Appellants next contend that the trial court erred when it refused to permit them to question one of appellee's experts about fees he was paid by appellee's counsel in an unrelated case, or to raise the matter during closing arguments. Our standard of review as to such issues is abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Pandula v. Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395, 398, 199 So. 358, 360 (1940) (the scope of witness cross-examination to demonstrate bias rests within the discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear demonstration that prejudicial error occurred); Breedlove v. State, 413 So.2d 1, 8 (Fla. 1982) (the control of comments to the jury during closing arguments is within the trial court's discretion, and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear demonstration that prejudicial error occurred). Our review of the trial transcript satisfies us that neither the trial court's refusal to permit appellants to question one of appellee's experts about fees he was paid by appellee's counsel in an unrelated case, nor its refusal to permit appellants to raise the matter during closing arguments amounted to an abuse of discretion.