Court Opinion

ID: 9584347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:47:09.381658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:37.219996
License: Public Domain

Mallett, C.J.
(concurring). I concur with the result reached by the lead opinion in this case. I write separately, however, to note that the outcome may have been different had the defendant raised the coemployee issue in the courts below.
Justice Brickley is correct to point out, in footnote 2, that failure to present or adequately brief an issue in the trial court or the Court of Appeals prohibits review by this Court because the issue is not preserved and, hence, forever barred. See Lawrence v Darrah & Associates, 445 Mich 1, 4, n 2; 516 NW2d 43 (1994).
Because the coemployee issue was not preserved for this Court’s review, I agree with the lead opinion *436that the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.131; MSA 17.237(131), is inapplicable to the defendant and, therefore, is dispositive of this case. Because the Court of Appeals erred in its analysis of this issue, I agree a remand is appropriate.
Boyle, J., concurred with Mallett, C.J.