When we consider whether an error was harmless, we review the record de novo and weigh the evidence as we would expect reasonable jurors to have done so. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Ross-Stubblefield. v. Weakland, 359 Ga. App. 523, 527, 859 S.E.2d 502 (2021); see also 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[.]"). [27] Pretermitting whether the City waived the error, we conclude that any error in the admission of this testimony was harmless.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Ross-Stubblefield v. Weakland , 359 Ga. App. 523, 526-527, 859 S.E.2d 502 (2021) ; see also 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 ..."); 9-11-61 ("No error in ... the admission ... of evidence ... is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.").

When we consider whether an error was harmless, we review the record de novo and weigh the evidence as we would expect reasonable jurors to have done so. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Ross-Stubblefield v. Weakland, 359 Ga. App. 523, 526-527, 859 S.E.2d 502 (2021); see also OCGA §§ 9-11-61; 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[.]").

In light of the evidence of a negligent act or omission at Patricia's November 2014 visits to Life Cycle, the trial court erred by ruling as a matter of law that the record contained no evidence of a failure to diagnose or a misdiagnosis. See, e.g., Ross-Stubblefield v. Weakland , 359 Ga. App. 523, 527, 859 S.E.2d 502 (2021). ("There was expert testimony on both sides regarding the standard of care, and it was the jury's role to weigh this testimony.").