Defense verdict in Kemper v. Cho Foot and Ankle Associates after ankle surgery and later subtalar fusion

# Case snapshot Kemper v. Cho Foot and Ankle Associates was tried in Virginia Beach Circuit Court before a jury and Judge James Lewis. The jury returned a defense verdict on July 30, 2026. The plaintiff alleged that a podiatrist's ankle surgery led to a talar fracture and later required a subtalar fusion. Attorneys for the defendant were Carlyle R. "Randy" Wimbish III and Bradley D. Reeser of Wimbish Gentile McCray & Roeber.

# Clinical and procedural timeline A 44-year-old woman fell on a sidewalk and sustained an inversion injury to her left ankle. She had experienced two prior similar ankle injuries in the previous seven years and presented to the defendant podiatrist the next day, supplying a doorbell video of the fall. MRI showed significant abnormalities in all three lateral ankle ligaments. The defendant recommended surgical stabilization to prevent future injuries. The planned procedure involved anchors in the talus and fibula to attach an internal brace.

During preparation of the drill hole in the talus, the bone fractured. The surgeon identified and reduced the fracture immediately but was unable to place the talar anchor, so the ligament repair was completed with sutures alone. The fracture healed uneventfully, and within three months the patient reported functional improvement and even hiking in Colorado without difficulty. At her last visit with the defendant, she reported improved ankle stability and had suffered no further ankle injuries since that surgery.

# Legal dispute and expert positions

• The plaintiff's experts argued the original surgery was unnecessary and that standard care required at least three months of physical therapy before considering surgery. They said physical therapy likely would have avoided the surgery and thus avoided the talar fracture.
• They conceded the talar fracture is a known complication but maintained the fracture caused the arthritis that led to the fusion.

• The defense expert, who had substantially more experience performing lateral ankle stabilization than the two plaintiff experts combined, testified the standard of care did not mandate a trial of physical therapy in this patient because therapy was unlikely to resolve her underlying instability.
• The defense also argued the intraoperative talar fracture did not cause the later subtalar arthritis or the need for fusion.

# Outcome and practical implications