of the guidelines would be meaningless or perfunctory. One such case was Harle v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Bd. (Telegraph Press), 540 Pa. 482, 658 A.2d 766 (1995), where we permitted the suspension of benefits without requiring the employer to establish job availability because the employee returned to a job that was identical to his previous position. In Harle, we reasoned that the application of the job availability requirement would be superfluous because the employee actually returned to employment identical to his pre-injury employment. Id. at 768 (finding that employee’s return to work “obviated the need for employer to produce evidence of job availability”); see also Dillon v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Bd. (Greenwich Collieries), 536 Pa. 490, 640 A.2d 386 (1994) (<HOLDING>). In sum, while the Kachinski guidelines
holding that employee was consumer of medical insurance purchased by employer for employees benefit recognizing that employer is not obligated to produce evidence of change in physical condition as required by kachinski when modification request is based solely on job availability and allowing employee the benefit of same rule recognizing change 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 holding that job referral notices without information advising a claimant that the job was within a category for which he received medical clearance were insufficient under kachinski