Waller v. A.C. Cleaners Management, Inc.
371 S.W.3d 6
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Angela Waller, pro se claimant, appeals a Labor and Industrial Relations Commission decision affirming an Appeals Tribunal finding of disqualification from unemployment benefits for misconduct connected with work.
- Appeals Tribunal found Waller discharged for misconduct after using a cell phone while operating a high-temperature machine; employer policy against cell phone use was deemed reasonable and communicated to Waller.
- The Commission adopted the Appeals Tribunal’s findings; credibility favored employer’s witness amid conflicting evidence.
- Waller's amended brief failed to comply with Rule 84.04, prompting an order to amend and a warning that noncompliance would result in dismissal.
- The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to substantial Rule 84.04 noncompliance; a dissent argues merits should be reached on the record.
- The dissenting opinion contends the briefing deficiencies do not warrant dismissal and urges consideration of the merits, including whether there was competent evidence of willful misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended brief complied with Rule 84.04 | Waller complied adequately after amendment | Brief deficiencies remained; not jurisdictional | Dismissed for noncompliance with Rule 84.04 |
| Whether dismissal was proper given Rule 84.04 deficiencies | Discretion to dismiss should be exercised sparingly | Rule requires dismissal when briefing is deficient | Dismissal affirmed as the briefing defects were substantial |
| Whether the merits should be reviewed despite briefing defects | Merits should be reached; there was arguable error | Proper briefing required for review; appellate jurisdiction limited | Merits not reached; appeal dismissed on briefing grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. City of St. Louis Civil Service Com’n, 216 S.W.3d 698 (Mo.App.2007) (pro se briefing standards; Rule 84.04 compliance needed)
- Kramer v. Park-Et Restaurant, Inc., 226 S.W.3d 867 (Mo.App.2007) (no preferential treatment for pro se; strict briefing standards)
- McGill v. Boeing Co., 235 S.W.3d 575 (Mo.App. E.D.2007) (substantial briefing failures justify dismissal)