City would inspect it. N.T., 2/14/14, at 59. In light of this concession, Tube City could not now prevail on its argument that the attorney-client privilege was waived because Dr. Ozol took the stand with these documents in his file. 9 . Under this subsection, Tube City also argues that the trial court should have struck these claims because they were barred by the statute of limitations. Tube City’s Brief at 43. This argument does not relate to whether Roller adequately established the elements of fraud or negligent misrepresentation, but is a completely separate issue. Tube City did not include an issue raising the statute of limitations in its statement of questions involved, see Tube City’s Brief at 4, and so it has been waived. Cobbs v. SEPTA, 985 A.2d 249, 256 (Pa.Super.2009) (<HOLDING>); Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) ("No question will be
holding an issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal holding that issue not explicitly raised in appellants statement of the questions involved is waived holding issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal holding that matters not raised in an appellants briefing in the court of appeals are waived holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived