From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCOY v. EHM CONSTRUCTION

Court of Appeals of Virginia
May 17, 2011
Record No. 2542-10-1 (Va. Ct. App. May. 17, 2011)

Opinion

Record No. 2542-10-1.

May 17, 2011.

Appeal from the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission.

(Ernest L. McCoy, pro se, on brief).

(David B. Oakley; Huff, Poole Mahoney, P.C., on brief), for appellee Uninsured Employer's Fund.

No brief for appellee EHM Construction, Inc.

Present: Judges McClanahan, Haley and Senior Judge Willis.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

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


Ernest L. McCoy (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission. He contends (1) the commission erred in failing to make travel arrangements for prospective witnesses to attend and testify at any hearings before the commission; (2) a rehearing should be granted because a witness for EHM Construction, Inc. (employer) lied in his deposition; and (3) the commission failed to fully understand or appreciate the danger of the work the claimant was required to conduct for the employer.

Rule 5A:20(e) mandates that the opening brief include "principles of law and authorities" relating to each assignment of error. An appellant 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). 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).

Here, claimant did not comply with Rule 5A:20(e); the opening brief does not contain any principles of law, argument, or citation to legal authorities or the record to develop appellant's arguments. Thus, we need not consider claimant's arguments.Theisman v. Theisman, 22 Va. App. 557, 572, 471 S.E.2d 809, 816, aff'd on reh'g en banc, 23 Va. App. 697, 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996).

Claimant also failed to demonstrate his arguments were preserved for appellate review as required by Rule 5A:18.

We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm; argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

McCOY v. EHM CONSTRUCTION

Court of Appeals of Virginia
May 17, 2011
Record No. 2542-10-1 (Va. Ct. App. May. 17, 2011)
Case details for

McCOY v. EHM CONSTRUCTION

Case Details

Full title:ERNEST L. McCOY v. EHM CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND UNINSURED EMPLOYER'S FUND

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia

Date published: May 17, 2011

Citations

Record No. 2542-10-1 (Va. Ct. App. May. 17, 2011)