Charles Muskett allegedly slipped, fell, and was injured while walking across the parking lot of Sketchley Cleaners, Inc. d/b/a Cleveland Avenue Cleaners. Muskett sued Sketchley Cleaners for damages, claiming that his fall was proximately caused by a pothole filled with debris that Sketchley Cleaners had negligently failed to repair. The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Sketchley Cleaners.1 On appeal from the denial of his motion for new trial, Muskett contends that the trial court erred by excluding the deposition testimony of one of his treating physicians; expressing an improper opinion as to the sufficiency of proof; charging the jury on the principle of prior traversal of a static defect; and imposing a time limit on the presentation of his case-in-chief.2 We find no reversible error and affirm. 1. Sketchley Cleaners filed a motion in limine to exclude the deposition testimony of Dr. Linzy Scott, a retired orthopedic surgeon who treated Muskett on one occasion after his alleged fall and who opined on the alleged cause and nature of his injuries. The trial court granted the motion after concluding that Dr. Scott —who was not licensed as a physician when he treated Muskett and had been retired since approximately 2000 —was not qualified to testify as an expert under OCGA § 24-9-67.1 b. Muskett contends that the trial court erred in granting Sketchley Cleaners’s motion in limine.
Even if the exclusion of Dr. Scott’s expert testimony was error, it was merely cumulative of other expert testimony admitted at trial. During his case-in-chief, Muskett presented the live testimony of another orthopedic surgeon who treated him, as well as the deposition testimony of several other treating physicians including a chiropractor, an orthopedist, and a neurologist, who provided their expert opinions on the alleged cause and nature of Muskett’s injuries. Accordingly, any alleged error in excluding Dr. Scott’s expert testimony was harmless and provides no ground for reversal. See Moresi v. Evans , 257 Ga. App. 670, 676 2 572 SE2d 327 2002 even if testimony was erroneously excluded, it was harmless error because the testimony would have been cumulative; Ratliff v. CSX Transp. , 219 Ga. App. 53, 56 2 464 SE2d 1 1995 same. See also Moxley v. Moxley , 281 Ga. 326, 328 4 638 SE2d 284 2006 there must be harm as well as error to warrant reversing the trial court.
