Bernard SCOTT, Appellant, v. POTTER ELECTRIC SIGNAL COMPANY and Division of Employment Security, Respondents

Missouri Court of Appeals2010-05-18No. No. ED 93554

310 S.W.3d 311

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court dismissed Scott's appeal because his brief failed to comply substantially with appellate briefing rules, thereby preserving no claims for appellate review. Although self-represented litigants are held to the same procedural standards as attorneys, the deficiencies in this brief were so extensive that the court could not proceed to review the underlying merits of the employment compensation claim.

Bernard Scott appealed a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission that upheld a denial of employment compensation benefits. Scott, representing himself without an attorney, filed an appellate brief that failed to meet the mandatory formatting and content requirements established by appellate procedural rules. The court found that his brief was deficient in nearly every structural requirement, including lacking a proper statement of facts with record citations, failing to identify specific points of error with legal justification, omitting an arguments section, providing no legal authorities or standard of review, and missing required components such as an appendix and table of authorities.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a self-represented litigant's appeal can proceed when the brief fails to comply with mandatory appellate procedure rules
What procedural requirements must be satisfied for an appellate brief to preserve claims for review
Whether courts should dismiss appeals for procedural defects or exercise discretion to reach the merits

Procedural posture

Scott appealed from a Labor and Industrial Relations Commission order affirming the Division of Employment Security Appeals Tribunal's denial of benefits, and the respondents moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with briefing rules.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

NANNETTE A. BAKER, Judge.

Introduction

Bernard Scott (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from an order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which affirmed a decision of the Division of Employment Security Appeals Tribunal denying employment compensation benefits. Appellant’s brief fails to comply with the rules of appellate procedure so substantially that we cannot review this appeal, and therefore it is dismissed.

Discussion

Pro se. appellants are held to the same standards as attorneys regarding the mandatory appellate briefing rules of Rule 84.04. See Pointer v. State, Dept. of Social Servs., 258 S.W.3d 453, 454 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). “Judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties preclude courts from granting pro se litigants preferential treatment.” Pruett v. Pruett, 280 S.W.3d 749, 751 (Mo.App. S.D.2009). While we prefer to dispose of a case on the merits whenever possible, if the deficiencies in the brief are such that no claims are preserved for appellate review, then we must dismiss the appeal. Schaefer v. Altman, 250 S.W.3d 381, 384 (Mo.App. E.D.2008).

Here, Appellant failed to comply with Rule 84.04 in almost every respect. First, Appellant’s statement of facts does not contain a “fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument.” Rule 84.04(c). Further, Appellant fails to support any of his factual statements with citations to the legal file or transcript. Rule 84.04(i); Lueker v. Missouri W. State Univ., 241 S.W.3d 865, 868 (Mo.App. W.D.2008) (record citations in appellate briefs are “mandatory and essential for the effective functioning of appellate courts because courts cannot spend time searching the record to determine if factual assertions in the brief are supported by the record”).

Second, Appellant does not comply with Rule 84.04(d)(2), which requires each point relied on to identify the administrative ruling or action challenged, to provide a concise statement of the legal reasons for the claim on appeal, and explain why the legal reasons support the claim of error. In fact, Appellant does not have a point relied on in his brief.

Third, Appellant fails to comply with Rule 84.04(e) in that he has no argument portion of his brief, and preserves nothing for review. Appellant’s argument should demonstrate how principles of law and the facts of the case interact. Carden v. Missouri Intergovernmental Risk Mgmt. Ass’n, 258 S.W.3d 547, 557 (Mo.App. S.D.2008). Here, it appears that Appellant has incorporated an argument into his statement of facts.

Fourth, Appellant’s brief violates Rule 84.04(e), because it fails to set forth the applicable standard of review for agency decisions, presents no legal arguments for reversal, and contains no citations to legal authorities. Rule 84.04(e). Also, Rule 84.04(h)(1) provides that a party’s brief shall contain an appendix containing the “judgment, order, or decision in question.” Rule 84.04(h)(1). There is no appendix in Appellant’s brief containing the judgment from which he appeals.

Further, Appellant’s brief contains no table of cases, statutes or other authorities cited in violation of Rule 84.04(a)(1). And finally, Appellant’s brief does not contain a proper jurisdictional statement as required by Rule 84.04(b).

Conclusion

Appellant’s brief so substantially fails to comply with the briefing requirements of Rule 84.04 that it preserves nothing for appellate review. Thornton v. City of Kirkwoood, 161 S.W.3d 916, 919 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). The appeal is dismissed.

KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., and CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., concur.

. Since we are granting Respondents motion to dismiss the appeal, we need not address Respondents Motion to Strike Appellant’s Brief.

. All rule references are to Mo. Rules Civ. P.2000, unless otherwise indicated.