Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): law) analysis on a pre-2005 (old law) case.” Appellants argue the Commission erred in that “[n]o mention was made in the award of the differing standards that were created by that major law change” and the “findings made by the Commission should show whether the basis of its decision was an issue of fact or a question of law” “in the light most favorable to [Employee].” Having reviewed the Commission’s lengthy award, we must disagree with Appellants. In our review we first note that Appellants urge error in the fact that the Commission did not mention “the differing standards that were created by th[e] major [2005] law change.” However, Appellants cite this Court to no authority for such a requirement. See Richmond v. Springfield Rehab & Healthcare, 138 S.W.3d 151, 154 (Mo.App.2004) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, in our review of the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an argument that fails to cite to supporting authority in support of claim presents nothing for review (B) holding that an issue is waived when a party fails to provide adequate citation to authority (C) holding that an appellant waived a claim where he failed to cite any legal authority in support of an argument in his appellate brief (D) holding waiver results if an appellant fails to properly develop an issue or cite to legal authority to support his contention in his appellate brief (E) holding that an appellate brief is deficient per the missouri rules of court where it fails to cite authority for an argument or fails to specify why such a citation is unavailable
Output (English): holding that an argument that fails to cite to supporting authority in support of claim presents nothing for review