Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.
Laverne ALLEN, Appellant,
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee.
Jan. 22, 2001.
On Appeal from the 134th District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. DV98-07801-G.
Before ROACH, JJ.
*1 Laverne Allen appeals the trial court’s order affirming a decision of the appeals panel of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission. On appeal, appellant appears to argue the trial court should have admitted certain exhibits, and she timely disputed her impairment rating pursuant to the Texas Administrative Code. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal.
Appellant filed her original pro se brief on June 30, 2000. By letter dated July 6, 2000, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that her brief failed to comply with TEX.R.APP.P. 9.5(e); 38.1. Appellant eventually filed three amended briefs in response to notices that each was deficient. Thus, the brief before this Court is appellant’s fourth attempt. The brief fails to comply with rule 38.1 in various ways. For example, the brief contains a Statement of the Case which states, in its entirety, the following:
This is a case regarding my impairment rating being filed in a timely manner, and an impairment rating to be given for and added to my medical records for my depression. Also the alleged dispute resulting on the behalf of my treating doctor acting as my Agent. This is not an action on a sworn account. Supported by record references Page 1, Vol. 1, of Clerk’s Record.
The brief does not make specific references to the appellate record, and at one point simply says “Statement supported by RR, Vol. 1.” In her Summary of Argument, appellant refers to “Texas Worker’s [sic.] Compensation Commission statutes: Section 408.006(a), 408.123(b, c), 408.125(e, f) Pages 59, 68, 69 and Rules: 130.06(a) 2, 3, 4, Page 6.” However, the brief is silent as to the significance of these citations or their relevance to the facts of this case. The brief contains an Argument section which consists of a one-page fact statement discussing appellant’s attempts to dispute her impairment rating. The argument concludes with the statement “Appropriate citations to authorities. CR Vol. 1.”
Texas courts do not maintain separate sets of procedural rules for litigants with counsel and litigants representing themselves. TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1).
*2 In this case, appellant was notified three times that her brief was deficient, and she filed a total of four briefs. Nevertheless, appellant’s brief does not specify how the unidentified exhibits to which she refers complied with Texas workers’ compensation statutes or how their admission or exclusion affected her case. The brief does not make any meaningful reference to the record other than general references to the first page of the clerk’s record and the entire volume one of the reporter’s record. No authorities are cited in the brief other than general references to certain sections of the “Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes,” and the brief presents no discussion of how these sections relate to her case. Because the brief fails to comply with TEX.R.APP.P. 38.9.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1).