FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
Rachinsky ("Claimant"), who is proceeding pro
se, appeals two decisions of the Labor and Industrial
Relations Commission (the "Commission"). In these
decisions, the Commission adopted decisions of the Appeals
Tribunal that concluded (1) Claimant was disqualified for
unemployment benefits because he voluntarily left employment
with the United States Postal Service without good cause
attributable to his work or to his employer, and (2)
Claimant, because he willfully failed to report earnings and
willfully failed to disclose or falsified disqualification
facts, was overpaid $2, 800 in unemployment benefits and
should be assessed an overpayment penalty in the amount of
$700. We dismiss Claimant's appeals because
Claimant's initial brief substantially fails to comply
with Rule 84.04, Missouri Court Rules (2016), and we are
unable to provide any meaningful review of the
Commission's decisions without becoming an advocate for
statement of facts in his initial brief consists of three
sentences and does not contain any reference to the portion
of the record that supports the facts stated as required by
Rule 84.04(a)(3) and (c).
"points" relied on do not (1) identify any
administrative ruling or action that Claimant is challenging,
(2) state any legal reason for a challenge to an
administrative ruling or action, or (3) explain why a legal
reason supports a challenge of an administrative ruling or
action as required by Rule 84.04(a)4) and (d)(2) and (5).
argument consists of six sentences, and does not contain any
standard of review or references to the portion of the record
that supports asserted facts as required by Rule 84.04(e).
The argument also does not reference or discuss any legal
[P]ro se appellants [are held] to the same standards
as attorneys. Smith v. City of St. Louis Civil Service
Com'n, 216 S.W.3d 698, 699 (Mo.App.2007); Kramer
v. Park-Et Restaurant, Inc., 226 S.W.3d 867, 869
(Mo.App.2007); McGill v. Boeing Co., 235 S.W.3d 575,
577 (Mo.App.2007). All appellants must comply with the
Supreme Court Rules, including Rule 84.04, which governs the
contents of appellate briefs. Smith, 216 S.W.3d at
699. We are mindful of the problems that a pro se
litigant faces; however, judicial impartiality, judicial
economy, and fairness to all parties necessitate that we do
not grant a pro se appellant preferential treatment
with regard to complying with the rules of appellate
procedure. Kramer, 226 S.W.3d at 869:
McGill, 235 S.W.3d at 577. A brief that
substantially fails to comply with Rule 84.04 is inadequate
to invoke the jurisdiction of this court and must be
dismissed. Smith, 216 S.W.3d at 699. Rule 84.13(a)
provides that allegations of error not properly briefed
"shall not be considered in any civil appeal."
Waller v. A.C. Cleaners Management, Inc., 371 S.W.3d
6, 9 (Mo.App. E.D. 2012) (quoting Covington v. Better
Business Bureau, 253 S.W.3d 95, 97 (Mo.App. E.D. 2008)).
For a point relied on under Rule 84.04(d)(2):
The "challenged ruling or action" refers to an
action taken by the agency. The legal reason for the error
must refer to the applicable statute authorizing review. In
unemployment compensation cases, this means that the error
must explicitly refer to one of the four statutory grounds
for reversal set out in section 288.210 RSMo (2000).
Parker v. Action Contracting Corp., 100 S.W.3d 168,
171 (Mo.App.2003). Finally, the point must "explain in
summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal
reasons support the claim of reversible error." Rule
84.04(d)(2)(C). It should provide insight into the facts of
the case that support a claim of an error in the
administrative agency ruling or action. Henson v.
Henson, 195 S.W.3d 479, 483 (Mo.App.2006). It must
inform the court why the testimony or evidence supports a
conclusion that the agency erred. Id.
Id. at 10-11 (footnote omitted). A point relied on
also must include a list of legal authorities on which a
party principally relies. Rule 84.04(d)(5).
"'Insufficient points relied on preserve nothing for
appellate review and constitute grounds for
dismissal.'" Waller, 371 S.W.3d at 11
(quoting Parker v. Action Contracting Corporation,
100 S.W.3d 168, 171 (Mo.App. W.D. 2003)).
an argument under a point "preserves nothing for
review" when it fails "to cite relevant authority
supporting the point or to explain the failure to do
so." Covington, 253 S.W.3d at 97 (citation and
We should not be expected to decide this case on the basis of
inadequate briefing or to undertake additional research and
scour the record to cure such a deficiency. Davis [v.
Coleman], 93 S.W.3d [742, ] 743[ Mo.App. E.D. 2002],
citing Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo.
banc 1978). Furthermore, we will not become an advocate for
Claimant by speculating about the relevant facts and
arguments he failed to make. Kramer, 226 S.W.3d at
870. While perfection is not required, compliance with the
briefing requirements pursuant to Rule 84.04 is mandatory.
Id. Here, the deficiencies of Claimant's amended
briefs are so substantial, we could not conduct any
meaningful review without taking an inappropriate position of
ferreting out and reconstructing the facts of the case,
speculating about the possible claims of error, and crafting
an argument on Claimant's behalf. See Id.
Waller, 371 S.W.3d at 11-12 (quoting McGill v.
The Boeing Company, 235 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Mo.App. ...