In Shafran v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 264 A.D.2d 553 (1st Dept. 1999), in a medical malpractice action the trial court's blanket preclusion of plaintiff's three medical witnesses as cumulative, in contrast to the defendant being permitted to call medical experts in each area of medical specialty, was an improvident exercise of the trial court's discretion. The court noted that, "at a minimum, plaintiff should have been permitted to call his neurologist on rebuttal, to respond to this new theory of causation ;" at Page 645. On rebuttal, to respond to this new theory of causation. The court went on to find that while a trial court must not allow cumulative or repetitive testimony, the preclusion rulings were over broad and severely prejudiced plaintiff's ability to prove his case.