wage index? That issue was addressed at trial by IRMH’s expert, Julia DiFrancesco. DiFrancesco opined that the Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board would have rejected IRMH’s initial application as incomplete and would have provided an opportunity for the hospital to amend its application to seek the Orlando wage index. Counsel for RRI objected generally to DiFrancescos’ expertise in the field, but made no contemporaneous objection to the specific questions resulting in the expert’s opinions. This court need not determine whether DiFrancesco’s opinions are supported by the other evidence in the case because RRI failed to seek their exclusion. As no objection to this crucial evidence was raised below, it was waived. See Anderson v. State, 863 So.2d 169, 180-81 (Fla.2003) (<HOLDING>). While the trial court does not exclusively
holding that speculation objection as to expert testimony was waived where a different ground for objection was offered below holding that an objection was adequate when the judge cut short the objection and the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to explain his objection fully holding that objection was timely even though objection was not made until after question was answered recognizing that a defendant may not raise one ground for objection at trial and argue a different ground on appeal holding that parties waived any choice of law objection by not raising an objection