Key legal question
Whether the federal appeal met the formal requirements of Art. 42 BGG and could be heard.
Extracted holding
No; the appeal did not contain a legally sufficient request or adequate reasoning showing how the challenged judgment violated federal law.
Extracted reasoning
The appellant's submissions of 10 and 19 September 2009 did not explain in a legally relevant way why the factual findings were incorrect or the legal reasoning was flawed, despite the cantonal court's detailed calculation of the premium arrears.