his twenty-five years of performing catheterizations, he always followed up with patients after the procedure and that Dr. Scala erred “after the procedure” by not performing “routine things that are done in the post-treatment period.” Given that Dr. Schapira gave extensive testimony criticizing Appellees for not examining Appellant prior to discharge and opining that the standard of care required a physician- to examine Appellant prior to discharge, any further testimony by Dr. Markis on this point would have been cumulative. We conclude that under the facts of this case, the trial court’s determination that each party be limited to one expert on the standard of care and one expert on causation did not constitute an abuse of discretion. See Lion Plumbing Supply, Inc., 844 So.2d at 770 (<HOLDING>). Our greater concern is the failure of the
holding that even if an experts testimony arguably embraced the ultimate issue such testimony is permissible as long as the experts testimony assists rather than supplants the jurys judgment holding that testimony of two experts was unreliable because they relied on the testimony of two other experts which was also unreliable holding that testimony at trial in violation of defendants constitutional confrontation right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was cumulative holding that trial court may limit number of experts per side so as to prevent presentation of cumulative testimony holding that a number of errors may be deemed harmful in their cumulative effect