Full Opinion

Filed 11/13/26 O’Connor v. American Medical Response West CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE ADAM GREGORY O’CONNOR, Plaintiff and Appellant, A173945 v. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE (City & County of San Francisco WEST, Super. Ct. No. CGC-22-602999) Defendant and Respondent. Adam O’Connor (plaintiff) appeals from a judgment entered in favor of American Medical Response West (defendant) after a jury rejected plaintiff’s claim that defendant’s employee negligently caused an automobile accident. Plaintiff, who represents himself on appeal, contends the jury’s verdict is not supported by substantial evidence and the trial court made erroneous evidence rulings. We affirm. BACKGROUND In November 2022, plaintiff filed a complaint for personal injury and vehicle-related property damage against defendant. Pretrial proceedings were protracted. A jury trial was held over 11 court days in April 2025. Neither party provides this court with a summary of the trial evidence, but for context we summarize accounts of the automobile accident that were presented to the jury. On the afternoon of August 4, 2022, plaintiff was involved in a collision with an ambulance owned by defendant and operated by defendant’s then employee, S. Yamaguchi. Yamaguchi testified that when the accident occurred he was traveling in the northbound left lane on Guerrero Street in San Francisco. He first noticed plaintiff’s red Hyundai when plaintiff passed him on the right, entering his lane in front of the ambulance. Yamaguchi did not see a left signal indicator on the Hyundai before or after it entered his lane. Then plaintiff stopped at a green light at the intersection of Guerreo and 23rd Street. Yamaguchi hit his brakes but failed to bring the vehicle to a complete stop in time to avoid a collision with plaintiff. The incident was recorded on the ambulance’s dashboard camera and played for the jury at trial. Plaintiff testified that when the collision occurred, he was on his way to a security guard job and was listening to audio directions. He was driving north on Guerrero and planning to make a left onto 23rd Street, but there were only two northbound lanes and no “pathway to get into a safe turning lane.” He was in the right northbound lane, so he turned on his left signal and “ended up in the left lane.” He did not recall how fast he was driving when he changed lanes, or if he was going more than 25 mile per hour, but he believed his lane change was safe. As he approached the intersection at 23rd Street, plaintiff noticed a commercial truck driving southbound that stopped in the intersection. Fearing the truck could make a wide turn and hit him, plaintiff stopped short of the intersection and “yielded” to the larger vehicle. Plaintiff testified that his light was green when he approached the intersection, but he came to a stop before reaching the crosswalk because he did not want to impede pedestrians. Then he heard a “large boom” and his body jolted forward as the ambulance hit the back of his car. Under cross- examination, plaintiff was asked about his response to an interrogatory signed under penalty of perjury, which stated that he was sitting at a red light at the intersection with his signal on when the ambulance hit him. Plaintiff testified that he did not personally draft that discovery response or notice that it was incorrect when he signed it. Plaintiff was also asked about statements he made when reporting the incident for insurance purposes, including that he had been sitting at a red light waiting for the light to change when he was rear ended. Plaintiff admitted making the statement and that it was incorrect, but offered this explanation to the jury: “I’m from the Midwest and so we call traffic lights red lights. I’ve been doing it for 25 years since. . . . So it doesn’t matter if the light’s green, yellow, a traffic light to us—to me is a red light.” Plaintiff also acknowledged that his report to others that he was waiting for the light to change was inaccurate. The jury rendered their verdict in this case by completing a special verdict form. The first question on the form inquired whether defendant was negligent. Answering “No,” the jury answered no other questions. The verdict form was incorporated into a May 2025 judgment, which provides that plaintiff shall take nothing from defendant and awards defendant costs as prescribed by law. DISCUSSION In his appellant’s opening brief, plaintiff requests reversal of the judgment and remand for a new trial on the following grounds: (1) the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence; (2) defendant’s “biomechanical” expert was not qualified to offer medical causation opinions; (3) plaintiff was prejudiced by the admission of evidence that his counsel referred him to medical providers who provided “lien-based treatment”; (4) expert testimony that plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the accident was speculative; and (5) plaintiff was prevented from “fully exploring liability- related evidence” pertaining to defendant’s internal investigation of the incident. None of these claims is supported by accurate citations to the trial record, legal authority, or any analysis. Therefore, we conclude plaintiff has failed to carry his burden as the appellant to overcome a presumption that the judgment is correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) The presumption a judgment is correct “ ‘is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Ibid.) It means that the burden is on plaintiff to articulate claims of reversible error and to “present argument and authority on each point made.” (County of Sacramento v. Lackner (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 576, 591.) Issues in an appellant’s opening brief that are not properly presented or sufficiently developed to be cognizable may be deemed waived. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793; see also Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1050 [appellate court “ ‘not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error’ ”].) Relatedly, plaintiff fails to comply with rules governing the content of an appellate brief, which is not excused by the fact that he is representing himself. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984–985.) Appellant’s opening brief does not “[p]rovide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C)), nor does it “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record [with] a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears” (id., rule 8.204(a)(1)(C)). Instead of providing accurate citations for factual statements, plaintiff repeatedly offers throughout his brief the same, single citation to the reporter’s transcript. These glaring deficiencies establish an independent ground for concluding plaintiff waived any claim of error he might otherwise have. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247; Severson & Werson, P.C. v. Sepehry-Fard (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 938, 952.) In his appellant’s reply brief, plaintiff acknowledges “inaccurate or generalized record citations in the Opening Brief,” and purports to provide accurate citations to support his material factual propositions. Plaintiff also attempts to refine his claims of error in light of the substantive arguments set forth in the respondent’s brief. We conclude that appellant’s reply brief arguments are insufficient to carry his burden of proving a prejudicial trial error occurred. Plaintiff’s first claim is that the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence. His argument, as we understand it, is that the jury’s verdict cannot be sustained because the evidence establishes these facts: defendant’s ambulance rear-ended him; the collision was avoidable; he was not distracted; he was injured; and no alternative incident explains his symptoms. As an initial matter, we find plaintiff has waived his sufficiency of the evidence claim. “When an appellant’s opening brief states only the favorable facts, ignoring evidence favorable to respondent, the appellate court may treat the substantial evidence issues as waived and presume the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact.” (Slone v. El Centro Regional Medical Center (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1160, 1173–1174 (Slone); see also Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel & Emly (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 209, 218; Delta Stewardship Council Cases (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1072.) In any event, plaintiff has the burden on appeal to show that the evidence, including all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, is not sufficiently substantial to support the judgment. (Slone, supra, 106 Cal.App.5th at p. 1176.) He neither applies nor even acknowledges this rule. Instead, in his reply brief, plaintiff concedes that trial evidence supports defendant’s account of the incident, but argues there is also evidence to support his account. This argument misperceives the substantial evidence test, which requires the appellate court to uphold a judgment supported by substantial evidence even if other substantial evidence would have supported a different result. (Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce, Inc. (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1251, 1262–1263; see also Bowers v. Bernards (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 870, 874 [when substantial evidence is found, it is of “no consequence” that other evidence might support contrary conclusion].) Plaintiff’s other claims all pertain to evidentiary rulings. As a general rule, the trial court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. (McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Assn. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 283, 295–296; Zhou v. Unisource Worldwide (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1476.) Plaintiff fails to show the trial court abused its discretion as to any matter listed in his brief. Importantly, all but one of those issues pertain to the nature or scope of plaintiff’s injuries, and thus have no bearing on the jury’s finding that defendant was not negligent. Plaintiff also contends the court excluded “liability-related evidence” relating to defendant’s incident report of the accident. In his reply brief, plaintiff appears to concede he was permitted to explore this matter at trial. Regardless, he fails to identify any error by the trial court. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover its costs on appeal. TUCHER, P. J. WE CONCUR: PETROU, J. RODRÍGUEZ, J. O’Conner v. American Medical Response West (A173945)