1

EUGENE RACHINSKY, ) 

 ) 

 Claimant-Appellant, ) 

 ) 

 vs. ) Nos. SD34431 & 34432 

 ) 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ) Filed: November 9, 2016 

 ) 

 Employer-Respondent, ) 

 ) 

and MISSOURI DIVISION OF ) 

EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, ) 

 ) 

 Respondent. ) 

 

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION 

APPEALS DISMISSED

 Eugene Rachinsky (“Claimant”), who is proceeding pro se, appeals two decisions 

of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the “Commission”). In these 

decisions, the Commission adopted decisions of the Appeals Tribunal that concluded (1) 

Claimant was disqualified for unemployment benefits because he voluntarily left 

employment with the United States Postal Service without good cause attributable to his 

work or to his employer, and (2) Claimant, because he willfully failed to report earnings 

and willfully failed to disclose or falsified disqualification facts, was overpaid $2,800 in 
2

unemployment benefits and should be assessed an overpayment penalty in the amount of 

$700. We dismiss Claimant’s appeals because Claimant’s initial brief substantially fails 

to comply with Rule 84.04, Missouri Court Rules (2016), and we are unable to provide 

any meaningful review of the Commission’s decisions without becoming an advocate for 

Claimant. 

 Claimant’s statement of facts in his initial brief consists of three sentences and 

does not contain any reference to the portion of the record that supports the facts stated as 

required by Rule 84.04(a)(3) and (c). 

 Claimant’s “points” relied on do not (1) identify any administrative ruling or 

action that Claimant is challenging, (2) state any legal reason for a challenge to an 

administrative ruling or action, or (3) explain why a legal reason supports a challenge of 

an administrative ruling or action as required by Rule 84.04(a)4) and (d)(2) and (5). 

 Claimant’s argument consists of six sentences, and does not contain any standard 

of review or references to the portion of the record that supports asserted facts as required 

by Rule 84.04(e). The argument also does not reference or discuss any legal authority. 

 [P]ro se appellants [are held] to the same standards as attorneys. Smith v. 

City of St. Louis Civil Service Com'n, 216 S.W.3d 698, 699 

(Mo.App.2007); Kramer v. Park–Et Restaurant, Inc., 226 S.W.3d 867, 

869 (Mo.App.2007); McGill v. Boeing Co., 235 S.W.3d 575, 577 

(Mo.App.2007). All appellants must comply with the Supreme Court 

Rules, including Rule 84.04, which governs the contents of appellate 

briefs. Smith, 216 S.W.3d at 699. We are mindful of the problems that a 

pro se litigant faces; however, judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and 

fairness to all parties necessitate that we do not grant a pro se appellant 

preferential treatment with regard to complying with the rules of appellate 

procedure. Kramer, 226 S.W.3d at 869: McGill, 235 S.W.3d at 577. A 

brief that substantially fails to comply with Rule 84.04 is inadequate to 

invoke the jurisdiction of this court and must be dismissed. Smith, 216 

S.W.3d at 699. Rule 84.13(a) provides that allegations of error not 

properly briefed “shall not be considered in any civil appeal.” 
3

Waller v. A.C. Cleaners Management, Inc., 371 S.W.3d 6, 9 (Mo.App. E.D. 2012) 

(quoting Covington v. Better Business Bureau, 253 S.W.3d 95, 97 (Mo.App. E.D. 

2008)). For a point relied on under Rule 84.04(d)(2): 

The “challenged ruling or action” refers to an action taken by the agency. 

The legal reason for the error must refer to the applicable statute 

authorizing review. In unemployment compensation cases, this means 

that the error must explicitly refer to one of the four statutory grounds for 

reversal set out in section 288.210 RSMo (2000).[] Parker v. Action 

Contracting Corp., 100 S.W.3d 168, 171 (Mo.App.2003). Finally, the 

point must “explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, 

those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.” Rule 

84.04(d)(2)(C). It should provide insight into the facts of the case that 

support a claim of an error in the administrative agency ruling or action. 

Henson v. Henson, 195 S.W.3d 479, 483 (Mo.App.2006). It must inform 

the court why the testimony or evidence supports a conclusion that the 

agency erred. Id. 

Id. at 10-11 (footnote omitted). A point relied on also must include a list of legal 

authorities on which a party principally relies. Rule 84.04(d)(5). “‘Insufficient points 

relied on preserve nothing for appellate review and constitute grounds for dismissal.’” 

Waller, 371 S.W.3d at 11 (quoting Parker v. Action Contracting Corporation, 100 

S.W.3d 168, 171 (Mo.App. W.D. 2003)). 

 Further, an argument under a point “preserves nothing for review” when it fails 

“to cite relevant authority supporting the point or to explain the failure to do so.” 

Covington, 253 S.W.3d at 97 (citation and quotation omitted). 

We should not be expected to decide this case on the basis of inadequate 

briefing or to undertake additional research and scour the record to cure 

such a deficiency. Davis [v. Coleman], 93 S.W.3d [742,] 743[ Mo.App. 

E.D. 2002], citing Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo. banc 

1978). Furthermore, we will not become an advocate for Claimant by 

speculating about the relevant facts and arguments he failed to make. 

Kramer, 226 S.W.3d at 870. While perfection is not required, compliance 

with the briefing requirements pursuant to Rule 84.04 is mandatory. Id. 

Here, the deficiencies of Claimant's amended briefs are so substantial, we 

could not conduct any meaningful review without taking an inappropriate 
4

position of ferreting out and reconstructing the facts of the case, 

speculating about the possible claims of error, and crafting an argument on 

Claimant's behalf. See Id. 

Waller, 371 S.W.3d at 11-12 (quoting McGill v. The Boeing Company, 235 S.W.3d 575, 

578 (Mo.App. E.D. 2007)). 

 Claimant’s appeals are dismissed. 

Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer, J. - Opinion Author 

Gary W. Lynch, P.J. - Concurs 

William W. Francis, Jr., J. - Concurs