Vaidik, Chief Judge.
A unanimous medical review panel found that the defendant Doctors failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care and their conduct was a factor of the resultant damages to Julia Roberts. … [To rebut the panel opinion on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment,] the Doctors designated as expert evidence only their own conclusory affidavits. …
….
… In these affidavits, as seen in this excerpt from the affidavit of Kevin Scripture, M.D., the Doctors set forth their medical credentials and then state the following concerning their care of Julia Roberts:
5. With regard to this matter, I provided care to Julia Roberts on March 14, 2010.
6. I am familiar with the treatment provided by Richard Mangan, O.D., Judy Risch, O.D., and Whitewater Eye Centers, LLC to Ms. Roberts.
7. I am familiar with the standard of care to be exercised by a treating ophthalmologist under the same or similar circumstances in 2010.
8. The care and treatment I provided Ms. Roberts met the applicable standard of care and was not a responsible cause of her alleged injuries and/or damages.
[Record citations omitted throughout; footnote omitted.] These portions of all three of the Doctors’ affidavits are [materially] identical ….
The trial court set a date for the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. The day before the hearing, the Doctors filed a motion for leave to supplement their response to the summary-judgment motion and designated three supplemental affidavits, which included additional facts. For instance, Dr. Scripture’s affidavit now included the following information:
6. Julia Roberts presented with pain in her left eye. I instructed Ms. Roberts to continue the use of her previously-prescribed Zymar, and I replaced her bandage contact lens.
*****
10. Richard Mangan, O.D. and Judy Risch, O.D. treated Julia Roberts for a left corneal ulcer from approximately March 15, 2010 through March 23, 2010. During that time, they carefully evaluated her, ordered a culture, instructed her on care, and treated her symptoms with Zymar, Lortab, artificial tears, Ung ointment, Neopolydex ointment, Homatrophine 5%, Ciloxan ointment, Tobramycin, Pred Forte, Acuvail, and Tylenol #3.
Following the hearing, the trial court issued an order summarily denying the Doctors’ motion for leave to supplement their response and granting the Robertses’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the Doctors’ affidavits were “insufficient to raise or create specific facts that establish a material issue of fact for trial[.]” Id. at 8.
….
Indiana Trial Rule 56(E) provides in pertinent part as follows:
When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.
(Emphases added). Here the Doctors’ affidavits … did not set forth specific facts regarding Julia Roberts’ care, but instead, echoed the denials of their pleading contrary to the requirements of Trial Rule 56(E). See T.R. 56(E); see also Whitlock v. Steel Dynamics, Inc., 35 N.E.3d 265, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (“[T]he affiants—rather than merely setting forth conclusory statements—were required to give specific details which they perceived to be the basis for their conclusions . . . .”).
A review of cases * * * in which the expert affidavits were considered sufficient to defeat summary judgment [shows that] the affidavits set forth some factual basis to support the experts’ conclusions. …
Yet the Doctors contend their affidavits are sufficient to defeat summary judgment under … Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1002 (Ind. 2014). The … Doctors argue [that] even if their affidavits are self-serving and conclusory, under Hughley they are still sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
Unlike in Hughley, however, here the Doctors cited no facts that would support that they met the standard of care or that their conduct did not cause the Robertses’ damages. The Doctors merely restated the denials in their pleadings. Hughley is inapposite. For the reasons set forth above, we find that the trial court did not err in finding that the Doctors’ affidavits do not raise a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. See T.R. 56(E).
….
[W]e also cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Doctors’ motion to supplement. … Here the Doctors … waited months, until the day before the summary-judgment hearing, to step up their efforts to defeat the summary judgment by filing supplemental affidavits with “additional information which cured the alleged deficiencies in the Doctors’ original affidavits, including further detail on the care provided by each Doctor and how that care met the applicable standard of care.” The trial court’s denial was not against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. [Citation omitted.]
Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Pyle, J., concur.