In Gazzola v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, 911 A.2d 662 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), this Court reiterated the holding of Geisler, stating "a decision by the judge on the issues of the adequacy of the URO's pursuit of the records, the URO's compliance with 34 Pa. Code 127.464 and whether the provider complied would not be a decision on the merits of whether the treatment was reasonable and necessary, an issue that this court ruled to be outside of the judge's jurisdiction." The court then added "the judge has jurisdiction to decide those issues and based on the evidence either to uphold the determination based on failure to provide the records or to vacate the determination and order that the records be sent to a reviewer for a URO determination on the merits of whether the treatment in question was reasonable and necessary." Gazzola, 911 A.2d at 665.