would invite abuse and contravene the remedial purpose of the Act. The record establishes, and the WCJ found, that Employer made a business decision to remove Claimant from the field recruiter position she had agreed to perform and to reassign her to work only in a specific location. While Claimant would ion Appeal Board (Federici), 96 Pa.Cmwlth.208, 506 A.2d 1357 (Pa. Cmwlth.1986) (stating that, because a presumptive partial disability exists by virtue of a suspension of benefits, where the claimant suffers reduced earnings due to a work slowdown, an employer can avoid reinstatement of benefits only by offering suitable work); Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Pointer), 145 Pa.Cmwlth.539, 604 A.2d 315 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reverse. ORDER AND NOW, this
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 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 where the employer discontinues a specially created job the employer must offer another suitable job to the claimant or continue total disability payments holding that because a suspension admittedly is a concession that disability is continuing  claimant need only show that the work provided by the employer on which the suspension is based is no longer available to claimant whereupon total disability payments must be reinstated as of the date of termination of that employment holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation