Civil Practice – Appeals – Rules Violations – Workers Compensation – Pro Se Litigant

Ord v. IBM. (Lawyers Weekly No. 07-07-0818, 6 pp.) (Ann Marie Calabria, J.) (James A. Wynn Jr., J., concurring) Appealed from the Industrial Commission. N.C. App.

Where the plaintiff has committed several major violations of the N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure, we decline to invoke N.C. R. App. P. 2, and we dismiss her appeal.

The plaintiff assigns error to numerous findings and conclusions, but she fails to argue specific findings and conclusions. She also fails to cite any authority in support of her arguments. In addition, the plaintiff has failed to reference the assignments of error pertinent to each question presented and has failed to identify the page numbers in the record where such assignments appear. Finally, the plaintiff failed to include a statement of grounds for appellate review in her brief, as required by N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(4).

Manifest injustice will not result in our decision to dismiss the appeal. The concurring opinion concedes that if we chose to invoke Rule 2 and suspend the rules, the outcome would be no different. Further, the rule violations are so serious as to fundamentally frustrate appellate review.

Appeal dismissed.

Concurrence

(Wynn, J.) Because it is relatively straightforward to follow the pro se plaintiff’s argument from her assignments of error, I would not dismiss her appeal.

The plaintiff asks us to reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the Industrial Commission’s. This we may not do.

While the outcome for the plaintiff remains the same, the difference is that, by addressing the merits of her contention, she has been afforded her day in court. I vote to hear the appeal and affirm the Commission.