instructed overall, we apply the de novo standard of review. Id. (citations omitted). ANALYSIS AND DECISION [¶ 26.] 1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting “track record” evidence as to Dr. O’Brien’s experience with loop gastric bypass surgery. [¶ 27.] Veith argues that Dr. O’Brien’s “track record” testimony was prejudicial; allowance of which was error and an abuse of discretion in light of the trial court’s previous grant of Veith’s motion in limine, prohibiting Dr. O’Brien from presenting such evidence. However, when a party through his questions “opens the door” to admission of evidence, the party may not challenge the admission of that evidence. State v. Klein, 444 N.W.2d 16, 19-20 (S.D.1989) (citing United States v. Gipson, 862 F.2d 714 (8th Cir.1988)) (<HOLDING>). Further, “[t]he doctrine of ‘invited error’
holding that defense counsel opened the door to the prosecutions questioning of the defendant about prior convictions when defense counsel asked a prosecution witness whether he was aware that the defendant was  a convicted felon holding that the failure of defense counsel to call a corroborating witness resulted in prejudice to the defendant holding the defendant was a convicted felon within the purview of the federal statute prohibiting the receiving and possession of firearms by a convicted felon where the defendants prior conviction was based on an idaho state probated sentence holding that defense counsel opened the door to the states rebuttal remarks when defense counsel raised the issue in his closing argument holding that defense counsel opened the door to response by prosecutor when he tried to turn defendants failure to testify to his advantage in closing argument