the same job duties in the new locale, the transfer to Pittston required significantly more travel and offered none of the flexibility of her former field recruiter job. Although recognizing that Employer’s decision was a prudent one, the WCJ also understood the hardship this “new” position would impose on Claimant, and the WCJ appropriately found that Claimant’s decision not to accept the required transfer was based on practicalities rather than bad faith. Thus, the WCJ properly concluded that, because suitable work was no longer available to Claimant, Claimant was out of work through no fault of her own, and her workers’ compensation benefits should be reinstated. See Busche v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Townsend and Bottum, Inc.), 77 Pa. Cmwlth.469, 466 A.2d 278 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Economy Decorators, Inc. v. Workmen’s
recognizing that in suspension situations when a claimants lightduty job ends under circumstances where neither the claimant nor the employer bears any culpability the employer must either find other suitable and available work for the claimant or resume payment of benefits holding that where the employer discontinues a specially created job the employer must offer another suitable job to the claimant or continue total disability payments holding that because a suspension admittedly is a concession that disability is continuing  claimant need only show that the work provided by the employer on which the suspension is based is no longer available to claimant whereupon total disability payments must be reinstated as of the date of termination of that employment holding that an individual is not qualified for a job if there is a genuine substantial risk that he could be injured or could injure others and the employer cannot modify the job to eliminate that risk holding that under the first amendment speech can be pursuant to a public employees official job duties even though it is not required by or included in the employees job description or in response to a request by the employer