Department’s appellate brief should be so read is confirmed, again, by Joy’s appellate brief. The conclusion that the Department adequately “raised” the tort claim on appeal is bolstered by two final observations. First, the cases in which the Third Circuit has found appellate waiver involve situations quite unlike those presented here, such as where a party seeks to press a new and contradictory theory that it had never presented in previous proceedings or had expressly waived. See, e.g., Skretvedt, 372 F.3d at 202 (finding appellant-employee waived six of eight benefits claims when, in an earlier appeal from a grant of summary judgment for employer, employee briefed only two claims, and Court of Appeals remanded just these two claims); Kopec v. Tate, 361 F.3d 772, 775 (3d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Frank v. Colt Industries, 910 F.2d 90, 100
holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding that a ground for relief not pled in a motion for postconviction relief is waived and cannot be raised on appeal holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal holding that alternate theory of relief cannot be litigated on remand if it was not raised in prior appeal holding that the court bars a party from raising an issue on remand that  was not raised on appeal