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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.