Claimant in the head and injured Claimant’s testicles. (R.R. at 99a.) Claimant was taken to the hospital for x-rays and was off work for two weeks. (R.R. at 100a.) He returned to light duty work, but, after three weeks, Claimant wanted to return to his regular job. (R.R. at 100a.) The majority concludes that these four violent episodes rise to the level of abnormal working conditions. (Majority op. at 877-878.) However, Claimant’s testimony is the only evidence in the record relating to the four events. A claimant’s testimony regarding actual events is sufficient, to prove abnormal working conditions only where the events constitute abnormal working conditions as a matter of law. See Archer v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (General Motors), 138 Pa.Cmwlth. 309, 587 A.2d 901 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Because violent episodes are not abnormal
holding failure to investigate before publishing is not sufficient to prove actual malice holding that where the uncontradicted evidence shows that a former employee is working for a direct competitor no finding of irreparable injury is necessary to support a permanent injunction to protect trade secrets because irreparable injury is established as a matter of law holding that annual inspection report on breath test instrument is not testimonial as it is not prepared during the investigation of a particular crime and is intended for the nontestimonial purpose of making sure the machine is working properly holding that the claimants testimony regarding actual events of harassment is sufficient to prove abnormal working conditions because harassment is an abnormal working condition as a matter of law holding as a matter of law that the statement harassment  shall not be tolerated  combined with a disclaimer limited to other topics constituted an implied contract