Case Name: Derrick C. FURTADO, a minor, By and Through his father and next friend, Thomas FURTADO, and his mother and next friend, Lauren Furtado, and Thomas Furtado, individually, and Lauren Furtado, individually, Appellants, v. Beth WALMER, David Walmer, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., a foreign corp., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-05-22
Citations: 673 So. 2d 568
Docket Number: No. 94-3533
Parties: Derrick C. FURTADO, a minor, By and Through his father and next friend, Thomas FURTADO, and his mother and next friend, Lauren Furtado, and Thomas Furtado, individually, and Lauren Furtado, individually, Appellants, v. Beth WALMER, David Walmer, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., a foreign corp., Appellees.
Judges: GLICKSTEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 673
Pages: 568–568

Head Matter:
Derrick C. FURTADO, a minor, By and Through his father and next friend, Thomas FURTADO, and his mother and next friend, Lauren Furtado, and Thomas Furtado, individually, and Lauren Furtado, individually, Appellants, v. Beth WALMER, David Walmer, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., a foreign corp., Appellees.
No. 94-3533.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 22, 1996.
Philip M. Burlington of Caruso, Burlington, Bohn & Compiani, PA., and Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, PA., West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Michele I. Nelson of Paxton, Crow, Bragg, Smith & Keyser, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellees-Waimers.
Thomas A Conrad of Heller &, Conrad, P.A., Hollywood, for Appellee-State Farm.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We find no error in the trial court's failure to grant appellants' request for a jury instruction on aggravation of a preexisting condition.
Although we conclude that the trial court erred in precluding appellants' counsel from eliciting the identity of the insurance carrier in his redirect examination of Dr. Alexakis, see Krawzak v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 660 So.2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rev. granted, 670 So.2d 938 (Fla.1996), we find such error to be harmless under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we affirm.
GLICKSTEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
POLEN, J., dissents with opinion.