challenging the payment orders on the grounds that such payments exceed the amounts authorized by West Virginia Code § 49-7-33, DHHR raises additional objections to those orders stemming from the preapproval procedure established in Trial Court Rule 27.02. While the parties did not provide us with specifies, some of the underlying payment orders at issue were not preapproved by the trial court regarding the amount of the expert witness fee to be awarded for the evaluative services to be performed by Dr. Hewitt. However, by failing to appeal any of the underlying orders that collectively comprise the subject of the August 16, 2001, order, DHHR has waived its right to challenge the enforceability of those orders. See Syl. Pt. 3, State v. Asbury, 187 W.Va. 87, 415 S.E.2d 891 (1992) (<HOLDING>); see also Hustead on Behalf of Adkins v.
holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review holding that although the issue of waiver as to the appellants allegation of trial court error had not been addressed by either party this court could raise the issue of waiver sua sponte holding that fjailure to make timely and proper objection  constitutes a waiver of the right to raise the question thereafter either in the trial court or in the appellate court holding that failure to raise pretrial objection to alleged duplicitous counts in the indictment constitutes waiver of the defense holding that by fading to timely raise the issue before the trial court the defendant had waived the right to raise the issue on appeal that the trial court failed to consider less severe sanctions