failed to ' pay Tomlin at the time-and-a-half rate for the hours he worked in excess of forty per week. In the event of such a failure, we instruct the ALC to determine the rate of compensation to which Tomlin was entitled, the number of overtime hours that were underpaid, and the amount the Department owes Tomlin for his labor. II. Remaining Issues With regard to Tomlin’s remaining issues, we affirm based upon the following authorities: 1. As to the circuit court’s remand to the ALC for determination of the prevailing wage: Condor, Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, City of N. Charleston, 328 S.C. 173, 178, 493 S.E.2d 342, 344 (1997) (preventing an appellant from arguing on appeal an issue conceded in the trial court); Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 160, 591 S.E.2d 654, 661 (Ct.App.2004) (<HOLDING>). 2. As to whether Tomlin was an employee of
holding that even when the issue is constitutional in nature an argument is not preserved on appeal unless the appellant raised and made the argument at trial and obtained a ruling on it nor will a particular theory be addressed on appeal if it was not presented below holding a party cannot seek and receive a particular result at trial and then challenge it on appeal holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal holding that we cannot properly receive and consider evidence that was not presented to and considered by the trial court holding that claims based on grounds not objected to at trial cannot be considered on appeal