by Dr. Prebola’s credible testimony. The WCJ also found that Claimant’s descriptions and demonstrations of the use of her arm were contradicted by the surveillance video. Our own review of the surveillance video confirms that the WCJ’s observations regarding Claimant’s use of her left arm are supported by substantial evidence. Based on his credibility determinations, the WCJ found Dr. Prebola’s testimony more persuasive than the medical evidence submitted by Claimant. The WCJ found that Claimant had normal movement of her elbow, wrist, and hand. Finally, the WCJ found that Claimant, although limited, was able to conduct many normal daily activities of life. Based on those facts, we find that Claimant has not established the specific loss of her left arm. See Jacobi, 942 A.2d at 267-68 (<HOLDING>). Claimant argues that our decision in
holding that the degree of the loss of use of a body part is a question of fact whether the loss is for all practical intents and purposes is a question of law holding that the relevant question in imposing restitution under the mvra is whether the loss is caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction holding it is a question of fact holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury