DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§2671 et seq., filed by Robert Carroll (“Plaintiff”) against the United States of America (“Defendant”), are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 50, 54.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is granted, and Plaintiff’s cross-motion is denied. I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND A. Plaintiff’s Claims Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that, between approximately January of 1991 and May of 2019, at the Castle Point VA Medical Center in Wappingers Falls, New York, and the Stratton VA Medical Center in Albany, New York, Defendant breached its duty of care as a medical provider by negligently retaining inadequate staff who failed to properly or timely diagnose Plaintiff’s tandem spondylosis and instead attributed post-operative symptoms solely to cervical myelopathy, without considering alternate causes. (See generally Dkt. No. 1, at 7 [Plf.'s Compl.].) Plaintiff further alleges that, as a direct and proximate result of that breach, he has endured pain, suffering, mental anguish and other consequential damages, and will continue to endure the same in the future. (Id. at 35.) Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims of medical malpractice, negligence, and vicarious liability against Defendant. (Id. at
25, 34, 41.) Familiarity with the factual allegations supporting these claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint is assumed in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for review by the parties. (Id.) Following the Court’s Decision and Order of July 27, 2020, Plaintiff’s claims for medical malpractice and negligence were dismissed to the extent that they are based on conduct and injuries asserted in the 2014 SF-95 claim, but Plaintiff’s claims otherwise survived to the extent they are based on conduct and injuries associated with his thoracic spine as asserted in the 2019 SF-95. (Dkt. No. 28, at 18.) B. Undisputed Material Facts on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Unless otherwise noted, the following facts were asserted and supported with accurate record citations by Defendant in its Statement of Material Facts and either admitted by Plaintiff or denied without an accurate supporting record citation. (Compare Dkt. No. 50-3 with Dkt. No. 57-1.) Plaintiff was diagnosed with cervical herniated discs and compressive myelopathy in 1998. Plaintiff had surgery in 1998, but the surgery did not reverse the compressive myelopathy. On or about February 3, 2012, Plaintiff was diagnosed with spinal stenosis of the lumbar spine at Kingston Neurological Associates, a non-VA provider. On February 6, 2012, Plaintiff underwent an MRI of the lumbar spine without contrast at Ulster Medical and Surgical Specialists. (Dkt. No. 51-2.) According to notes signed by Dr. Richard Levy, “[l]imited evaluation of the lower thoracic spine reveal[ed] multilevel disc bulging and endplate osteophyte formation greater anteriorly most pronounced at T12-L1.” (Id., at 1.) At T12-L1, there was “mild bilateral facet hypertrophy greater rightward with mild right degenerative foraminal stenosis.” (Id.) Overall, the MRI showed “diffuse degenerative change in the thoracic and lumbar spine,” with findings “most pronounced at L4-5 with bilateral high grade foraminal and spinal stenosis, the latter compounded by probable right synovial cyst.” (Id., at 3.) Clinical correlation and imaging follow-up were recommended. (Id.) On February 27, 2012, Plaintiff was seen at the Albany Medical Center complaining of increasing gait difficulty over the prior year, and he was assessed as having cervical spondylotic myelopathy and lumbar spondylosis with stenosis at L4-L5. On June 26, 2014, Plaintiff returned to the Albany Medical Center and reported worsening spasticity in the lower extremities. Plaintiff requested imaging of the lumbar spine, and he was counseled that it was unlikely that a lower lumbar compression syndrome would contribute to spasticity. He elected to continue with exercises on his own and agreed to consider a referral to physical medicine and rehabilitation. On November 6, 2017, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Rossella Cavaliere at the VA Neurology Clinic. He complained of low back pain radiating down the legs. Plaintiff reported that, after consulting with the VA orthopedic clinic in 2014 about his treatment options, he had opted for pain management and physical therapy instead of surgery. He reported that his symptoms had been worsening and that he wanted to reevaluate surgery. On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff had a Neurosurgery consult at the Syracuse VA. The neurosurgeon advised that an L4/5 lumbar laminectomy would be reasonable, but Plaintiff declined surgery and elected to continue medical management of his symptoms with his primary care provider. On January 23, 2019, Plaintiff had MRIs of the cervical and thoracic spine. The MRI of the thoracic spine showed the following: On the thoracic disc spaces, moderate to prominent degenerative changes are seen particularly in the lower disc spaces. Small disc herniations and mild disc bulging are seen in the disc spaces. Mild spinal canal narrowing is seen at T10-11. No other significant spinal stenosis is seen. (Dkt. No. 51-8, at 6.) On February 13, 2019, Plaintiff was seen for a follow-up visit at the VA Neurology clinic. Dr. Cavaliere noted that his cervical MRI was unchanged, and his thoracic spine MRI showed “minor abnormalities.” Dr. Cavaliere instructed Plaintiff to continue his present treatment and follow up with his doctors as scheduled. She indicated that follow-up with neurology would be “as needed”; regular follow-up with the neurology clinic was not needed, and no follow-up appointment would be scheduled. On January 21, 2021, Plaintiff was seen at the Neurosurgery Clinic at the Albany Medical Center for evaluation and possible surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis and a synovial cyst on his lumbar spine. He had surgery to remove the cyst on April 12, 2021. C. Asserted Facts on Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Although Plaintiff submitted a Statement of Material Facts and an Amended Statement of Material Facts in support of his cross-motion for summary judgment, he failed to set forth a specific citation to the record in support of each asserted fact. (Dkt. Nos. 54, 58.) Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1(a) of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court, and the Court will disregard any asserted fact unsupported by a specific citation to the record. Nonetheless, to the extent Plaintiff’s asserted facts reference medical records, the Court has described them above. Further, recognizing Plaintiff’s pro se status and out of an abundance of caution, the Court will summarize relevant portions of Plaintiff’s affidavit and testimony. According to Plaintiff, VA neurologists failed to consider that his thoracic spine was arthritic and had developed spondylosis, despite his complaints of pain in the thoracic spine and the 2012 imaging showing degenerative changes in the thoracic spine. (Dkt. No. 54-2,
