GREGORY LITVINCHYK, )
)
Claimant-Appellant, )
)
v. ) No. SD33231
)
DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT ) Filed: Nov. 25, 2014
SECURITY, )
)
Respondent-Respondent. )
)
and )
)
NORDYNE, INC., )
)
Employer. )
APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
(Before Rahmeyer, J., Lynch, J., and Burrell, J.)
APPEAL DISMISSED
PER CURIAM. Gregory Litvinchyk ("Claimant") appeals the decision of the Labor
and Industrial Relations Commission ("the Commission") that Claimant was disqualified
from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for misconduct connected
with his work. Due to serious briefing deficiencies that make it impossible for this court to
determine Claimant's factual and legal complaints, the motion to dismiss filed by
1
Respondent Division of Employment Security1 is well-taken, and we dismiss Claimant's
appeal.
Although we recognize the difficulties faced by non-lawyers who choose to represent
themselves on appeal, a pro se litigant is held to the same standards as attorneys, including
the duty to comply with the applicable Missouri Court Rules. Carlson v. Healthcare Servs.
Grp., 275 S.W.3d 382, 384 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009). "A deficient appellate brief that does not
comply with the briefing requirements of Rule 84.04[2] preserves nothing for appellate
review[,]" Ward v. United Eng'g Co., 249 S.W.3d 285, 287 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008), and
such deficiencies constitute grounds to dismiss the appeal. Nichols v. Div. of Emp. Sec.,
399 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013).
Claimant's Statement of Facts is not a "fair and concise statement of the facts
relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument" as required by Rule
84.04(c), and it contains no citations to the record. As a result, Claimant's Statement of
Facts fails to fulfill its "primary purpose" -- "to afford an immediate, accurate, complete and
unbiased understanding of the facts of the case." Nichols, 399 S.W.3d at 903 (internal
quotation and citation omitted).
Claimant's "Points Relied On" claims only that the Commission erred in reaching its
ultimate decision that Claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits; it fails to assert any
legal reason why the Commission committed reversible error in reaching that conclusion.
See Rule 84.04(d)(2)(A)-(C). Claimant does not appear to deny that he threatened his
supervisor, but he does deny that he did so willfully, claiming that his reaction was based on
the fact that he suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The Commission
1
The other respondent in the case, Nordyne, Inc., did not file a brief.
2
All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2014).
2
found that Claimant's actions amounted to willful misconduct due to Claimant's failure to
present any evidence supporting his claim that he suffered from PTSD.
To attempt to guess what Claimant's legal complaint might be -- and then form a
coherent legal argument in favor of such a proposition -- would place us in the
impermissible position of acting as his advocate. See Evers v. Sunset Village of Ozarks,
Inc., 415 S.W.3d 139, 140 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013).
Rule 84.04(d)(5) provides that immediately following the Points Relied On, the
appellant must include a list of cases, not to exceed four, and other authorities upon which
the party principally relies. Apart from a reference to Jarvis v. Potter, 500 F.3d 1113 (10th
Cir. 2007), a federal opinion addressing a summary judgment in favor of the postal service
in an employment discrimination and retaliation suit (the relevance of which Claimant does
not explain), Claimant's brief is devoid of any reference to legal authority that this court
might view as either controlling or persuasive.
Finally, the argument section of Claimant's brief violates Rule 84.04(e) by: failing
to follow his point relied on; omitting a concise statement of the applicable standard of
review for his alleged claim of error; failing to include any references to the relevant portion
of the record on appeal for factual assertions contained in his argument; and incorporating
copies of various articles from psychological and veterans affairs publications. Any attempt
by this court to comb the record for evidence that might support Claimant's factual
assertions would again place us in the forbidden position of acting as an advocate for
Claimant. Evers, 415 S.W.3d at 140.
We are a court of review. We may reverse, remand or set aside the
Commission's decision in an unemployment matter only where the
Commission acted without or in excess of its powers, the decision was
3
procured by fraud, the decision is not supported by the facts, or the decision
is not supported by "sufficient competent evidence in the record."
Id. at 141 (quoting section 288.210 RSMo 2000).
Claimant has not provided us with any citations to the evidence relevant to his
argument on appeal, and he has failed to indicate any legal rationale that would allow this
court to reverse the decision of the Commission. As a result, we cannot reach the merits of
his claim.
The appeal is dismissed.
4