The movants' expert opined that Blessios had an expertise in hepatobiliary procedures that Bloomberg and Rasmusson lacked. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition inasmuch as plaintiff's expert failed to address, much less oppose, that assessment of the physicians' expertise (see Page v Niagara Falls Mem. Med. Ctr., 174 A.D.3d 1318, 1320-1321 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 908 [2020]). Moreover, plaintiff's assertion that Bloomberg, Rasmusson, and Blessios jointly diagnosed plaintiff is belied by the record, and plaintiff presented no evidence that Blessios formed a diagnosis or conducted the second procedure in reliance on Bloomberg's or Rasmusson's initial impressions.
We affirm. Defendant Amarjit Singh Virk, M.D. satisfied his initial burden on his motion with respect to both deviation and causation by submitting his own expert affidavit opining, with detailed reasoning, that he "did not deviate from good and accepted medical practice ... and that [his] care and treatment of [the decedent] did not proximately cause [him] any injury" ( Thompson v. Hall , 191 A.D.3d 1265, 1267, 141 N.Y.S.3d 576 [4th Dept. 2021] ; seeWebb v. Scanlon , 133 A.D.3d 1385, 1386, 20 N.Y.S.3d 830 [4th Dept. 2015] ; see alsoPage v. Niagara Falls Mem. Med. Ctr. , 174 A.D.3d 1318, 1319-1320, 104 N.Y.S.3d 819 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 908, 2020 WL 205900 [2020] ). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition because her expert's affidavit addressed neither the specific conclusions in Virk's affidavit nor many of the undisputed facts concerning the decedent's treatment (seeRuiz v. Reiss , 180 A.D.3d 623, 623-624, 121 N.Y.S.3d 16 [1st Dept. 2020] ; Pigut v. Leary , 64 A.D.3d 1182, 1183, 881 N.Y.S.2d 755 [4th Dept. 2009] ).
We affirm. Defendant Amarjit Singh Virk, M.D. satisfied his initial burden on his motion with respect to both deviation and causation by submitting his own expert affidavit opining, with detailed reasoning, that he "did not deviate from good and accepted medical practice... and that [his] care and treatment of [the decedent] did not proximately cause [him] any injury" (Thompson v Hall, 191 A.D.3d 1265, 1267 [4th Dept 2021]; see Webb v Scanlon, 133 A.D.3d 1385, 1386 [4th Dept 2015]; see also Page v Niagara Falls Mem. Med. Ctr., 174 A.D.3d 1318, 1319-1320 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 908 [2020]). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition because her expert's affidavit addressed neither the specific conclusions in Virk's affidavit nor many of the undisputed facts concerning the decedent's treatment (see Ruiz v Reiss, 180 A.D.3d 623, 623-624 [1st Dept 2020]; Pigut v Leary, 64 A.D.3d 1182, 1183 [4th Dept 2009]).
y factual basis for [their] conclusion[s]" that Neurological Associates deviated from the standard of care in surgically resecting the tumor, documenting the resection, and advising decedent as to post-operative radiation and, therefore, the experts' affidavits "lacked probative force and [were] insufficient as a matter of law to overcome" the motion with respect to those claims ( Diaz v. New York Downtown Hosp. , 99 N.Y.2d 542, 545, 754 N.Y.S.2d 195, 784 N.E.2d 68 [2002] ; see Bubar v. Brodman , 177 A.D.3d 1358, 1360, 111 N.Y.S.3d 483 [4th Dept. 2019] ). With respect to the claims regarding post-operative monitoring of decedent's condition and detection of recurrence, although plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether Neurological Associates deviated from the applicable standard of care in that regard, we nevertheless conclude that plaintiff's submissions are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether any such deviation was a proximate cause of decedent's injuries (seePage v. Niagara Falls Mem. Med. Ctr. , 174 A.D.3d 1318, 1320, 104 N.Y.S.3d 819 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 908, 2020 WL 205900 [2020] ). Plaintiff's experts failed to explain how further testing would have led to an earlier diagnosis of recurrence of the tumor (seeG.L. v. Harawitz , 146 A.D.3d 476, 476, 44 N.Y.S.3d 442 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Foster-Sturrup v. Long , 95 A.D.3d 726, 728-729, 945 N.Y.S.2d 246 [1st Dept. 2012] ) and offered only conclusory and speculative assertions that earlier detection of recurrence and additional treatment would have produced a different outcome for decedent (seeLongtemps v. Oliva , 110 A.D.3d 1316, 1319, 973 N.Y.S.2d 452 [3d Dept. 2013] ; Poblocki v. Todoro , 49 A.D.3d 1239, 1240, 856 N.Y.S.2d 327 [4th Dept. 2008] ; Bullard v. St. Barnabas Hosp. , 27 A.D.3d 206, 206, 810 N.Y.S.2d 78 [1st Dept. 2006] ).
We affirm. Defendant Amarjit Singh Virk, M.D. satisfied his initial burden on his motion with respect to both deviation and causation by submitting his own expert affidavit opining, with detailed reasoning, that he "did not deviate from good and accepted medical practice... and that [his] care and treatment of [the decedent] did not proximately cause [him] any injury" (Thompson v Hall, 191 A.D.3d 1265, 1267 [4th Dept 2021]; see Webb v Scanlon, 133 A.D.3d 1385, 1386 [4th Dept 2015]; see also Page v Niagara Falls Mem. Med. Ctr., 174 A.D.3d 1318, 1319-1320 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 908 [2020]). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition because her expert's affidavit addressed neither the specific conclusions in Virk's affidavit nor many of the undisputed facts concerning the decedent's treatment (see Ruiz v Reiss, 180 A.D.3d 623, 623-624 [1st Dept 2020]; Pigut v Leary, 64 A.D.3d 1182, 1183 [4th Dept 2009]).