is available geographically. Scheib v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Ames Department Store), 143 Pa. Cmwlth.193, 598 A.2d 1032 (1991). The undisputed facts here are that Claimant lives in Somerdale, New Jersey, and the job transfer was for a position in Pittston, Pa., 150 miles from Claimant’s home. To perform the job, Claimant would be required to drive 300 miles, a six-hour round trip, daily. Employer has introduced no evidence that residents of Somerdale look for and accept work in Pittston, and, in fact, Pennsylvania case law establishes that requiring a claimant to undertake such a commute in addition to a fifty-hour work week is unreasonable as a matter of law. See e.g., Litzinger v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Builders Transport), 731 A.2d 258 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999) (<HOLDING>); Karpulk v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board
holding that a 150mile round trip commute was unreasonable where due to medical limitations the trip would take the claimant five hours holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant holding that the necessity either to relocate or commute 80100 miles each way daily constituted good cause for the claimant to decline reassignment holding claimant suffered permanent total disability where functional disability was only twentyfive or thirty percent claimant was fiftynine years of age claimant had little or no education and the injury kept the claimant from performing physical work holding that a job offer which required a claimant to make a daily round trip commute of 232 miles was unreasonable even though the claimant would be provided with a motel room because this would require the claimant to be away from home at least four nights a week