COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Petty, Chaf in and Senior Judge Annunziata

DAN PROCISE MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1102-12-2 PER CURIAM JANUARY 15, 2013 SUITT CONSTRUCTI ON COMPANY AND TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Dan Procise, pro se , on brief). (Lisa Frisina Clement; PennSt uart, on brief), for appellees.

Dan Procise appeals a decision of the Wo rkers’ Compensation Co mmission finding that his claims for wage loss benefits and disfigurement were untimel y 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 opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 On August 14, 2012, appellant filed a motion, as king this Court to “r everse the opinion of the Full Commission’s May 23, 2012 decision on gr ounds of procedural due process of law an [sic] denial of an [sic] cons ealment [sic] of SUBPOENAD [sic ] medical reports through the Commission to support claim in Dec. 20, 2012 heari ng.” Upon consideration thereof, the motion is denied.

2 On October 5, 2012, the clerk’s office of this Court notified appell ant 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 repla cement brief and ordered him to file a replacement brief inUNPUBLISHED- 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 authoritie s as required by Rule 5A:20(e). Appellant failed to include in his certificate whethe r 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 no t search the record for errors in order to interpret the appellant’s contention and correct deficiencies in a brie f.” Id. Nor is it this Court’s “function to comb through the record . . . in or der to ferret-out for ourselves the validity of [appellant’s] claims.” Fitzgerald v. Ba ss, 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 represente d 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 w ith 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 st ated 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. Appe llant failed to do so. Th erefore, we consider the opening brief filed by appellant on August 28, 2012.