Opinion ID: 1909002
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consideration of unpreserved issues.

Text: As a preliminary issue, we first address the Administration's argument in its brief that respondent's failure to object to the introduction of his preliminary breath test result at the administrative hearing constitutes a waiver of his right to argue the admissibility of the evidence. See Cicala v. Disability Rev. Bd. for Prince George's Co., 288 Md. 254, 263, 418 A.2d 205, 210-11 (1980). We stated in Cicala: Because the issue of the alleged error was not raised during the administrative proceeding, it was not properly raised in the judicial review proceeding, and therefore is not properly before us. Id. at 263, 418 A.2d at 210-11. We declined to address that issue. More recently, Judge Raker, writing for the Court, opined in Schwartz v. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 385 Md. 534, 554-56, 870 A.2d 168, 180-81 (2005): The difficult problem presented in the case sub judice is that the Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County ruled on an issue that was never raised before the agency.... . . . Because, even if the exemption exists, we agree with the agency decision that appellants are not entitled to the exemption as a matter of fact, we will not in this case decide whether the Circuit Court was correct in its construction of the statute. (Footnote omitted.) In our decision in Schwartz, although we declined to reach the exemption issue, we, in a footnote as dicta made a brief comment: This case should provide fair notice to the Department of Natural Resources, boat dealers, boat builders, and potential boat purchasers that the exemption at issue may not exist under the statute. Inasmuch as the Circuit Court... may well have been correct in its interpretation, DNR might consider proposing to the Legislature language clarifying or amending the statute to provide explicitly for that which is reflected in Form 110B. Id. at 556 n. 4, 870 A.2d at 181 n. 4. Prior to our Schwartz case there was a recent line of our cases that consistently held that if issues were not raised during the administrative proceeding they could not later be raised during judicial review. In Delmarva Power & Light Company v. Public Service Commission, 370 Md. 1, 32, 803 A.2d 460, 478 (2002), Judge Wilner for the Court, stated: The cases in which a waiver has been found based on non-preservation have been in the nature of contested cases, as to which judicial review ... is limited. As we noted in Bulluck [v. Pelham Wood Apartments], 283 Md. [505] at 518-19, 390 A.2d [1119] at 1127 [(1978)], quoting from Unemployment Compensation Comm'n v. Aragon, 329 U.S. 143, 155, 67 S.Ct. 245, 91 L.Ed. 136 (1946), `[a] reviewing court usurps the agency's function when it sets aside the administrative determination upon a ground not theretofore presented and deprives the [agency] of an opportunity to consider the matter, make its ruling, and state the reasons for its action.' We do not allow issues to be raised for the first time in actions for judicial review of administrative agency orders entered in contested cases because to do so would allow the court to resolve matters ab initio that have been committed to the jurisdiction and expertise of the agency. In Brodie v. Motor Vehicle Administration, 367 Md. 1, 3-4, 785 A.2d 747, 748-49 (2001), with Judge Eldridge writing, the Court stated: Brodie filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari which presented the single question of whether the MVA was authorized to revoke a driver's license when `the petitioner's license and privilege to drive were already revoked.'... Believing that this was an important legal issue ..., we granted the petition. We shall not, however, be able to reach the issue. . . . Since Brodie's entire challenge to the administrative decision was based on an issue not raised before the agency, the Circuit Court should have affirmed the administrative decision without reaching the issue. (Citations omitted.) Judge Harrell noted an exception to the general rule as to preservation issues in respect to judicial review of administrative agency actions in Engineering Management Services, Inc. v. Maryland State Highway Administration, 375 Md. 211, 235, 825 A.2d 966, 980 (2003), when he stated for the Court: The SHA argues, and the Court of Special Appeals agreed, that the issue of the MSBCA's failure to promulgate rules was not preserved for review as EMS failed to raise the issue during the proceedings before the MSBCA. Judicial review of administrative decisions generally is limited to the issues raised before the agency. We reach this issue, however, not because EMS raised it on appeal, but rather because it is an integral, and thus unavoidable, component of our determination of the properly raised issue of whether the MSBCA's grant of summary disposition was appropriate in this case. (Citations omitted.) Because of the nature of the Circuit Court's opinion in this case, where he did not separate the issues he was addressing, a resolution of the un-preserved issue by this Court is necessary.