Sage v. Kosoff CA3

Filed 4/9/14 Sage v. Kosoff CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)

PAMELA SAGE, C072162

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 150935)

v.

BOB KOSOFF et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Pamela Sage appeals from the adverse judgment entered following a jury trial. She contends primarily that the trial court erred in making certain in limine rulings concerning the presentation of evidence of insurance, evidence of her use of medical marijuana, and the testimony of witnesses not disclosed during discovery. We find, however, that Sage has forfeited her claims of error because she failed to comply with the rules of appellate procedure, including the rules requiring her to provide an adequate record for review and to show exactly how the trial court committed prejudicial error.

1

BACKGROUND In this medical malpractice action, Sage sued Bob Kosoff and Kosoff’s employer, Enloe Medical Center (Enloe), alleging that Kosoff failed to properly apply a cast to her broken wrist, which caused her injury.1 The matter was tried to a jury. Prior to trial, Kosoff and Enloe moved in limine to exclude any evidence of their having professional liability insurance and to exclude the testimony of witnesses not disclosed during discovery. Plaintiff moved to exclude evidence of her use of medical marijuana. The record on appeal contains neither the minute order nor the reporter’s transcript of proceedings reflecting the trial court’s ruling on these motions.2 The jury found that Kosoff was not negligent in his care of Sage, and judgment was entered in defendants’ favor. DISCUSSION I. Applicable Standard of Review Before discussing Sage’s appellate contentions, we set forth various rules applicable to our review. On appeal, we must presume the trial court’s judgment is correct. In service of that rule, we adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them. (See Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564; Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 (Nielsen).)