Dominic L. Layao v. LLI Enterprises, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Beales, Russell and Senior Judge Frank
DOMINIC L. LAYAO
v. 	Record No. 1036-15-4
LLI ENTERPRISES, INC. AND
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY 	MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
DOMINIC L. LAYAO 	FEBRUARY 23, 2016
v. 	Record No. 1387-15-4
LLI ENTERPRISES, INC. AND
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
(Dominic L. Layao, pro se, on briefs).
(Scott E. Snyder; Law Offices of Mark J. Beachy, on brief), for
appellees.
Dominic Layao appeals two decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Commission, one
involving the denial of continuing temporary total disability benefits relating to a hand injury on
March 14, 2014, and the other involving the dismissal of a separate claim for benefits relating to
alleged back injuries. These two cases have been consolidated on appeal.
Layao filed his opening briefs in these appeals on September 16, 2015 and September 21,
2015. On December 11, 2015, the Court notified Layao that the opening briefs failed to comply
with Rules 5A:4(b), 5A:4(d), 5A:20(c), 5A:20(d), 5A:20(e), and 5A:20(h), and instructed Layao
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
UNPUBLISHED

- 2-
to submit a set of replacement pleadings within ten days. The Court also informed Layao that his
continued noncompliance could result in summary affirmance.
Layao has failed to submit replacement pleadings in compliance with the Rules of Court.
The opening briefs do not include assignments of error, in violation of Rule 5A:20(c), or
a statement of facts, in violation of Rule 5A:20(d).
Likewise, the opening briefs do not include the applicable standard of review for each
assignment of error as required under Rule 5A:20(e). Rule 5A:20(h), which requires that the
certificate of the brief indicate whether oral argument is waived and that a copy of the brief has
been provided to opposing counsel, has not been satisfied.
This Court “will not search the record for errors in order to interpret the appellant’s
contention and correct deficiencies in a brief.” Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415
S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). Nor is it this Court’s “function to comb through the record . . . in order
to ferret-out for ourselves the validity of [appellant’s] claims.” Fitzgerald v. Bass, 6 Va. App.
38, 56 n.7, 366 S.E.2d 615, 625 n.7 (1988) (en banc).
“Even pro se litigants must comply with the rules of court.” Francis v. Francis, 30
Va. App. 584, 591, 518 S.E.2d 842, 846 (1999). We find that Layao’s failure to comply with
Rule 5A:20 is significant. Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d 311, 317
(2008); cf. Rules 5A:1A(a) (authorizing dismissal of appeal or “such other penalty” deemed
appropriate); 5A:26 (authorizing additional dismissal remedy in appropriate cases).
Accordingly, for all of these reasons, we cannot consider the issues Layao raises in his
appeals and we summarily affirm the commission’s rulings as stated in its final opinions. See
Layao v. LLI Enterprises, Inc., JCN No. VA02000016740 (June 5, 2015), and JCN
No. VA02000019957 (Sept. 1, 2015); Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.