Case Name: Michael Gregory KATOS, Appellant, v. Robert B. CUSHING, D.D.S. and Robert B. Cushing, D.D.S., P.A., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-06-23
Citations: 601 So. 2d 612
Docket Number: Nos. 91-1504, 91-1266
Parties: Michael Gregory KATOS, Appellant, v. Robert B. CUSHING, D.D.S. and Robert B. Cushing, D.D.S., P.A., Appellees.
Judges: Before NESBITT, FERGUSON and GODERICH, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 601
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
Michael Gregory KATOS, Appellant, v. Robert B. CUSHING, D.D.S. and Robert B. Cushing, D.D.S., P.A., Appellees.
Nos. 91-1504, 91-1266.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 23, 1992.
Ronald M. Friedman, Boca Raton, Floyd Pearson Richman Greer Weil Brumbaugh & Russomanno and Herman J. Russoman-no and Beth F. Bloom, Miami, for appellant.
Kubicki, Draper, Gallagher & McGrane and Betsy E. Gallagher and Miles McGrane, Miami, for appellees.
Before NESBITT, FERGUSON and GODERICH, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The test for harmful error is whether, but for such error, a different result may have been reached. Marks v. Delcastillo, 386 So.2d 1259, 1267 n. 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397 So.2d 778 (Fla.1981). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the alleged erroneous eviden-tiary rulings did not affect the outcome in this dental malpractice action. The evidence excluded was essentially cumulative, and the admitted medical testimony challenged here was not so prejudicial as to destroy the jury's impartiality. For these reasons, a new trial is not warranted. See Kennedy v. Brago, 544 So.2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Jefferson Disposal Co. v. Green, 311 So.2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Competent and substantial evidence was presented from which the jury could have concluded, in its general verdict, that the plaintiff was not lulled into a six month delay in seeking surgical attention owing to negligent actions on the part of the defendant doctor, or that the delay in seeking surgical intervention was not a cause of the injury. Because no harmful error is shown, and the jury verdict is supported by competent evidence, there are no grounds for reversal. Thompson v. Jacobs, 314 So.2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
Affirmed.