COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Alston, Decker and Senior Judge Coleman 

EDDIE R. CANTOR 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1935-13-3 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 8, 2014 

WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY AND 

 WELLS FARGO DISABILITY/HEALTHSMART 

 CASUALTY CLAIMS SOLUTION 

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Eddie R. Cantor, pro se, on brief). 

 (Nathaniel D. Moore; Penn, Stuart & Eskridge, on brief), for 

appellees. 

 Eddie R. Cantor (claimant) appeals an August 7, 2013 decision of the Workers’ 

Compensation Commission affirming a deputy commissioner’s finding that treatment provided 

to claimant by his doctor was not causally related to claimant’s compensable work injury. 

 Claimant filed his opening brief with this Court on December 30, 2013. Upon receiving 

claimant’s brief, this Court instructed claimant that his brief failed to comply with 

Rules 5A:20(c), 5A:20(d), 5A:20(e), and 5A:20(h) and instructed him to submit a set of 

replacement pleadings. Claimant failed to submit a replacement opening brief and informed the 

Court that he was unable to comply with the Rules. 

 Rule 5A:20(c) requires a “statement of the assignments of error with a clear and exact 

reference to the page(s) of the transcript, written statement, record, or appendix where each 

assignment of error was preserved in the trial court.” Rule 5A:20(d) requires a “clear and 

 *

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

UNPUBLISHED 
 - 2 - 

concise statement of the facts that relate to the assignments of error, with references to the pages 

of the transcript, written statement, record, or appendix.” Rule 5A:20(e) requires that the brief 

include the “standard of review and the argument (including principles of law and authorities) 

relating to each assignment of error.” 

 In his brief on appeal, claimant includes no clearly articulated assignments of error, nor 

any references to the pages of the transcript, written statement, record, or appendix where any 

assignment of error was preserved. See Rule 5A:20(c). He presents a limited narrative of the 

events since his 1988 compensable injury but cites no authority or precedent supporting any 

arguments he makes on appeal. Rule 5A:20(e) requires that an appellant’s opening brief to this 

Court contain the “principles of law and the authorities” relating to each assignment of error. 

Mere unsupported assertions of error “do not merit appellate consideration.” Buchanan v. 

Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). Claimant’s brief does not comply 

with Rule 5A:20(e); it failed to include sufficient principles of law or any citation to legal 

authorities. Claimant’s brief also failed to reference the pages of the transcript, written 

statement, record, or appendix where each assignment of error was preserved. See 

Rule 5A:20(c). 

 Claimant 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). This Court “will not search the 

record for errors in order to interpret the appellant’s contention and correct deficiencies in a 

brief.” Buchanan, 14 Va. App. at 56, 415 S.E.2d at 239. 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, 
 - 3 - 

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 his arguments. See Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d 311, 317 

(2008). 

 Accordingly, we summarily affirm for the reasons without comment on the merits of this 

appeal. See Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.