Nizam v. Dignity Health CA3

Filed 3/30/26 Nizam v. Dignity Health CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

EDRISS NIZAM, C101888

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2023- 00335223-CU-MM-GDS) v.

DIGNITY HEALTH,

Defendant and Respondent.

After Edriss Nizam sued Dignity Health for medical malpractice, the trial court granted Dignity Health’s motion for summary judgment. Nizam’s contentions on appeal are forfeited because he has not complied with the rules of appellate procedure. Nevertheless, in the interests of justice, we will explain why one claim that he appears to raise lacks merit. Accordingly, we affirm.

1

BACKGROUND Nizam filed a medical malpractice claim against Dignity Health. In July 2024, the trial court granted Dignity Health’s motion for summary judgment, ruling Nizam failed to raise a triable issue of material fact on the question whether Dignity Health staff breached the standard of care that they owed to him as medical professionals. Specifically, and relying on Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, the trial court reasoned that because Dignity Health introduced the declaration of a medical expert that showed the applicable standard of care was met in this case, Nizam’s failure to introduce his own expert declaration evidencing breach of the standard of care precluded him from demonstrating a triable issue of material fact. Nizam filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION I Appellant’s Burden “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608- 609.) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) Each point in an appellant’s brief must be clearly identified by a heading. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) [“State each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point”]; Pizarro v. Reynoso (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 172, 179 [“Failure to provide proper headings forfeits issues that may be discussed in the brief but are not clearly identified by a heading”].) And an appellant must provide an adequate record for appellate review. (Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039.) “We are not required to examine