Cosby v. Department of Human Resources, 42 A.3d 596

Cosby challenged the Department's finding of indicated child neglect and sought an administrative hearing under FL § 5-706.1.
A CINA adjudication based on the same neglect allegations was entered against Cosby’s son, Michael, by the Circuit Court.
The ALJ dismissed Cosby's administrative appeal based on collateral estoppel, relying on Tamara A. I.
Cosby petitioned for judicial review; the circuit court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, but the Court of Special Appeals affirmed dismissal—holding collateral estoppel applied.
The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to resolve whether amendments to § 5-706.1 precluded collateral estoppel in this context.
The Court held that the amendments did not preclude the common law defense of collateral estoppel when elements are satisfied, and affirmed the Court of Special Appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 5-706.1 precludes collateral estoppel here	Cosby argues amendments preclude collateral estoppel in this context.	Department contends amendments allow preclusion under the circumstances.	No; collateral estoppel applies if elements are met and not precluded by the statute.

Tamara A. v. Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services, 178 Md.App. 686, 943 A.2d 653 (2008) (first Tamara A. decision addressing collateral estoppel in CINA/neglect context)
Tamara A. v. Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services, 407 Md. 180, 963 A.2d 773 (2009) (Tamara A. II; clarified interlocutory posture and statutory interpretation)
Colandrea v. Wilde Lake Community Association, 361 Md. 371 (2000) (four-part test for collateral estoppel)
Breslin v. Powell, 421 Md. 266 (2011) (strict construction of statutes in derogation of common law)
People’s Insurance v. Allstate, 424 Md. 443 (2012) (statutory interpretation and agency interpretation of statutes)
Md. Aviation Admin. v. Noland, 386 Md. 556 (2005) (standard for reviewing agency legal conclusions)