Court Opinion

ID: 9517044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:02:05.385939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:09.602866
License: Public Domain

PATRICIA BRECKENRIDGE, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. While the majority recognizes that Regenia Cubit’s brief does not comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04, it finds that it “can easily discern the facts and arguments necessary to review the claim stated.” While I agree that this court prefers to decide cases on the merits, rather than to dismiss for a defective brief, Nicholson v. Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co., 144 S.W.3d 302, 308 (MoApp. W.D.2004), Ms. Cubit’s brief is so defective that the court is acting as an advocate for her by proceeding with her claim on appeal. Her point relied on states:
EMPLOYER BEARS THE BURDEN OF INTRODUCING COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH MISCONDUCT.
THE APPELLANT (EXHIBIT ONE) DOCUMENT STATING THAT THE BRIDGE WAS BEING REPAIRED. THERE WAS NEVER ANY EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT INTRODUCED AT THE HEARING OF THE APPELLANT WORK PERFORMANCE.
The argument section of her brief states:
The Trial Court erred in up holding the Employer Judgment of with Holding the Appellant unemployment insurance benefits, when no Paper work was presented at the hearing for misconduct.
The Appellant informed her employer that she had a problem, And showed good faith to get to work on time.
*283Once the Appellant arrived at work she performed her duties In a professional manner, and never received an write up on paper about Her job performance. The Employer presented no evidence to suggest that the Appellant was not making a good faith effort to get to work Or that her tardiness was intentional.
Based on Missouri Employment Security Law, no violation of the Employer’s rules took place, and the employee’s duties and obligations To the employer were met by the Appellant.
She then cites three cases, but does not state the principles for which the cases are cited or apply any law from those cases to the facts of her case. While her argument section does articulate a claim that she made a good faith effort to get to work and her tardiness was not intentional, merely stating that concept is not sufficient to justify a reversal of the Commission’s decision denying her unemployment benefits. Rather, “ ‘[a]n argument should show how the principles of law and the facts of the case interact.’ ” Nicholson, 144 S.W.3d at 307 (citation omitted). Accordingly, I would find that her brief is so deficient that this court can only consider the merits of her claim of error by acting as her advocate, which the court should not do. Id. at 305.