SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments made and the issues raised by the parties, it is apparent that the claimant-appellant Charlene L. Nobriga has failed to comply with the requirements of Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b), which, in itself, provides a sufficient basis for affirming the decision and order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Board. See Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawaii 225, 228, 909 P.2d 553, 556 (1995). This court has consistently adhered to the policy of affording litigants the opportunity to have their cases heard on the merits, where possible. Id. at 230, 909 P.2d at 558. Notwithstanding such policy, we are unable to consider the merits of Nobriga's appeal because she has failed to articulate any points of error in her opening brief that we are able to address.
