Harris v. Johnson

I dissent because I believe that neither the mandate rule nor the law of the case governs the resolution of this case. The majority opinion sets out the factual and procedural history faithfully. However, I disagree with the majority’s ultimate conclusion that our prior opinion clearly held that Harris was not protected by the exclusive-remedy provision.

When our mandate was issued, the Workers’ Compensation Commission attempted to follow our direction, yet read it to only allow suit against Erin, Inc. After Johnson filed a motion to modify, because he interpreted the mandate to allow suit…