Full Opinion

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA James Russell McGregor, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1115 C.D. 2025 : Unemployment Compensation : Submitted: September 14, 2026 Board of Review, : Respondent : OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM FILED: October 26, 2026 James Russell McGregor (Claimant), proceeding pro se, petitions for review of the July 14, 2025 order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which affirmed the October 28, 2024 decision of a referee (Referee) denying Claimant unemployment compensation (UC) benefits pursuant to Sections 402(h) and 4(l)(2)(B) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law),1 effective July 16, 2023. In this Court, Claimant argues, in essence, that the Board erred in concluding that he was ineligible for benefits as a self-employed business owner. The Board disagrees and further argues that Claimant has waived all issues in this Court due to his failure to file a compliant appellate brief that permits meaningful appellate review. After careful review, we agree with the Board that Claimant’s issues are waived, and, accordingly, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Claimant applied for UC benefits with a UC Service Center, which, on May 14, 2024, denied his claim effective July 16, 2023. The Service Center concluded that, as of that date, Claimant was ineligible for benefits because he was considered to 1 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 802(h), 753(l)(2)(B). be self-employed pursuant to Sections 402(h)2 and 4(l)(2)(B)3 of the Law. (Certified Record (C.R.) at CR022.)4 Claimant appealed the determination, and the Referee conducted a hearing on October 18, 2024, at which Claimant appeared and proceeded pro se. No employer appeared or participated in the hearing.5 Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Referee made the following pertinent findings. For purposes of Claimant’s appeal, he was last employed as a law clerk with Dugan and Associates, for which he performed various assigned tasks. Claimant was laid off from his employment with Dugan and Associates on February 23, 2023. Claimant is now the sole owner of Lonesome Star Farms, LLC, which is an agricultural business associated with Claimant’s family. Claimant performs services for Lonesome Star Farms, LLC and also invests time and money in the business in hopes of making a profit and at the risk of sustaining a loss. Claimant 2 Section 402(h) of the Law provides, in pertinent part, that “an employe[e] shall be ineligible for compensation for any week . . . [i]n which he is engaged in self-employment[.]” 43 P.S. § 802(h). 3 Section 4(l)(2)(B), which defines “employment,” provides, in pertinent part: Services performed by an individual for wages shall be deemed to be employment subject to [the Law], unless and until it is shown to the satisfaction of the [Department of Labor] that—(a) such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such services both under his contract of service and in fact; and (b) as to such services such individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business. 43 P.S. § 753(l)(2)(B). 4 Claimant’s employer, Dugan and Associates, did not contest Claimant’s entitlement to benefits. The pertinent question before the UC Service Center, the Referee, the Board, and in this Court is whether Claimant ceased being entitled to benefits effective July 16, 2023, because he became self-employed as of that date. 5 The Referee stated that the pertinent issues in the appeal were “Section 402(h), self- employment and 412(b), if [ ] Claimant has earned wages that are covered for [UC].” (C.R. at CR092.) 2 is free from any direction and control over the performance of his duties and services for Lonesome Star Farms. (Referee Findings of Fact (F.F.) Nos. 1-8.) Based on these findings, the Referee affirmed the UC Service Center’s determination that Claimant was ineligible for benefits as a self-employed business owner pursuant to Sections 402(h) and 4(l)(2)(B) of the Law. (C.R. at CR128-CR130.) The Board affirmed on July 14, 2025, incorporating the Referee’s findings except Finding of Fact 9, which the Board amended to find that “Claimant received other outside income in 2023, but is self-employed full-time.” Id. at CR158. The Board further found and concluded as follows: [C]laimant testified he is the sole owner of Lonesome Star Farms, LLC. The company was registered with the South Dakota Department of State on July 15, 2023. The claimant obtained insurance for a vehicle titled in the name of the company, and liability insurance for the business. [C]laimant’s company is responsible for the maintenance and management of a farm that his family has owned for decades. [C]laimant offered testimony that [he] has no boss, and is free from direction and control. [C]laimant’s testimony reflects he is self-employed. As such, he is ineligible for benefits. Id. Claimant now petitions for review in this Court. II. DISCUSSION Although Claimant purports to raise several issues in his brief, we preliminarily address the Board’s argument that Claimant has waived all issues in this Court by failing to adequately brief them in compliance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. (Board’s Br. at 6-8.) Appellate Rule 2101 provides as follows: Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise 3 they may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Although Rules of Appellate Procedure apply to attorneys and pro se litigants alike, “this Court is generally inclined to construe pro se filings liberally.” Smithley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 8 A.3d 1027, 1029-30 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). Nevertheless, the briefing requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory, Lal v. Department of Transportation, 755 A.2d 48, 52 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019), and a “lay person who chooses to represent himself in a legal proceeding must assume the risk that his lack of expertise and legal training may prove to be his undoing[,]” Daly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 631 A.2d 720, 722 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). Further, and pertinent here, the Rules of Appellate Procedure do not authorize the incorporation by reference or attachment of briefs filed in other tribunals as a substitute for filing a compliant appellate brief in this Court. Commonwealth v. Briggs, 12 A.3d 291, 342-43 (Pa. 2011); Jones v. School District of Philadelphia, 206 A.3d 1238, 1250 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019); Upper Moreland Township School District v. Crisafi, 86 A.3d 950, 954 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). To assess whether we can reach the merits of a claim raised by a pro se litigant, we consider whether the defects are so substantial that they preclude “meaningful appellate review.” Tewell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 279 A.3d 644, 652 n.9 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022). In his Petition for Review filed on September 2, 2025, Claimant asserts that the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence, the Board’s findings of fact do not support its conclusions, and Claimant was denied an opportunity to be heard. (Petition for Review, 9/2/2025, at 8) (unpaginated). Claimant incorporates by reference a “letter brief” he submitted to the Referee on May 23, 2024, in which he (1) 4 explained that Dugan and Associates did not contest his receipt of UC benefits, and (2) included additional background material. The only analysis or argument in the letter is a single sentence requesting that the “favorable determination be deemed collaterally estopped from challenge as a final determination from no appeal lodged.” (C.R. at CR055-CR056.) On December 4, 2025, Claimant filed a two-and-a-half-page document titled as a “brief,” in which Claimant again includes mostly extraneous background and incorporates by reference his “letter brief” submitted to the Referee. (Claimant’s Br. at 1-2) (unpaginated). Claimant identifies his issues on appeal as (1) whether his UC claim was timely;6 (2) whether his self-employment precludes an award of UC benefits; (3) whether agency law and statements made by UC representatives control here; (4) whether res judicata and collateral estoppel require an award of UC benefits;7 and (5) whether Claimant’s due process rights were violated because the Board did not request briefs from the parties or hear argument. Id. at 2-3. Claimant’s brief does not otherwise include any analysis or citations to pertinent legal authority or the Certified Record.8 6 Claimant’s timeliness issue appears to relate to another appeal Claimant has filed in this Court with regard to the same UC claim. See McGregor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1116 C.D. 2025). The same Referee and the Board determined in that appeal that Claimant’s UC claim was untimely and could not be backdated. See No. 1116 C.D. 2025, C.R. at CR099-CR101, CR129-CR130. Claimant failed to timely file an appellate brief in that case, after which we granted Claimant an extension of time to either file a brief or suffer the dismissal of the appeal. Claimant did not comply with our order, and the Board has applied for dismissal. The Board’s application remains pending. 7 Claimant’s agency and res judicata/collateral estoppel arguments appear to stem from certain statements that a UC Service Center representative allegedly made to Claimant about the potential amount of his claim. See C.R. at CR055. The Certified Record does not reflect that the UC Service Center, Referee, or Board addressed or made any findings regarding those arguments. 8 The Board filed its brief on February 11, 2026. Claimant did not file a timely reply brief, but sought leave to file a reply brief nunc pro tunc on April 13, 2026. Although we granted Claimant’s request on April 15, 2026, he has not to date filed a reply brief. 5 Even if we considered both the letter brief Claimant has attempted to incorporate by reference and his filed brief in this Court, they together are manifestly noncompliant with the pertinent Rules of Appellate Procedure governing the form and contents of briefs. They omit (1) all of the elements required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) except the statement of questions involved and a request for relief; (2) any argument or citations to the record or case law required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)-(c); and (3) a table of contents and table of citations as mandated by Pa.R.A.P. 2174. They further do not contain any analysis or argument concerning the issues Claimant identifies, which appear to be a lumped-together list of the issues involved both in this case and in Claimant’s appeal filed at No. 1116 C.D. 2025. Most importantly, however, although Claimant identifies his self-employment as an issue, he does not contend that he is not self-employed or identify how the Board erred in concluding that that he is. In sum, and without more, we simply are unable to conduct meaningful appellate review of Claimant’s issues, which we must deem to be waived. We accordingly affirm the Board’s order.9 9 If we addressed the only issue decided by the Referee and the Board, namely, Claimant’s self-employment status as of July 16, 2023, we would affirm. Substantial evidence in the record indicates that Claimant admittedly was self-employed as the owner of a family business that he incorporated on July 15, 2023. Further, as to Claimant’s due process claim, he appears to assert that the Board violated his right to due process by issuing its decision without oral argument or briefing. This claim would fail. The Board has discretion to grant oral argument and/or receive written briefs from the parties upon request or on its own motion. 34 Pa. Code § 101.104(e). There is no evidence in the record that Claimant requested oral argument or leave to submit a written brief, and he further has not explained how the Board’s decision not to require them on its own motion violated his due process rights. See Pallet v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 707 A.2d 636, 638 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (“Arguments not properly developed in a brief will be deemed waived by this Court.”). 6 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA James Russell McGregor, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1115 C.D. 2025 : Unemployment Compensation : Board of Review, : Respondent : PER CURIAM ORDER AND NOW, this 26th day of October, 2026, the July 14, 2025 order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is hereby AFFIRMED.