in determining the chronological length of disability. Id. See also American Contracting Enterprises, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hurley), 789 A.2d 391, 398 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001); Ricks v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Parkway Corporation), 704 A.2d 716, 719 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997); Innovative Spaces, 646 A.2d at 55. Here, Claimant credibly testified that his ongoing disability prevents him from returning to work, and the WCJ properly relied on this testimony in awarding Claimant total disability benefits. Although Dr. Collins anticipated that Claimant would be able to return to work, the WCJ correctly declined to suspend Claimant’s benefits based on his speculation. See Hyman S. Captan Pavilion v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Dullebawn), 735 A.2d 147 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (<HOLDING>). In Hyman, the employer’s medical expert, who
holding that conflicting testimony raised fact issue fact finder was not obliged to accept one experts testimony over the other holding experts testimony was insufficient to survive summary judgment because the testimony at most showed the defendant deviated from the experts personal standard of care rather than the generally accepted standard of care holding that testimony of two experts was unreliable because they relied on the testimony of two other experts which was also unreliable holding that a medical experts speculative testimony was an insufficient basis for a wcjs finding of fact holding that the alj did not consider the vocational experts testimony on crossexamination and failed to articulate a basis for rejecting this evidence which was a basis for remand