Gael v. California Physicians' Service CA2/8

Filed 3/29/24 Gael v. California Physicians’ Service CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

MICHAEL GAEL et al., B327266

Plaintiffs and Appellants, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19TRCV00386 v.

CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gary Y. Tanaka, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Josiah Young, Josiah Young and Michael D. McClelland for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Ileana M. Hernandez, Craig S. Rutenberg and Joanna S. McCallum for Defendant and Respondent. ____________________ Two men were injured while visiting Costa Rica. They spent six days in a hospital there, then took an air ambulance to

a hospital in California. The ambulance company billed the men’s health insurance company, which denied coverage on the ground that the air ambulance was not medically necessary. The men and the ambulance company sued the insurance company. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurance company. On appeal, the men and the ambulance company exclude pertinent documents from their record, do not cite evidence of a disputed fact, and raise new theories. We affirm. We review an order granting summary judgment under the familiar standard. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843, 850–851, 860 (Aguilar).) We presume judgments are correct and appellants have the burden affirmatively to demonstrate error. (Claudio v. Regents of the University of California (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 224, 230 & 252 (Claudio).) Although appellate courts independently review orders granting summary judgment (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 860), the appellants have provided an insufficient record to do so. Appellants must furnish appellate records sufficient to consider the issues on appeal and our review is limited to matters in that record. (People v. Neilson (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1534 (Neilson).) The appellants excluded from the appellate record many pertinent documents, most notably the insurance company’s summary judgment motion and evidence and the appellants’ opposition evidence. We therefore presume the trial court correctly found the insurance company met its burdens. The appellants have not identified a triable issue of fact. Appellants must identify a triable issue by citing the record. (Claudio, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 230; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [briefs must support references to matters in