expressly or impliedly) and if the treatments are reasonably necessary.” The City then filed briefs with the trial court addressed to the evidence relating solely to the authorization issue. At the City’s request, the trial court then conducted a hearing, presumably based on the issues as framed by the City, ultimately finding that the City had impliedly authorized Dr. Ryan to treat Pilson based on the referral from Dr. Banach. We conclude that the City, by defining the issues as set out above and by proceeding to the hearing based on those issues, waived any argument that the treatment by Dr. Ryan should not be covered because it was not proven to relate to a condition that was medically caused by the motor-vehicle accident. See McKinley v. McKinley, 277 Ala. 471, 172 So.2d 35 (1965) (<HOLDING>). The City could have presented that issue as a
holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court holding that an appellate court cannot address on appeal an issue never ruled upon by the trial court holding that party who asked trial court to take certain action could not complain on appeal that action was wrong recognizing that a party cannot complain on appeal that the trial court considered an issue that that party consented to submit to the trial court holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal