Tomlinson v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (dep't Of Transp.), 1453 C.D. 2010

• Decision Date: 30 December 2010
• Docket Number: No. 1453 C.D. 2010,1453 C.D. 2010
• Parties: Beth A. Tomlinson, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Department of Transportation), Respondent
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Beth A. Tomlinson, Petitioner

v.Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Department of Transportation), Respondent

No. 1453 C.D. 2010

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Submitted: November 5, 2010

FILED: December 30, 2010

BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge

HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN

Beth A. Tomlinson (Claimant) petitions for review, pro se, of the May 24, 2010, order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, which affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of a workers' compensation judge to deny Claimant's reinstatement and review petitions. Because Claimant's brief fails to substantially conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, we quash her petition.

Rule 2116(a) requires that an appellant include in her brief a statement of questions involved setting forth "concisely the issues to be resolved, expressed in the terms and circumstances of the case but without unnecessary detail." Pa. R.A.P. 2116(a). Rule 2116(a) also provides that "[n]o question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby." Id.

Here, although Claimant's brief includes a section labeled "Statement of Questions Involved," the Statement itself posits no legal questions or issues for our review.¹

Moreover, neither the Summary of Argument section nor the Argument section includes properly developed legal arguments. In fact, Claimant's thirteen-page "Argument" section is little more than a rambling narrative. The Argument also contains no citations to case law, statutes, or relevant legal authority in violation of Rule 2119(a) and (b). These deficiencies are fatal to Claimant's petition.

Rule 2101 states:

Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.

Pa. R.A.P. 2101 (emphasis added); see Means v. Housing Authority, 747 A.2d 1286, 1289 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (quashing pro se appeal due to appellant's substantial noncompliance with appellate rules); Dalesandro v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review., 625 A.2d 1291, 1291-92 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (declining to consider merits of appeal where issues were not properly raised or developed in appellate brief); Lucarelli v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Emerson Electric), 546 A.2d 151, 152 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (quashing claimant's appeal due to substantial defects in brief, which impaired this court's ability to conduct meaningful appellate review).

We reiterate the oft-stated principle that a "lay person who chooses to represent himself in a legal proceeding must assume the risk that his lack of expertise and legal training may prove to be his undoing." Daly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 631 A.2d 720, 722 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). While we are generally inclined to construe pro se filings liberally, see Means, 747 A.2d at 1289, Claimant's substantial non-compliance with the Pennsylvania Rules of...