Court Opinion

ID: 9529725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:53:40.305114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:54.217658
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
concurring.
While I concur with the result reached by the majority, I find it unnecessary to wander through inapplicable precedent to determine whether our Supreme Court intended to amend App.R. 4(C) alone, or whether it also intended to affect the statutory requirements for an assignment of error. I read the rule to provide that an appellate brief, which addresses issues and grounds appropriately preserved for appeal, serves the place of and is used in lieu of a separate assignment of error. Moreover, as most articulately noted by the majority opinion, the amendment to App.R. 4(C) is ameliorative and, as such, should be given retroactive application.
As to the second issue, I agree that there was sufficient evidence to deny Sneed's application for benefits. As a result, I would affirm the Board's decision.