We hold, however, that the intricate statutory scheme enacted by the General Assembly precludes such a reading of the Act. As noted, the General Assembly expressly provided for reimbursement of erroneously paid . compensation benefits when it established the Section 443 Fund. However, despite being aware of the availability of unreasonable contest attorney’s fees, and of the requirement that they be paid immediately when awarded, see 77 P.S. § 971 (providing that an employer who refuses to furnish payment without being granted a supersedeas shall be subject to a penalty), the legislature simply did not include any provision, providing for disgorgement or reimbursement of attorney’s fees, if the attorney’s fees are ultimately found to.be unwarranted. See Universal AM-CAN, Ltd., supra (<HOLDING>). Thus, an inference can be drawn from the
holding that attorneys fee award in a common fund case must be  reasonable under the circumstances holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees holding that attorneys fees may not be reimbursed from the section 443 fund holding that attorneys fees under adea may not be recovered against a defendant who was not an employer of the plaintiff holding that a party may recover attorneys fees under section 38001 only if the party prevails on a cause of action for which attorneys fees are available and recovers damages