Key legal question
Whether the appeal met the formal requirements of Art. 42 LTF.
Extracted holding
No. The filing did not state admissible conclusions or a sufficient explanation of why the challenged judgment was unlawful.
Extracted reasoning
The appellant merely expressed disagreement with the lower court and referred to an accident, treatment, and continuing sequelae. This did not show any factual error under Art. 97(1) LTF or any violation of law.