to the requirement when the claimant suffers from an irreversible injury because his condition is not, in such cases, subject to change. This Court explained that even when a claimant is suffering from an irreversible disease, his condition may nevertheless change sufficient to satisfy Kachinski, and give rise to a modification proceeding. “Condition” is not merely the claimant’s underly ing diagnosis, but any change in the claimant’s physical well being affecting his ability to work. Id., at 585. Thus, this Court, as well as the courts below, have recognized the continuing vitality of the Kachinski requirement of demonstrating a change in physical condition in order to bring a modification proceeding. See also Keys-Pealers, Ltd. v. WCAB (Bricker), 870 A.2d 936 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (<HOLDING>); Mora v. WCAB (DDP Contracting Co., Inc. and
holding the teenage childrens preference to live in fathers home was sufficient evidence to support a change in physical custody in a modification of a split physical custody arrangement even though the party seeking the change failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances holding that to reopen a case an alien must show that the new evidence would likely change the result holding father seeking custody modification needed to prove more than merely an acrimonious relationship and a lack of effective communication in order to show a substantial change holding that change of circumstances is not prerequisite to additional   3583e2 modification holding that an employer seeking modification must show a change in claimants physical condition