A New York appellate court has ruled in favor of a podiatrist in a malpractice lawsuit, affirming a lower court's decision to dismiss the case. The ruling affects Laura Spera, the plaintiff, who alleged that Dr. Edward Buro improperly administered steroid injections that led to serious injury. This decision highlights the challenges plaintiffs face in proving medical malpractice claims.
The case, Spera v. Buro (Docket No. 2023-10428), was decided by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on June 24, 2026. The court's ruling confirms that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claims against Buro.
Background
Laura Spera filed a lawsuit against Edward Buro, a podiatrist, claiming malpractice due to his administration of repeated steroid injections. Spera alleged that these injections caused the rupture of her anterior tibialis tendon. The case was initially heard in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County, where Judge C. Stephen Hackeling granted Buro's motion for summary judgment, effectively dismissing the complaint.
The dispute arose after Spera experienced complications following her treatment. In her complaint, she argued that Buro's negligence in administering the steroid injections was the direct cause of her injury. The case reached the appellate court after Spera appealed the lower court's ruling that favored Buro.
The Ruling
The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that Buro had met the burden of proof necessary to dismiss the malpractice claim. The judges on the panel included Betsy Barros, Helen Voutsinas, Lourdes M. Ventura, and Donna-Marie E. Golia. The court stated, "When moving for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging podiatric malpractice, a defendant must establish, prima facie, that there was no departure or deviation from the accepted standard of care or that such departure or deviation was not a proximate cause of any injury to the plaintiff."
The court found that Buro's legal team had successfully demonstrated that his actions were in line with accepted medical practices. They submitted evidence including deposition transcripts, Spera's medical records, and an expert opinion from a board-certified podiatrist. This expert testified that Buro's administration of the steroid injections was appropriate and that the injections could not have caused the tendon rupture.
In contrast, Spera's opposition did not effectively challenge the evidence presented by Buro's team. The court noted that Spera's expert failed to address specific claims made by Buro's expert and did not provide a solid basis for her opinion regarding the standard of care. The court stated, "The plaintiff's expert also failed to adequately set forth an explanation for the opinion that the podiatric standard of care forecloses the administration of repeated steroid injections, as the literature submitted by plaintiff's expert did not support that opinion."
Impact
The ruling has significant implications for future medical malpractice cases, particularly those involving podiatric care. It underscores the importance of providing substantial evidence to support claims of negligence and the necessity for expert testimony to be well-founded and specific. This decision may deter similar claims where the evidence does not robustly support the plaintiff's position.
For patients and practitioners alike, this case illustrates the complexities involved in medical malpractice litigation. It emphasizes that while patients have the right to seek damages for alleged malpractice, they must also meet a high standard of proof to succeed in their claims. This ruling could influence how future cases are approached, particularly in terms of the quality and specificity of expert testimony.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Spera plans to appeal this decision. There is no indication of any related cases pending that could affect this ruling.