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 I NDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

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

of the Labor and Industrial Relations Co mmission (the “Commission”). In these decisions, the Commission adopted decisions of the Appeals Tribunal that concluded (1) Claimant was disqualified for unemploymen t benefits because he voluntarily left employment with the United States Postal Se rvice without good cause attributable to his work or to his employer, and (2) Claimant, b ecause he willfully failed to report earnings and willfully failed to disclose or falsifie d disqualification facts, was overpaid $2,800 in2 unemployment benefits and should be assessed an overpayment penalty in the amount of $700. We dismiss Claimant’s appeals because Cl aimant’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 th e Commission’s decisions without becoming an advocate for

Claimant.

Claimant’s statement of facts in his initi al 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” reli ed on do not (1) identify a ny administrative ruling or

action that Claimant is cha llenging, (2) state any legal re ason for a challenge to an administrative ruling or action, or (3) explain why a legal re ason supports a challenge of an administrative ruling or act ion as required by Rule 84.04(a)4) and (d)(2) and (5). Claimant’s argument consists of six sent ences, and does not c ontain any standard of review or references to the portion of the r ecord 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 cons idered 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 act ion” refers to an acti on taken by the agency. The legal reason for the error must refer to the applicable statute authorizing review. In unemploym ent compensation cases, this means that the error must explic itly 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 fashi on why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the clai m 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 admi nistrative 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 eviden ce 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 relie s. Rule 84.04(d)(5). “‘Insufficient points relied on preserve nothing for appellate revi ew 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 “pre serves 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 a dditional 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 perfec tion is not required, compliance with the briefing requirements pursuant to Rule 84.04 is mandatory. Id

. Here, the deficiencies of Claimant's am ended briefs are so substantial, we could not conduct any meaningful revi ew without taking an inappropriate4 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