The plaintiff alleged that the defendant podiatrist negligently performed surgery to remove a foreign body from his left foot, failed to adequately visualize the surgical field, and failed to remove the foreign object. The defense moved for summary judgment, supported by an expert podiatrist who opined that the defendant complied with accepted standards of podiatric care. The expert concluded that the defendant appropriately evaluated the plaintiff, utilized fluoroscopy during the procedure, reasonably discontinued the exploration after approximately fourteen minutes to avoid injury to neurovascular structures, and properly obtained informed consent. The defendant’s expert further opined that none of the defendant’s care caused the plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

The Court held that the defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff’s expert criticized the surgical technique utilized by the defendant podiatrist and alleged that additional imaging and localization methods should have been used. However, the Court found the plaintiff’s expert’s opinions speculative, conclusory, unsupported by the record, and insufficient to rebut the detailed opinions of the defense expert. The Court also noted that the plaintiff’s expert failed to address key facts and arguments raised by the defendant’s expert, including that the plaintiff had been advised there was no guarantee the foreign body could be removed, that the plaintiff voluntarily failed to return for follow-up care, and that the defense expert found no objective neurological deficits on examination.

Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the complaint in its entirety, including the claim for lack of informed consent.