Morgan v. Labor Comm'n

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

David L. Morgan,
Petitioner,

v.

Labor Commission; Workers' Compensation Fund of Utah; and Quail Run Log Homes, Inc.,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20020299-CA
 

F I L E D
(August 28, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 293

-----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys:
David L. Morgan, Parowan, Petitioner Pro Se

James R. Black and Alan L. Hennebold, Salt Lake City, for Respondents

-----

Before Judges Billings, Davis, and Orme.

DAVIS, Judge:

David L. Morgan appeals from a Utah Labor Commission order denying his claim for workers' compensation benefits. We affirm.

"It is well established that a reviewing court will not address arguments that are not adequately briefed." State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 304 (Utah 1998). Rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure provides our briefing standards and requirements. Rule 24(a)(9) states that the argument section of a brief "shall contain the contentions and reasons of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, . . . with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on." Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9). "While failure to cite to pertinent authority may not always render an issue inadequately briefed, it does so when the overall analysis of the issue is so lacking as to shift the burden of research and argument to the reviewing court." Thomas, 961 P.2d at 305. Moreover, "[w]e have previously stated that this court is not a depository in which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research." Id. (quotations and citations omitted).

Although Morgan's brief fails to comply with virtually every requirement of rule 24, we focus on the argument section and its failure to comply with the requirements of rule 24(a)(9). See Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9). Morgan's argument section is two and one-half pages long, and contains only one paragraph. Even under a generous reading of this section, it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to determine the issues that Morgan attempts to raise or the specific findings that he attempts to challenge on appeal. Further, even if Morgan had clearly defined the issues raised and findings challenged on appeal, his argument fails to include even one "citation[] to the authorities, statutes, [or] parts of the record relied on." Id. For these reasons, Morgan's brief fails to comply with rule 24(a)(9).

Morgan's brief fails to comply with rule 24(a)(9) and his "overall analysis . . . is so lacking as to shift the burden of research and argument to [this] court." Thomas, 961 P.2d at 305. Therefore, we conclude that his appeal is inadequately briefed and, accordingly, we are unable to address its merits. See id. at 304.

Affirmed.

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge