Appearing pro se, Angela Morman-Johnson appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Gary Hathaway and Summit Surgical Specialists on her claims for medical negligence and medical battery stemming from Hathaway’s removal of Morman-Johnson’s abdominal mass. She asserts several errors on appeal, most with regard to the court’s instructions to the jury. We conclude that these claims are without merit and affirm. We first note that Morman-Johnson’s brief on appeal fails to comply with the rules of this court. See Court of Appeals Rule 25. Morman-Johnson lists several enumerations but fails to demonstrate the manner in which each claim of error was preserved. See Court of Appeals Rule 25 a 1. Morman-Johnson also fails to support each claim of error with argument or citation to authority, providing one case citation in her entire brief. See Court of Appeals Rule 25 a 3. Briefs that do not conform to the rules regarding enumerations of error, structure of briefs, argument, or citation of authorities, as appellant’s fails to do, are not merely an inconvenience or grounds for refusing to consider a party’s contentions. Such briefs hinder this court in determining the substance and basis of an appellant’s contentions both in fact and in law and may well prejudice an appellant’s appeal regardless of the amount of leniency shown. Nevertheless, we will address appellant’s arguments, insofar as we are able to ascertain them from her brief. Salazar v. State , 256 Ga. App. 50 567 SE2d 706 2002.
1. In her first enumeration, Morman-Johnson appears to argue that trial counsel should have attempted to present as evidence a “medical chart with over 500 pages.” But “it is well established that this court may not address issues on appeal which were not addressed by the trial court because this court is a court for the correction of errors and it does not consider matters which were not raised and ruled on by the trial court.” Citations, punctuation and footnotes omitted. Madison Retail Suwanee v. Orion Enterprises &c. , 309 Ga. App. 712, 717 4 711 SE2d 71 2011. In the absence of a ruling by the trial court on this issue, there is nothing for this court to review. See id.
