eligible for benefits. Claimant thus contends that in the interest of consistency Section 402.6 of the Law should be construed so as to allow a claimant who is only incarcerated for part of the week to be eligible for benefits. Claimant’s argument concerning consistency involves provisions of the Law that relate to a claimant’s eligibility for benefits. See Section 401 of the Law (listing qualifications required for claimant to receive benefits); Section 4(g.l) of the Law (establishing credit week as every week in which claimant earned sixteen times the minimum wage). Thus, if a claimant has only limited availability for work or only earns part-time wages, he or she may still be eligible for benefits. See, e.g., Rohde v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 28 A.3d 237 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (<HOLDING>). Section 402.6 of the Law, however, is a
holding reliance on the grid proper where claimants nonexertional impairments limited right shoulder range of motion and partial hearing loss did not significantly compromise range of work for which claimant was otherwise qualified 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 claimants limited availability did not remove him from labor market and claimant was thus able and available for work 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 the alj erred in rejecting the iq of a claimant whose work history was limited primarily to working for his father