from inquiring into or introducing evidence about such lawsuits. [¶ 35.] Over defense counsel’s objection, Veith offered Hunnington’s testimony to refute Dr. O’Brien’s testimony that all of his patients received and were instructed on the gastric bypass procedures described in both the ASBS booklet and in Dr. O’Brien’s booklet. Veith now alleges that defense counsel’s cross-examination of Hunnington, who traveled from California to testify for Veith, on the mat ter of her pending lawsuit against Dr. O’Brien for purposes of establishing bias, was error because it violated an order in limine. However, Veith did not object at trial to defense counsel’s line of questioning on this matter and hence does not preserve this issue for appeal. See Bakker v. Irvine, 519 N.W.2d 41, 47 (S.D.1994) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. Johnson, 441 N.W.2d 675, 677
holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial holding a party may not invite error and then be heard to complain of that error on appeal 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 a party failing to make a timely objection to evidence at trial cannot as a matter of law be heard to complain on appeal that its admission is error constituting an irregularity in the proceeding holding that a party may not invite error and then be heard to complain of that error on appeal