a partially disabled claimant to a modified-duty position, the employer has the burden of establishing that the position actually is available to the claimant. Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Vepco Construction Co.), 516 Pa. 240, 532 A.2d 374 (1987). In considering whether a job actually is available, the claimant’s place of residence relative to the job is a relevant consideration. Dilkus v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (John F. Martin & Sons), 543 Pa. 392, 671 A.2d 1135 (1996), quoting Kachinski. If an offered position is within the geographic area where others in the same community as Claimant would accept employment, the claimant’s preference is irrelevant, and the Worth and Co.), 708 A.2d 513, (Pa.Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 557 Pa. 633, 732 A.2d 617 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Womeldorf, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation
holding that a job offer which required a claimant to make a daily round trip commute of 232 miles was unreasonable even though the claimant would be provided with a motel room because this would require the claimant to be away from home at least four nights a week holding that the necessity either to relocate or commute 80100 miles each way daily constituted good cause for the claimant to decline reassignment holding that a five month delay is unreasonable holding that a five month delay was unreasonable holding that a 150mile round trip commute was unreasonable where due to medical limitations the trip would take the claimant five hours