Griggs v. Cottage Health CA2/6

Opinion

Filed 8/27/26 Griggs v. Cottage Health CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

NICOLE DENISE GRIGGS, 2d Civ. No. B347157 (Super. Ct. No. 21CV04146) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Santa Barbara County)

v. COTTAGE HEALTH et al., Defendants and Respondents.

THE COURT:* Nicole Denise Griggs appeals a judgment following the granting of a motion for nonsuit in favor of respondents Cottage Health, Santa Ynez Cottage Health, and Santa Barbara Cottage Health (collectively Cottage Health), at the trial of her medical malpractice lawsuit. The trial court ruled that Griggs could not produce admissible evidence to support her action.

* Cody, P. J., Yegan, J., Baltodano, J. We conclude, among other things, the court properly granted a nonsuit because Griggs’ lawsuit involved a claim of medical malpractice involving emergency medical care and she was unable to produce a qualified medical expert to testify consistent with the requirements of Health and Safety Code section 1799.110, subdivision (c). We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant filed an action alleging that she received negligent medical care during visits she made to the emergency departments of three health facilities associated with Cottage Health. Her visits took place between July 6, 2019, and July 10, 2019. The Cottage Health facilities where she received treatment were the Santa Ynes Valley Cottage Hospital, Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital, and Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital. The case was scheduled for a court trial on June 9, 2025. Before trial, counsel for Cottage Health filed a “motion for nonsuit.” Cottage Health claimed appellant “cannot establish a prima facie case of medical negligence without the medical testimony of an expert who is qualified to address the standard of care for emergency medicine physicians.” Appellant “has not identified any expert witnesses on her witness list who have the requisite training and experiences described in” Health and Safety Code section 1799.110, subdivision (c). On the day scheduled for trial, the trial court conducted a hearing on Cottage Health’s motion for nonsuit. After oral argument on the motion the court granted a nonsuit and entered judgment in favor of Cottage Health. The court ruled that appellant “cannot establish by admissible evidence the prima facie elements of her action.”

2 DISCUSSION Appellant contends the trial court erred by granting the motion for nonsuit. We disagree. “ ‘[A] trial court may not grant a defendant’s motion for nonsuit if plaintiff’s evidence would support a jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor.’ [Citation]” (Zavala v. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford, Jr. University (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1755, 1763 (Zavala).) But where “plaintiff’s evidence was entirely insufficient” the trial court may properly grant a nonsuit. (Id., at p. 1765.) Cottage Health objects that appellant’s opening brief does not comply with the rules of court and she has failed to produce an adequate record on appeal to show error. These objections have merit. Appellant did not produce a reporter’s transcript of the hearing on the motion for nonsuit. She did not request a settled statement. There is no statement of facts with citations to the record in her brief. She has not made any proper showing in the record to demonstrate what occurred at the hearing on the motion. There is only an incomplete clerk’s transcript. “A ‘fundamental principle of appellate procedure [is] that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment. [Citations.] . . .’ . . . ‘ “Consequently, [the appellant] has the burden of providing an adequate record. [Citation.] Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that issue be resolved against [the appellant].” ’ ” (Mora v. C.E. Enterprises, Inc. (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 72, 87 (Mora).)

3 When appellant filed her designation of the record on appeal she received the following advisement: “I understand that without a record of the oral proceedings in the superior court, the Court of Appeal will not be able to consider what was said during those proceedings in determining whether an error was made in the superior court proceedings.” (Italics added.) Appellant has failed to make a showing on appeal that she had a qualified expert to testify at trial. She has not demonstrated how she could prove the medical standard of care for emergency services. Health and Safety Code section 1799.110, subdivision (c) provides in relevant part, “In any action for damages involving a claim of negligence against a physician and surgeon providing emergency medical coverage for a general acute care hospital emergency department, the court shall admit expert medical testimony only from physicians and surgeons who have had substantial professional experience within the last five years while assigned to provide emergency medical coverage in a general acute care hospital emergency department.” (Italics added.) “The provisions of Health and Safety Code section 1799.110, subdivision (c) are mandatory.” (Zavala, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 1763.) A trial court may not allow a witness to testify unless he or she “is qualified under that statute.” (Ibid.) Because the record is incomplete, we must presume that what occurred at the unrecorded hearing supported the trial court’s decision. (Null v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1528, 1532.) Appellant has not shown trial court error. Other issues Appellant is representing herself. But the “rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel 4 and those who forgo attorney representation.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.) Appellant makes reference to medical records that are not part of the record. They may not be considered on appeal. (Mora, supra, 116 Cal.App.5th at p. 87.) She makes conclusory allegations against the trial court and opposing counsel. But she has not provided this court with “ ‘ “ ‘ “cogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record.” ’. . .” ’ ” (County of Los Angeles v. Niblett (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 454, 463, italics added.) We have reviewed appellant’s remaining contentions and we conclude she has not shown grounds for reversal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to the respondents. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

5 Donna D. Geck, Judge Superior Court County of Santa Barbara ______________________________ Nicole Denise Griggs, in pro. per., for Appellant. Clinkenbeard, Ramsey, Spackman & Clark and William Clinkenbeard, Cathy Anderson, for Defendants and Respondents.