Jeter v. B.R. McGinty Mechanical

I do not believe the Commission’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and would reverse.

The facts in this case are characterized by both parties as relating to a subsequent injury or disability, or a recurrence, and their arguments revolve around those concepts. However, it is more appropriate to assess the dispute in terms of whether the second procedure was reasonably necessary medical treatment for Jeter’s admittedly compensable 1992 heart attack. The appellant’s treating physician, Dr. Murphy, opined that:. . . the exact blockage was back at the exact same location in his right…