or harm that adversely affects a substantial right of a party. Windmon v. Marshall, 926 So.2d 867, 876 (Miss.2006) (quoting Busick v. St. John, 856 So.2d 304, 319 (Miss.2003)). ¶ 19. Here, the trial court ultimately concluded that the evidence was “improper and inadmissible.” We disagree. Evidence is relevant if it “tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Miss. R. Evid. 401. Information regarding the Plaintiffs condition prior to the alleged negligence would certainly be relevant in this instance to determine whether or not Lewis had indeed suffered new and distinct injuries at the hands of either BEM or BEI. See Blake v. Clein, 903 So.2d 710, 724 (Miss.2005) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, it obviously was proper for
holding the procedural right to request a onetime change of physician during the course of treatment does not attach until claimant actually begins treatment with the initially authorized physician holding testimony about plaintiffs mental and physical state before treatment by physician was relevant recognizing physician assistant as agent of the supervising physician holding that such a physician was a state actor under  1983 holding that a claimant establishes a prima facie case for compensable medical treatment where a qualified physician indicates treatment was necessary for a workrelated condition