The test for determining nonconstitutional harmless error is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict. (Citation omitted.) Haskins v. Georgia Neurosurgical Inst., P.O., 355 Ga. App. 781, 783 (2), 845 S.E.2d 770 (2020). Here, weighing the evidence recounted above as a reasonable juror would, Altine failed to establish that the nurses breached the standard of care regarding his bleeding, or that any of the nurses’ actions caused his injuries.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Haskins v. Ga. Neurosurgical Institute, P.C. , 355 Ga. App. 781, 783 (2), 845 S.E.2d 770 (2020). Here, pretermitting whether it was error to admit Dr. Phillips's altered medical records, our review shows that it is highly probable that the evidence did not contribute to the verdict.

Furthermore, even assuming that the trial court's decision to limit Dr. Flanigan's testimony was error, any such error was harmless because his testimony on the issues of timing and causation would have been cumulative of the testimony provided by Plaintiffs' other experts. See Haskins v. Ga. Neurosurgical Inst., P. C., 355 Ga.App. 781, 785-786 (4) (845 S.E.2d 770) (2020) (exclusion of expert testimony harmless where it was "merely cumulative of trial testimony already given" by another expert).

The appellate court must construe the evidence with every inference and presumption in favor of upholding the verdict, and after judgment, the evidence must be construed to uphold the verdict even where the evidence is in conflict. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Haskins v. Ga. Neurosurgical Institute, 355 Ga. App. 781 (1), 845 S.E.2d 770 (2020). So construed, the evidence shows that on October 11, 2018, Dr. White performed a surgery at WellStar Hospital to remove Amy’s gallbladder.

Consequently, the exclusion of this evidence did not prevent Arnold from showing that Liggins experienced serious injuries in an earlier accident, and under the circumstances of this case, any error in excluding this evidence was harmless. See Haskins v. Ga. Neurosurgical Institute, P.C. , 355 Ga. App. 781, 783 (2), 845 S.E.2d 770 (2020) (harmless error doctrine applies to erroneous evidentiary rulings). 2. Arnold contends that the trial court erred by admitting a document regarding charges for Liggins's MRI, arguing that the form did not qualify as a "medical bill" within the meaning of the relevant evidentiary statute.

307 Ga. 815, 838 S.E.2d 870.Lee , 307 Ga. at 821-22 (2), 838 S.E.2d 870 ; accordHaskins v. Ga. Neurosurgical Inst., P.C. , 355 Ga. App. 781, 785 (4), 845 S.E.2d 770 (2020). when determining whether to exclude a witness who was not timely identified in compliance with a pretrial scheduling, discovery, or case management order, a trial court should consider: (1) the explanation for the failure to disclose the witness, (2) the importance of the testimony, (3) the prejudice to the opposing party if the witness is allowed to testify, and (4) whether a less harsh remedy than the exclusion of the witness would be sufficient to ameliorate

"The new Evidence Code continues Georgia's existing harmless error doctrine for erroneous evidentiary rulings.... The test for determining nonconstitutional harmless error is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict." Haskins v. Ga. Neurosurgical Institute , 355 Ga. App. 781, 783 (2), 845 S.E.2d 770 (2020), quoting Perez v. State , 303 Ga. 188, 191 (2), 811 S.E.2d 331 (2018). See OCGA § 24-1-103 (a) ("Error shall not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected....").

Berryhill cites to no authority, and we have found none, that would permit this Court to review this enumeration on the merits despite the complete absence of an objection. See Gates v. State , 298 Ga. 324, 328 (4), 781 S.E.2d 772 (2016) ("[B]ecause Gates did not object to the prosecutor's argument at trial, he has waived review of these arguments on appeal, as the alleged errors here based on improper remarks during closing argument are not subject to review on appeal for plain error."); Haskins v. Ga. Neurosurgical Institute, P.C. , 355 Ga. App. 781, 789 (7), 845 S.E.2d 770 (2020) ("The appellants’ further argument concerning a purported prejudicial statement about Dr. Rowe during defense counsel's closing argument provides no basis for a new trial since no such objection was made at trial."). Accordingly, Berryhill has waived any argument regarding an improper closing argument, and this enumeration presents nothing for our review.