Ernest L. McCoy v. EHM Construction, Inc. and Uninsured Employer's Fund

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges McClanahan, Haley and Senior Judge Willis
ERNEST L. McCOY
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 2542-10-1 PER CURIAM
MAY 17, 2011
EHM CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND
UNINSURED EMPLOYER’S FUND
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.
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).
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
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. 1 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).
We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm; argument would not aid the
decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
1
Claimant also failed to demonstrate his arguments were preserved for appellate review
as required by Rule 5A:18.
-2-