipulation, should be carefully noted and definitely related to affected joints. Muscle spasm will greatly assist the identification. Sciatic neuritis is not uncommonly caused by arthritis of the spine. The intent of the schedule is to recognize painful motion with joint or periarticular pathology as productive of disability. It is the intention to recognize actually painful, unstable, or malaligned joints, due to healed injury, as entitled to at least the minimum compensable rating for the joint. Crepitation either in the soft tissues such as the tendons or ligaments, or crepitation within the joint structures should be noted carefully as points of contact which are diseased. Flexion elicits such manifestations. The joints involved should be tested for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing and, if possible, with the range of the opposite undamaged joint. 38 C.F.R. § 4.59. 1. Rating the Right Knee Disability The most appropriate diagnostic codes for rating limitation of motion of the knee are Diagnostic Codes 5260 and 5261. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. Normal range of motion of the knee is from 0 degrees of extension to 140 degrees of flexion. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, Plate II. In VAOPGCPREC 9-2004, the VA General Counsel interpreted that, when considering Diagnostic Codes 5260 and 5261 together with 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, a veteran may receive a rating for limitation in flexion only, limitation of extension only, or, if the 10 percent criteria are met for both limitations of flexion and extension, separate ratings for limitations in both flexion and extension under Diagnostic Code 5260 (leg, limitation of flexion) and Diagnostic Code 5261 (leg, limitation of extension). Under Diagnostic Code 5260, limitation of knee flexion is rated 30 percent disabling where flexion is limited to 15 degrees; 20 percent disabling where flexion is limited to 30 degrees; 10 percent disabling where flexion is limited to 45 degrees; and noncompensable where flexion is limited to 60 degrees. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. Under Diagnostic Code 5261, limitation of knee extension is rated 50 percent disabling where extension is limited to 45 degrees; 40 percent disabling where extension is limited to 30 degrees; 30 percent disabling where extension is limited to 20 degrees; 20 percent disabling where extension is limited to 15 degrees; 10 percent disabling where extension is limited to 10 degrees; and noncompensable where extension is limited to 5 degrees. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. Under Diagnostic Code 5256, ankylosis of the knee that is in the favorable angle in full extension, or is in slight flexion between 0 degrees and 10 degrees, warrants a 30 percent disability rating. Ankylosis of the knee in flexion between 10 degrees and 20 degrees warrants a 40 percent disability rating. Ankylosis of the knee in flexion between 20 degrees and 45 degrees warrants a 50 percent disability rating. Extremely unfavorable ankylosis of the knee, in flexion at an angle of 45 degrees or more, warrants a 60 percent rating. A 60 percent rating is the maximum schedular disability rating available under Diagnostic Code 5256. Id. Ankylosis is the immobility and consolidation of a joint. Lewis v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 259 (1992). Diagnostic Code 5258 provides a 20 percent disability rating when a dislocated semilunar cartilage is present with frequent episodes of “locking,” pain, and effusion into the joint. Diagnostic Code 5259 provides for a 10 percent disability rating when semilunar cartilage has been removed and related symptoms are present. A 10 percent disability rating is assigned under Diagnostic Code 5263 when genu recurvatum is identified. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. Diagnostic Code 5003 provides that degenerative arthritis established by x-ray findings is to be evaluated on the basis of limitation of motion under the appropriate diagnostic code for the specific joint or joints involved. When, however, the limitation of motion of the specific joint or joints involved is noncompensable under the appropriate diagnostic code, 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 10 percent rating is assignable for x-ray evidence of involvement of arthritis of two or more major joints or two or more minor joint groups. A 20 percent evaluation is assignable for x-ray evidence of involvement of arthritis of two or more major joints or two or more minor joint groups, with occasional incapacitating episodes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. The service-connected right knee disability degenerative joint disease (DJD) was initially rated 10 percent from December 27, 2012. The Veteran appeals for a higher rating. After a review of all the evidence, lay and medical, the Board finds that, for the rating period on appeal from December 27, 2012, the symptomatology and functional impairment of the service-connected right knee disability manifested as painful, noncompensable limitation of flexion to warrant not higher than a 10 percent rating. The VA examinations as discussed below show noncompensable limitation of flexion due to arthritis. As the knee is a major joint with evidence of painful motion, the proper rating for painful, noncompensable limitation of motion of the knee due to arthritis is 10 percent pursuant to Diagnostic Code 5003. A February 2013 VA examination report measured right knee flexion ending at 120 degrees (normal is 140 degrees) and no limitation of extension (full extension to 0 degrees). Post-test flexion measured at 115 degrees. There was no functional loss or functional impairment after repetitive use testing. There was evidence of less movement than normal, swelling, and deformity. There was no joint instability or evidence or history of recurrent patellar subluxation/dislocation. An x-ray showed arthritis documented in the right knee. These findings are consistent with the 10 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 5003 for noncompensable limitation of flexion due to arthritis (with flexion becoming compensable at 45 degrees). In March 2016, the Veteran participated in another VA examination. The Veteran reported right knee flare-ups that were weekly, lasting hours. There was abnormal motion of 115 degrees flexion of the right knee, with extension to 0 degrees in the right knee. There was pain noted on flexion and evidence of pain with weightbearing, and peripatellar tenderness with palpation. There was no loss after three repetitions. The examination was not taking place during a flare-up and the VA examiner concluded that an examination would have to take place during a flare-up to give loss of motion in terms of measurement (Sharp violation as reported above). There was no atrophy, no ankylosis, no history of recurrent subluxation, no history of lateral instability, no history of recurrent effusion, and no indications of joint instability. These findings are consistent with the 10 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 5003 for noncompensable limitation of flexion due to arthritis. A June 2016 VA examination measured right knee flexion ending at 105 degrees with extension being normal (0 degrees). Pain was noted on the examination, but it did not contribute to functional loss, and there was right peripatellar pain on palpation. There was no additional functional loss of range of motion after repetitive use testing. The examination was neither medically consistent nor inconsistent with the Veteran’s statements concerning repetitive use over time. The examiner stated that they were unable to say without mere speculation if pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination would significantly limit functional ability with repeated use over a period of time or during flare-ups. The VA examiner stated that the measurements would have to be taken during repetitive use or a flare-up (Sharp issue described above). There was no atrophy, no ankylosis, no history of recurrent subluxation, no history of lateral instability, no history of recurrent effusion, and no issues with joint instability. These findings are consistent with the 10 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 5003 for noncompensable limitation of flexion due to arthritis. In May 2019, the Veteran participated in another VA examination, reporting weekly flare-ups that lasted hours and that caused the loss of ambulation and standing tolerance. The range of motion for flexion was abnormal at 90 degrees, while extension was normal at 0 degrees. There was pain noted on the examination that caused functional loss, and evidence of pain with weightbearing and with peripatellar touch. Repetitive use testing did not cause additional functional loss or range of motion loss. The examination was medically consistent with the Veteran’s statements describing functional loss with repetitive use over time. Although not being conducted during a flare-up, the examination is medically consistent with the statements describing functional loss during flare-ups. The examiner assessed that the pain limited functional ability and range of motion to 80 degrees flexion and 0 degrees (full) extension. There was no atrophy, no ankylosis, no history of recurrent subluxation or lateral instability. In the May 2019 VA examination, there was reportedly recurrent effusion in the right knee when negotiating stairways. This is the only examination that finds effusion. The Board finds persuasive the fact that the VA examination that provided the initial diagnosis of right knee effusion with degenerative joint disease did not find recurrent effusion present at the time of the examination. The consistent finding across the multiple examinations, and that which the Board finds most persuasive and supported by the weight of the evidence, is noncompensable limitation of flexion due to arthritis. This May 2019 examination includes opinions related to flare-ups, which had previously not been addressed in detail, and finds a reduced range of motion measurement related to flexion for flare-ups. Even with the additional reductions of right knee motion due to flareups, however, the limitation of flexion is still noncompensable, so does not warrant separate compensable ratings based on limitations of flexion (Diagnostic Code 5260) or limitation of extension (Diagnostic Code 5261). In the most recent October 2019 VA examination, the Veteran reported that since the May 2019 examination he had experienced right knee pain that worsens with prolonged ambulation, standing, and going up the stairs, and reported three episodes per week of flare-ups that last about 10 minutes. Functional impairment was poor tolerance in prolonged ambulation activities. Right knee flexion was abnormal to 110 degrees, with extension normal. Pain was noted on examination but did not cause functional loss. There was evidence of pain with weightbearing and objective evidence of peripatellar tenderness. The Veteran was able to perform repetitive use testing without additional functional or range of motion loss. Pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination did not significantly limit functional ability with repeated use over a period of time. While it was not being conducted during a flare-up, range of motion for a flare-up was 80 degrees flexion to 0 degrees extension. There was no ankylosis, no history of recurrent subluxation or lateral instability, no history of recurrent effusion, and no issues with joint instability. Even considering the reduction in flexion upon flare-ups, the limitation of flexion is still noncompensable. Throughout the examinations, the finding is consistent. The functional impairment and symptomatology most accurately resemble noncompensable limitation of flexion due to arthritis, which receives a 10 percent disability rating under Diagnostic Code 5003. Accordingly, the appeal for a higher initial rating must be denied. 2. Rating the Thumb, Index Finger, and Long Finger Disability 3. Rating the Little Finger 4. Rating the Ring Finger The fingers are rated from Diagnostic Codes 5216 through 5230. Diagnostic Codes 5216 to 5219 cover unfavorable ankylosis of multiple digits. Diagnostic Codes 5220 through 5223 cover favorable ankylosis of multiple digits. Diagnostic Codes 5224 to 5227 cover ankylosis (favorable or unfavorable) of individual digits. Some of the Diagnostic Codes also suggest that the examiner should consider whether a rating by analogy to amputation is more appropriate given the symptomatology. As none of the examinations that apply in this Veteran’s case find ankylosis, these Diagnostic Code provisions will not be stated in further detail here. The final category for rating fingers is by limitation of motion. There are ratings for the major (dominant) and minor (non-dominant) fingers. Under Diagnostic Code 5228, for limitation of motion of the thumb, a 20 percent rating is given for the major or minor joint if there is a gap of more than two inches (5.1 cm.) between the thumb pad and the fingers, with the thumb attempting to oppose the fingers. There is a 10 percent rating for a major or minor joint if there is a gap of one to two inches (2.5 to 5.1 cm.) between the thumb pad and the fingers, with the thumb attempting to oppose the fingers. There is a 0 percent (noncompensable) rating for major or minor joint if there is a gap of less than one inch (2.5 cm.) between the thumb pad and the fingers, with the thumb attempting to oppose the fingers. Under Diagnostic Code 5229, for limitation of motion of the index or long finger, a 10 percent rating for major or minor joint is given if there is a gap of one inch (2.5 cm.) or more between the fingertip and the proximal transverse crease of the palm, with the finger flexed to the extent possible, or; with extension limited by more than 30 degrees. A 0 percent (noncompensable) rating if there is a gap of less than one inch (2.5 cm.) between the fingertip and the proximal transverse crease of the palm, with the finger flexed to the extent possible, and; extension is limited by no more than 30 degrees. Under Diagnostic Code 5230, any limitation of motion of the major or minor joint of the ring or little finger is a 0 percent (noncompensable) rating. Note (1) provides that for the index, long, ring, and little fingers (digits II, III, IV, and V), zero degrees of flexion represents the fingers fully extended, making a straight line with the rest of the hand. The position of function of the hand is with the wrist dorsiflexed to 20 to 30 degrees, the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joins flexed to 30 degrees, and the thumb (digit I) abducted and rotated so that the thumb pad faces the finger pads. Only joints in these positions are considered to be in favorable position. For digits II through V, the metacarpophalangeal joint has a range of 0 to 90 degrees of flexion, the proximal interphalangeal joint has a range of 0 to 100 degrees of flexion, and the distal (terminal) interphalangeal joint has a range of 0 to 70 or 80 degrees of flexion. Note (2) provides that when two or more digits of the same hand are affected by any combination of amputation, ankylosis, or limitation of motion that is not otherwise specified in the rating schedule, the evaluation level assigned will be that which best represents the overall disability (i.e., amputation, favorable or unfavorable ankylosis, or limitation of motion), assigning the higher level of evaluation when the level of disability is equally balanced between one level and the next higher level. Note (5) provides that if there is limitation of motion of two or more digits, evaluate each digit separately and combine the evaluations. From May 20, 2013, a 10 percent disability rating was assigned for the thumb, index finger, and long finger (combined), a 0 percent (noncompensable) disability rating for the little finger, and a 0 percent (noncompensable) disability rating for the ring finger. After a review of the evidence, lay and medical, the Board finds that higher ratings are not warranted for any period. A higher 20 percent rating would require evidence of ankylosis, evidence of a gap between the thumb pad and the fingers of more than two inches, or evidence of multiple fingers meeting the limitation of motion requirements (for combination pursuant to notes 2 or 5), none of which is shown. In a June 2014 VA examination, the condition was diagnosed as blunt trauma with residual tendonitis. The Veteran reported pain and loss of strength due to pain. The Veteran reported painful flare-ups that were aggravated by repetitive use. The range of motion testing for all joints of all fingers was normal, including after three repetitions. There was no gap between the thumb pad and the fingers post-test and no gap between any fingertips and the proximal transverse crease of the palm in attempting to touch the palm with the fingertips post-test. There was no limitation of extension for the index finger or long finger. Functional loss and impairment included weakened movement, pain on movement, and swelling by all fingers on the right hand. There was no ankylosis. The statement related to flare-ups was that pain could significantly limit functional ability during flare-ups or when the joint is used over a period of time, but it would be speculative to express in terms of range of motion. In March 2016, the Veteran participated in a new VA examination. The Veteran reported flare-ups of hand, finger, or thumb joints that are weekly and last hours. The range of motion was normal for all joints in all fingers, including after three repetitions. There was no gap between the thumb pad and the fingers and no gap between any finger and the proximal transverse crease of the hand on maximal finger flexion. Pain was noted on finger extension and finger flexion. The statements related to flare-ups was that pain could significantly limit functional ability during flare-ups or when the joint is used over a period of time, but it would be speculative to express in terms of range of motion because there was no active flare-up during the examination. There was no evidence of ankylosis. In June 2016, the Veteran participated in an updated VA examination. The Veteran reported flare-ups that were weekly, lasting for hours, with functional loss of strength. The range of motion was normal for all joints in all fingers, including after three repetitions. There was no gap between the thumb pad and the fingers and no gap between any finger and the proximal transverse crease of the hand on maximal finger flexion. There was pain on finger flexion and finger extension, but it does not cause functional loss. The VA examiner had similar issues with expressing flare-ups in range of motion when the examination was not being conducted during a flare-up. There was no evidence of ankylosis. In October 2019, the Veteran participate in an updated VA examination. The Veteran disclosed that he has continued right hand pain associated with prolonged grabbing objects. He denied episodes of flare-ups and did not report functional loss or functional impairment. All range of motion measurements for all joints in all fingers were normal, including after three repetitions. There was no evidence of ankylosis and no evidence of pain when the joints were used in non-weightbearing. After a review of the evidence, lay and medical, the Board finds that a higher rating than those currently given is not warranted. A higher 20 percent rating would require evidence of ankylosis, a gap between the thumb pad and the fingers of more than two inches, or multiple fingers meeting the limitation of motion requirements (for combination pursuant to notes 2 or 5), none of which is shown by the evidence as demonstrated by the examinations. Accordingly, the appeals for higher ratings for the finger disabilities are denied. REASONS FOR REMAND 5. Initial Rating for Tendonitis of the Right Wrist As noted above, when the RO recharacterized what was initially rated as right hand’s blunt trauma with residual in April 2016, one of the separate ratings was for tendonitis in the wrist. The April 2016 rating decision assigned a 10 percent rating for the tendonitis in the wrist. It appears that the Veteran successfully perfected an appeal of this initial rating decision. To be able to evaluate the initial rating of the service-connected tendonitis in the wrist, a new VA examination would be helpful. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Schedule a VA examination to assist in measuring the severity and functional limitations of the tendonitis in the right wrist. All indicated tests and studies should be conducted. (Continued on the next page)   2. Readjudicate the issue of a higher initial rating for right wrist tendonitis. J. PARKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Smith, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.