he is entitled to some level of partial disability. Claimant’s argument is flawed. .Claimant denied he worked for Mike’s Car Lot subsequent to his work injury.. Mr. Bar-tow also denied that Claimant performed any work for him subsequent to October 2005. These individuals’ testimony was rejected on this issue. Claimant’s reported earnings in his 2005 tax return are not necessarily representative of what he is earning at the present time. Unfortunately, both Claimant and Mr. Bartow stated that when payments are made, they are made in cash. There is no record of any transactions. Based on this factual scenario, the WCJ was left with no choice but to suspend Claimant’s benefits. See Brehm v, Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hygienic Sanitation Co.), 782 A.2d 1077 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001)(<HOLDING>). Claimant finally argues that despite his
holding a claimant who refuses to provide financial information necessary to ascertain whether a claimant is working may have his indemnity benefits suspended until such information is provided holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant 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 claimant moving for summary judgment on its claim must conclusively prove all the essential elements of the claim and that claimant has the burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that claimant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law