personal injury and to consider the full range of tort-type damages to compensate for the injury. I cannot conceive that the Legislature intended that the Commission act as a separate forum for the collection of personal injury damages, presumably after hearing from expert medical witnesses on both sides as to the nature and extent of the injury. To vest such extraordinary and indeed unbridled authority in the Commission is quite at odds with the statutory purpose. The Commission, as an administrative agency created by statute, has no inherent powers; its authority cannot reach beyond the warrant provided for it by the statute. See Holy Cross Hosp. v. Health Services, 283 Md. 677, 393 A.2d 181 (1978). See also Gutwein v. Easton Publishing Co., 272 Md. 563, 575-77, 325 A.2d 740 (1974) (<HOLDING>). It is no answer to say, as the Court does,
holding that the domestic relations exception is irrelevant where the plaintiff seeks monetary damages and does not seek a domestic relations award or reinstatement of his parental rights holding fouryear statute of limitations in section 95113f applies to claims under florida civil rights act when commission on human relations fails to make reasonable cause determination within 180 days recognizing that commission is not bound by statutory or common law rules of evidence holding that the commission on remand can set the effective date of a rate to be the effective date of the original commission activity holding that the statute creating the maryland human relations commission did not grant the commission power to make monetary awards for compensatory or other damages particularly in the absence of any statutory guidelines or limitations