Opinion ID: 2092596
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure To Preserve Claims For Appeal

Text: [¶ 38] The remainder of Seider's contentions are brought for the first time on appeal. She argues, for instance, that the Board lacked the authority to discipline her for the contents of her 51-page explanation because 22 M.R.S.A. §§ 4014 [20] and 4021 [21] read in tandem with §§ 4011 [22] and 4012(2)(H) (see supra note 19)immunize her from liability for the content, or substance, of her report. Seider also asserts that Principle 1.17(c) was not in force at the time of the conduct in question, and, consequently, she could not be deemed to have violated that provision. [¶ 39] Parties seeking a review of a final agency action are expected to raise any objections they have before the agency in order to preserve these issues for appeal. New England Whitewater Ctr. v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56, 58 (Me.1988). This rule, requiring that an issue be raised before the administrative agency in order for it to be preserved on appeal, is not specifically based on a need for factfinding. Id. at 60. Instead, it is based on [s]imple fairness to those who are engaged in the tasks of administration, and to litigants, ... and ensures that the agency and not the courts has the first opportunity to pass on the claims of the litigants. Id. Consequently, [i]ssues not raised at the administrative level are deemed unpreserved for appellate review. Id. (citations omitted). Having failed to raise these issues before the Administrative Board, Seider is barred from doing so now. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.