Richardson v. Meritorious Care, Inc.

• Decision Date: 23 March 2010
• Docket Number: No. ED 93588.,ED 93588.
• Parties: Tara RICHARDSON, Claimant/Appellant, v. MERITORIOUS CARE, INC., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

307 S.W.3d 684

Tara RICHARDSON, Claimant/Appellant,
v.
MERITORIOUS CARE, INC., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.

No. ED 93588.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

March 23, 2010.

Tara Richardson St. Louis, MO, pro se.

Meritorious Care, Inc. St. Louis, MO, pro se.

Shelley A. Kintzel, Jefferson City, MO, for Div. of Employment Security.

GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., Judge.

Tara Richardson (Claimant) appeals pro se from a final order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which affirmed a decision of the Division of Employment Security Appeals Tribunal denying employment compensation benefits. Claimant's brief fails to comply with the rules of appellate procedure so substantially that we cannot review this appeal, and we therefore dismiss it.

This court recently dismissed a procedurally similar case after determining the pro se appellate brief so substantially failed to conform to Rule 84.04¹ that it preserved no allegations of error for appellate review. Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Assocs., 300 S.W.3d 580 (Mo.App. E.D. 2009). We apply the same analysis here.

Pro se appellants are held to the same standards as attorneys regarding Rule 84.04's mandatory appellate briefing rules. See Pointer v. State, Dept. of Social Servs., 258 S.W.3d 453, 454 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (per curiam). 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. Compare Johnson, 300 S.W.3d at 581-82, and Schaefer v. Altman, 250 S.W.3d 381, 384

307 SW 3d 685

(Mo.App. E.D.2008), with Gray v. White, 26 S.W.3d 806, 816 (Mo.App. E.D.1999).

Here, Claimant failed to comply with Rule 84.04 in several respects. First, Claimant'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). Rather, Claimant's statement is argumentative, incomplete, and references matters outside the record on appeal. See Johnson, 300 S.W.3d at 581-82 (dismissing appeal when, inter alia, statement of facts violated Rule 84.04(c) in that it was argumentative, incomplete, and referenced matters outside record); Perkel v. Stringfellow, 19 S.W.3d 141, 146 (Mo. App. S.D.2000) (statement of facts should afford appellate court "accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case"). Further, Claimant fails to...