NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION

MOORE, J.

This is an appeal after trial in a medical malpractice case. The only issue plaintiff Naomi Naeimeh Gilanshahi1 raises on appeal is whether there was informed consent for surgery. Unfortunately, due to an entirely inadequate record, there is simply no way for this court to evaluate plaintiff's arguments. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

I

FACTS

As we shall explain shortly, we have a very limited record. Plaintiff first consulted with defendant Dr. Mark Linskey at UCI Medical Center in January 2013.2 Three years prior, she had been found to have "a mass in the right parasellar area consistent with probable diaphragma sellae and limbus-planum sphenoidale meningioma." (As best we can tell, this is a tumor located somewhere in the skull.) Linskey noted this condition had been followed with imaging during the three-year period, and shown to be slowly enlarging over time. Linksey noted plaintiff had been evaluated by ophthalmology, "but had relatively normal visual fields . . . with good visual acuity." Linskey performed surgery to attempt to remove the tumor in February 2013. Shortly thereafter, she complained of decreased vision in her right eye. After 13 months, she had "barely perceptible" light perception in that eye, and no improvement thereafter.

After that point, there is no more undisputed evidence. Plaintiff claims Linksey did not adequately inform her of the risks of surgery, which she characterizes as elective, and she was left blind in one eye. She asserts the information she was given was particularly inadequate because of her health and her purported difficulty with English.

Plaintiff filed the instant case against Linskey and the Regents of the University of California (defendants). She asserts the only issue addressed by the jury was informed consent. The jury, by way of a special verdict, found for defendants. The trial court denied a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or alternatively a new trial. Plaintiff then filed the instant appeal.

The record on appeal provided by plaintiff consists of a one volume clerk's transcript of 122 pages. It consists of: a notice of intent to move for new trial, notice of motion and motion for JNOV or new trial (there are no substantive exhibits); a signed judgment on special verdict and an amended judgment; a minute order and notice of ruling denying the motion for JNOV or new trial; notice of entry of judgment; and a notice of appeal and related documents. There is no reporter's transcript.

Although plaintiff refers to an "appendix" in her briefs, an appendix is not part of the record on appeal. The form she submitted designating the record indicates she chose to proceed with a clerk's transcript and without a reporter's transcript. Our docket reflects the only record on appeal filed in this matter was the clerk's transcript.

At the request of defendants, the record was augmented with their opposition to the motion for new trial and supporting exhibits.

II

DISCUSSION

To begin with, we cannot tell exactly what plaintiff purports to appeal from. Her notice of appeal states this is an appeal from a judgment after a jury trial; the form known as the Civil Case Information Statement states this is an appeal from a judgment after an order granting summary judgment (there is no such order); and her opening brief implies that this is an appeal from the jury's verdict and an appeal from the court's denial of the motion for new trial or JNOV.

In any event, it does not matter much. "`A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.' [Citations.]" (Denham v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564; Fundamental Investment etc. Realty Fund v. Gradow (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 966, 971.) "`The burden is on the appellant in every case to show that the claimed error is prejudicial; i.e., that it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.' [Citation.]" (In re Marriage of McLaughlin (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 327, 337.)

A proper record is critical to attacking a judgment on any grounds. Reversible error must be affirmatively shown by an adequate record. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574.) To the extent any fact is not supported by a document properly included in the record, it shall be disregarded. ( Lona v. Citibank, N.A. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 102.)

The heart of plaintiff's argument is that the jury reviewed the document purportedly providing informed consent, which plaintiff apparently signed. That document is not in the record. The jury also heard and/or saw the responses to interrogatories answered by Linskey, which stated what risks he told plaintiff about. Plaintiff claims the answer included "the risk of temporary/permanent/partial vision loss." That document, too, is not in the record. Plaintiff claims that Linskey's testimony at trial was inconsistent with his discovery response, but we have no record of Linskey's testimony.

Plaintiff further contends that the warnings she was given were inadequate, because she "is an immigrant who speaks little English and no interpreter was present," but plaintiff's testimony is not in the record either. She complains the court should have granted her motion in limine to prevent Linskey from "changing or adding to his discovery response on informed consent," but there is no motion, opposition, argument, or ruling in the record, on this point.

Finally,3 plaintiff argues it was improper to allow two experts to testify on informed consent. Because we have no reporter's transcript, we have no way of knowing what the testimony was and whether a proper objection was made.

In sum, without providing an adequate record, plaintiff cannot begin to meet her burden to show error. By proceeding without a reporter's transcript and appealing on the basis of a very scant clerk's transcript, plaintiff has prevented us from reviewing the evidence in the case and evaluating her arguments on this appeal. "Where no reporter's transcript has been provided and no error is apparent on the face of the existing appellate record, the judgment must be conclusively presumed correct as to all evidentiary matters. To put it another way, it is presumed that the unreported trial testimony would demonstrate the absence of error. [Citation.] The effect of this rule is that an appellant who attacks a judgment but supplies no reporter's transcript will be precluded from raising an argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence. [Citations.]" (Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992; Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383, 385-386.) The same applies to any discretionary rulings by the court. (See, e.g., Vo v. Las Virgenes Municipal Water Dist. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 440.)

III

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. In the interests of justice, the parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

O'LEARY, P. J. and FYBEL, J., concurs.