the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” I.R.C.P. 61. Consequently, we have held that when an appellant fails to present argument that a substantial right was implicated she waives the issue. Hurtado v. Land O’Lakes, Inc., 153 Idaho 13, 18, 278 P.3d 415, 420 (2012) (“[Because [appellant] presents no argument that the error affected a substantial right, [appellant] has waived the issue.”). Here, although Palmer argues that the grant of additur in the amount of $50,000 was an abuse of discretion, she offers no argument that the error affect ed a substantial right. We therefore decline to address the issue for this reason as well. Hurtado, 153 Idaho at 18, 278 P.3d at 420; see also Taylor v. AIA Servs. Corp., 151 Idaho 552, 573, 261 P.3d 829, 850 (2011) (<HOLDING>); Kuhn v. Coldwell Banker Landmark, Inc., 150
holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim because any evidentiary error was harmless holding that the defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of counsel because any evidentiary error was harmless holding that even if the district court had erred by not allowing the plaintiff leave to file a reply brief any error was harmless because it did not prejudice the plaintiffs rights holding that even if witnesses were not timely disclosed appellant had not demonstrated that he suffered any prejudice and therefore any error was harmless