EUGENE RACHINSKY, Claimant-Appellant v. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, Employer-Respondent, and MISSOURI DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1147
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Claimant Eugene Rachinsky (pro se) appealed two Labor and Industrial Relations Commission decisions adopting Appeals Tribunal rulings: (1) disqualification from unemployment benefits for voluntarily leaving U.S. Postal Service without good cause, and (2) determination of a $2,800 overpayment and $700 penalty for willful failure to report earnings/disclose facts.
- The Appeals Tribunal and Commission made factual and legal findings supporting disqualification and overpayment/penalty assessments.
- Rachinsky filed an initial brief that the court found to be procedurally deficient: extremely short, lacking record citations, failing to identify challenged agency actions, lacking legal reasons or authorities, and omitting the applicable standard of review.
- The court emphasized that pro se appellants must follow the same briefing rules as attorneys and cited multiple precedents enforcing Rule 84.04 compliance.
- Because the brief substantially failed to comply with Rule 84.04, the court concluded it could not perform meaningful appellate review without becoming an advocate for Claimant.
- The appeals were dismissed for inadequate briefing under Missouri appellate procedure rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant was properly disqualified from unemployment benefits for voluntarily leaving without good cause | Rachinsky’s brief did not present a coherent legal argument or cite statutes/record | Commission/U.S. Postal Service relied on Appeals Tribunal findings that Claimant voluntarily left without employer-attributable good cause | Dismissed for inadequate briefing; court did not reach merits |
| Whether Claimant was overpaid $2,800 and subject to a $700 penalty for willful nondisclosure/failure to report earnings | Claimant failed to identify or argue legal grounds in briefing | Commission found willful failure to report earnings and falsification, supporting overpayment and penalty | Dismissed for inadequate briefing; court did not reach merits |
| Whether pro se status excuses noncompliance with appellate briefing rules | Claimant implicitly argued on appeal (brief omitted procedural legal support) | Court and respondents argued pro se appellants must follow Rule 84.04 like attorneys | Court held pro se status does not excuse compliance; briefing standards apply equally |
| Whether inadequate briefing permits appellate review or requires dismissal | Claimant’s filings were deficient and lacked record/authority citations | Court held it cannot scour the record or craft arguments for appellant; Rule 84.13 bars unbriefed errors | Court dismissed appeals for substantial noncompliance with Rule 84.04 |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. City of St. Louis Civil Service Com'n, 216 S.W.3d 698 (Mo. App. 2007) (pro se appellants held to same briefing standards as attorneys)
- Kramer v. Park–Et Restaurant, Inc., 226 S.W.3d 867 (Mo. App. 2007) (court will not grant pro se preferential treatment on procedural compliance)
- McGill v. Boeing Co., 235 S.W.3d 575 (Mo. App. 2007) (Rule 84.04 briefing requirements are mandatory for all appellants)
- Waller v. A.C. Cleaners Management, Inc., 371 S.W.3d 6 (Mo. App. 2012) (insufficient briefing preserves nothing for appellate review)
- Parker v. Action Contracting Corp., 100 S.W.3d 168 (Mo. App. 2003) (unemployment appeals must reference statutory grounds for reversal)
- Covington v. Better Business Bureau, 253 S.W.3d 95 (Mo. App. 2008) (arguments failing to cite authority preserve nothing)
- Davis v. Coleman, 93 S.W.3d 742 (Mo. App. 2002) (court should not cure inadequate briefing by performing appellant’s research)
- Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. banc 1978) (appellate court not obligated to cure deficient briefing)