that an administrative agency has committed an error and who, despite an opportunity to do so, fails to object in any way or at any time during the course of the administrative proceedings,” may not thereafter complain about the error at a judicial proceeding. Cicala v. Disability Review Bd. for Prince George’s County, 288 Md. 254, 261-62, 418 A.2d 205 (1980). See also id. at 262-63, 418 A.2d 205 (stating that failure of appellant’s attorney to object at a hearing before the Disabili ty Review Board that the Board did not have a report that it was required to obtain and consider, cannot thereafter properly raise the issue at the judicial review proceeding and therefore cannot properly raise the issue before the appellate court); Capital Commercial, 158 Md.App. at 102, 854 A.2d 283 (<HOLDING>); Brzowski v. Maryland Home Improvement Comm’n,
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 that because the appellant did not present to the administrative agency the argument it raised before this court the issue was not preserved and holding that even if preserved the argument failed holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   holding issues not raised before the district court are not preserved for appeal holding that despite the merits of the argument the appellant raised on appeal the issue was not preserved for judicial review because it was not raised before the administrative agency