COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Alston, De cker 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 DISA BILITY/HEALTHSMART CASUALTY CLAIMS SOLUTION

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKER S’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Eddie R. Cantor, pro se , on brief). (Nathaniel D. Moore; Penn, St uart & Eskridge, on brief), for appellees.

Eddie R. Cantor (claimant) appeals an August 7, 2013 decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission affirm ing a deputy commissioner’s fi nding that treatment provided to claimant by his doctor was not causally rela ted to claimant’s compensable work injury. Claimant filed his opening brief with th is 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 instru cted him to submit a set of replacement pleadings. Claimant failed to s ubmit 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 th e assignments of error with a clear and exact reference to the page(s) of th e 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 opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - concise statement of the facts that relate to the as signments of error, with references to the pages of the transcript, written statemen t, record, or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 a ssignment 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) re quires that an appellant’ s opening brief to this Court contain the “principles of law and the author ities” 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 sufficien t principles of law or any citation to legal

authorities. Claimant’s brief al so failed to reference the pa ges 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 re versible 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 appe llant’s contention and correct deficiencies in a brief.” Buchanan, 14 Va. App. at 56, 415 S.E.2d at 239. Nor is it this Cour t’s “function to comb through the record . . . in order to ferret-out for ourselves th e 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 th e rules of procedure and substantive law than a defendant represented by couns el.” 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 w ith 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 r easons without comment on the merits of this appeal. See Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.