¶1SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING
¶2delivered the opinion of the court:
¶3Defendants have filed a petition for rehearing contending that the harmless error doctrine was wrongfully applied with reference to the exclusion of Dr. Leestma’s testimony that he based his opinion as to Mohler’s death in part on the report of Dr. Westfall.
¶4Plaintiff has filed a petition for modification of the opinion contending (1) that this court incorrectly applied People v. Ward (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 559, 338 N.E.2d 171, to the above-mentioned testimony of Dr. Leestma and (2) that defendants’ objection to the testimony of decedent’s mother was waived because not properly raised or presented.
¶5With reference to defendants’ contention, we have carefully reexamined the record and find in it nothing to change our holding that the exclusion of Dr. Leestma’s testimony was harmless.
¶6With reference to plaintiff’s contentions, we adhere to our application of the Ward case as to Dr. Leestma’s testimony and, with reference to the testimony of decedent’s mother, reaffirm our holding as to the harmless error in its admission, but agree with plaintiff that defendants’ objection to it as hearsay was not specifically or properly raised at trial or sufficiently preserved in their post trial motion. Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Industrial Com. (1979), 78 Ill. 2d 171, 179-80, 399 N.E.2d 606; Wilson v. Clark (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 186,189-190,417 N.E.2d 1322; Brown v. Decatur Memorial Hospital (1980), 83 Ill. 2d 344, 348-53, 415 N.E.2d 337.
¶7Defendants’ petition for rehearing and plaintiff’s petition for modification of the opinion are denied.
¶8GOLDBERG and McGLOON, JJ., concur.