COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Petty, Chafin and Senior Judge Annunziata 

DAN PROCISE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1102-12-2 PER CURIAM 

 JANUARY 15, 2013 

SUITT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND 

 TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY 

 COMPANY OF AMERICA 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Dan Procise, pro se, on brief). 

 (Lisa Frisina Clement; PennStuart, on brief), for appellees. 

 Dan Procise appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that 

his claims for wage loss benefits and disfigurement were untimely and that the evidence for his 

claim for medical expenses was insufficient.1

 We have reviewed the record and the 

commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. 

 Appellant’s opening brief fails to comply with Rule 5A:20.2

 Appellant failed to include a 

table of contents and table of authorities as required by Rule 5A:20(a). Appellant failed to 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 On August 14, 2012, appellant filed a motion, asking this Court to “reverse the opinion 

of the Full Commission’s May 23, 2012 decision on grounds of procedural due process of law an 

[sic] denial of an [sic] consealment [sic] of SUBPOENAD [sic] medical reports through the 

Commission to support claim in Dec. 20, 2012 hearing.” Upon consideration thereof, the motion 

is denied. 

2

 On October 5, 2012, the clerk’s office of this Court notified appellant that his opening 

brief was not in compliance with the Rules of Court. Appellant was directed to file a 

replacement brief within ten days. On November 1, 2012, the Court entered an order stating that 

appellant had not filed a replacement brief and ordered him to file a replacement brief in 

UNPUBLISHED 
- 2 - 

include any assignments of error as required by Rule 5A:20(c). Appellant failed to include the 

standard of review and argument with citations to legal authorities as required by Rule 5A:20(e). 

Appellant failed to include in his certificate whether he waived oral argument, nor did he include 

the number of words contained in the document. Rule 5A:20(h). 

 Appellant has the burden of showing that reversible error was committed. See Lutes v. 

Alexander, 14 Va. App. 1075, 1077, 421 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1992). Unsupported assertions of 

error “do not merit appellate consideration.” Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 

S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). Furthermore this Court “will not search the record for errors in order to 

interpret the appellant’s contention and correct deficiencies in a brief.” Id. Nor is it this Court’s 

“function to comb through the record . . . in order to ferret-out for ourselves the validity of 

[appellant’s] claims.” Fitzgerald v. Bass, 6 Va. App. 38, 56 n.7, 366 S.E.2d 615, 625 n.7 (1988) 

(en banc). A pro se litigant appearing “is no less bound by the rules of procedure and 

substantive law than a defendant represented by counsel.” Townes v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 

307, 319, 362 S.E.2d 650, 657 (1987); see also Francis v. Francis, 30 Va. App. 584, 591, 518 

S.E.2d 842, 846 (1999) (“Even pro se litigants must comply with the rules of court.”). 

 We find that appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 5A:20 is significant, so we will not 

consider appellant’s arguments. Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d 311, 317 

(2008). 

 Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. 

Rule 5A:27. See Procise v. Suitt Constr. Co., VWC File No. 185-26-26 (May 23, 2012). 

 Affirmed. 

 

compliance with the Rules within ten days. Appellant failed to do so. Therefore, we consider 

the opening brief filed by appellant on August 28, 2012.