Miller v. Kummer
Filed 5/16/06 Miller v. Kummer CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
RANDOLPH MILLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. R. DAVID KUMMER, M.D., et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B183607 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC312105) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gregory W. Alarcon, Judge. Affirmed.
Randolph Miller, in propria persona, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Herzfeld & Rubin, Michael A. Zuk and Arshia Mardasi for Defendants and Respondents.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Randolph Miller, in pro per, sued Dr. R. David Kummer and Simard Cardiology Medical Group, Inc. (collectively defendants) for medical malpractice.[1] Plaintiff alleged that defendants fell below the standard of care by failing to diagnose and adequately treat various heart conditions from which he allegedly suffered. Defendants moved for summary judgment, presenting evidence that their treatment fell within the standard of care and that plaintiff did not suffer from any of the claimed conditions. Plaintiff filed a request that the court appoint an expert witness. The court denied the request. Because plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment motion did not include any competent evidence to contradict the defense showing, the court granted summary judgment. This appeal in pro per by plaintiff follows. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. The Complaint
Plaintiff's complaint alleged: â€
