Nizam

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…