DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge FRIEDMAN.I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that Ronald A. Hopton’s (Claimant) psychic injury was not caused by abnormal working conditions because: (1) Claimant had an injured psyche and was predisposed to mental problems; (2) homosexual harassment is (normal in the mining industry); and (3) Claimant cited only three incidents of homosexual harassment over an eight-day period. (Majority op. at 12.) However, I submit that the majority’s holding is contrary to case law and, moreover, ignores the credibility determinations and findings of fact made by the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ).
Inasmuch as the majority presents a statement of the facts based primarily on evidence from the record, I present the following recitation of the facts based on the WCJ’s findings. I also note here that the majority’s statement of the facts omits all of the evidence, and all of the findings, which show that the homosexual harassment that occurred in this ease is not normal in the mining industry.
During Claimant’s military service in Vietnam from 1964 to 1967, he was propositioned by his commanding officer and other individuals in his unit.1 (WCJ’s *841Findings of Fact, No. 2.) After his discharge from the army, Claimant received treatment at a Veterans Administration hospital and graduated from college before starting to work in the coal mines in 1978. (WCJ’s Findings of Fact, No. 2.)
3. On July 6, 1994, while working in the mine, the claimant had a conversation with his supervisor, Dominic Rossi and a co-worker, Allan Vozel.... Rossi told the claimant that he had a nice butt, a real nice looking butt, and a nice set of legs. The claimant told Rossi to stop these comments [which] ... made him shake inside and gave him flashbacks to his Vietnam experiences.[2]
Mr. Vozel confirmed in his testimony that Rossi kept “complimenting” the claimant about his nice ass and that Rossi kept saying, I bet you’re really easy Ron and continued talking about Ron’s nice legs. Vozel observed that the claimant was upset by the comments and that Hopton kept asking Rossi to stop making them. Vozel himself told Rossi to stop the comments. However, according to Vozel, Rossi kept it up.
4. A few days later in another incident, Rossi and another employee, Joe Ross, met with the claimant, and Hopton was told to get into the jeep by Rossi. Ross testified that Rossi told the claimant, I’d like to bend you over a rail, over the jeep and fuck you in the ass until you bleed. The claimant justifiably understood Rossi to be saying that he wanted to have anal sexual relations with him. The claimant told Rossi to stop and that he couldn’t take this anymore. The claimant told Rossi, It’s going to be a lot of blood on you and it’s not going to be [my blood]. Rossi responded, Well, you like it rough and bloody, I like it rough and bloody too. Come sit next to me. You sure got a nice pair of legs and a nice butt[;] we can have a good time Hoppy. In spite of the claimant’s clear statements to Rossi that he did not welcome such comments, was upset by them, Rossi kept making them.
5.Joe Ross, the other employee in the jeep with the claimant, was so affected by Rossi’s statement that he asked Ros-si if he was queer and told Rossi Don’t you ever talk to me like that, I don’t take that bullshit, joke or not, don’t ever talk to me like that. Rossi responded *842that he was just joking and that he knew that Hoppy gets mad and was teasing him.
6. A third incident between the claimant and Rossi occurred on July 13, 1994 at the mine surface. The claimant was called into Rossi’s office where Rossi was conversing with Terry Rafferty, another employee. Rossi said in the presence of Rafferty and the claimant, Roy, doesn’t he had a nice pair of legs. The claimant again requested for Rossi to stop the nonsense, that he couldn’t take it, and left. Rossi said to him, Oh, I know what it is, how would $5.00 do, would $5.00 do? Clearly implying that he wanted to treat the claimant like a male prostitute and have anal intercourse with him. Terry Rafferty confirmed in his testimony that Rossi did make a comment about having nice legs and that Hopton kept requesting for Rossi to stop it.
7. The claimant testified that after the first incident that he was shaking inside and had a desire to zip Rossi up in a bodybag and that he felt degraded and dehumanized and was trying to fight off flashbacks from Vietnam.
During and after the second incident the claimant felt shame and humiliation and experienced flashbacks and saw Rossi and his commanding officer from Vietnam and was confused as to who he was seeing. He felt physical pain, tightening of his chest, short of breath, pain in his arms and one large migraine. He started to feel numb like he would explode. After the third incident, when Mr. Raf-ferty was present, the claimant felt flashbacks of his Vietnam experience and felt shaky and short of breath. He finished his workshift on July 13, 1994 but took some days off and was anxious and couldn’t sleep or eat and lost weight....
8. When he testified[,] Mr. Rossi admitted talking to the claimant in the manner described. Rossi was aware of a human resources policy against harassment and he was later disciplined for violating that policy. Rossi was told by his employer that the comments were unacceptable and such joking is not tolerated. Mr. Rafferty testified that the policy forbids abusive language.
9. Alan Vozel testified that there is some joking and horseplay in the mines but that when someone would ask that it be stopped, it would be stopped. The exception in the incidents between Rossi and the claimant [is] when Rossi refused to stop and continued to the aggravation of the claimant. Joe Ross testified that he had never heard anyone being spoken to as Rossi had done to the claimant and that references to anal sexual relations were uncommon. He testified that the comments from Rossi to the claimant were beyond the normal scope of joking at the mines.
10. • Joe Plachta, co-worker of the claimant, testified that the types of comments that the claimant was subject to from Rossi were uncommon and that Plachta had never been talked to in this fashion. He also testified that the comments made by Rossi were beyond the scope of the normal everyday horseplay.
11. This [WCJ] is well aware ... that a work environment is a microcosm of society and is not a shelter from rude, obscene or uncivil behavior. In the case at bar, the matters complained of by the claimant and the treatment and statements made to him by his supervisor, Rossi, go beyond mere crude and uncivil joking, but are a course of conduct meant to degrade, humiliate and upset the claimant. To this [WCJ], it is clearly a pattern of abnormal working conditions. This was established by the clear *843testimony of fellow workers who described it as not the usual method of joking around.
(WCJ’s Findings of Fact, Nos. 3-11) (emphasis added). In addition to these findings, the WCJ found from the medical evidence that Claimant had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or a paranoid personality disorder, which was aggravated by Rossi’s behavior towards Claimant. (WCJ’s Findings of Fact, No. 18.) Thus, the WCJ awarded benefits to Claimant. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed the WCJ’s decision, and I also would affirm.
I. Injured Psyche or Predisposition
In reversing, the majority concludes that Claimant’s psychic injury was not caused by abnormal working conditions because Claimant had an injured psyche and was predisposed to mental problems. Although it is true that Claimant had a preexisting mental disorder, this is not a proper consideration in deciding whether Claimant’s psychic injury was caused by abnormal working conditions.
Our supreme court has stated that to recover benefits for a work-related psychic injury caused by psychological stimuli, a claimant must prove by objective evidence that he or she suffered a psychic injury which is not just a subjective reaction to normal working conditions. City of Pittsburgh v. Logan, 570 Pa. 500, 810 A.2d 1185 (2002) (citing Martin v. Ketchum, Inc., 523 Pa. 509, 568 A.2d 159 (1990)). Whether the claimant had an injured psyche or a predisposition to mental problems when he or she was exposed to abnormal working conditions is not an element of this rule of law.
Indeed, this court has held that, if a claimant with a pre-existing psychic injury presents objective evidence that abnormal working conditions have aggravated that injury, the claimant is entitled to benefits. See Zink v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Graphic Packaging, Inc.), 828 A.2d 456 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (en banc); see also Kane v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Williamsport Automotive), 107 Pa.Cmwlth.360, 528 A.2d 302 (1987) (stating that, in order to prove a compensable injury, a claimant with a pre-existing mental illness must prove that abnormal working conditions exacerbated the mental illness); Hirschberg v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Department of Transportation), 81 Pa.Cmwlth.579, 474 A.2d 82 (1984) (stating that the claimant must prove that the work situation exacerbated his pre-existing neurosis, thereby rendering him disabled from mental illness).
In the Zink case, the claimant suffered from PTSD as a result of his experiences in Vietnam. The employer knew that the claimant needed to work the third shift to keep his PTSD in balance. However, the employer changed to a rotating shift schedule and required the claimant to alternate day shift, second shift and third shift. The new rotating shift schedule aggravated the claimant’s pre-existing and non-work-related PTSD to the extent that he could no longer work. This court held that, because the employer was aware of the claimant’s need to work the third shift and because the employer had accommodated the claimant in this regard for thirteen years, the rotating shift schedule constituted an abnormal working condition. Id.
Clearly, in Zink, the fact that the claimant had pre-existing and non-work-related PTSD did not prevent the claimant from receiving benefits. The only question was whether abnormal working conditions aggravated the claimant’s pre-existing mental disorder. Likewise, here, Claimant’s injured psyche should not prevent Claim*844ant from receiving benefits. If Claimant presents objective evidence that abnormal working conditions aggravated Claimant’s pre-existing mental disorder, then Claimant is entitled to benefits.
II. Abnormal Working Conditions
The majority also concludes that Claimant’s psychic injury was not caused by abnormal working conditions because homosexual harassment is normal in the mining industry.3 However, the WCJ did not make such a finding.
The WCJ found that references to anal sexual relations are uncommon at the mines and that Rossi’s comments to Claimant went beyond the scope of normal horseplay and joking. (WCJ’s Findings of Fact, Nos. 9-10.) The WCJ even found that there was an employer policy prohibiting comments like those made by Rossi to Claimant, and, in fact, Rossi was disciplined for his comments. (WCJ’s Findings of Fact, No. 8.) Those are the findings of fact, and, in reviewing them, this court is limited to determining whether the record contains substantial evidence to support them. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704. Although the majority does not attempt to make such a determination, my review of the record indicates that there is substantial evidence to support these findings.
To the extent that the record contains evidence to support the contrary finding of the majority, i.e., that homosexual harassment is normal in the mining industry, the WCJ obviously rejected such evidence. In workers’ compensation cases, the WCJ is the fact-finder, and, as such, the WCJ determines questions of credibility, resolves conflicts in the testimony and determines the weight to be given the evidence. Arnott v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Sheehy Ford Sales, Inc.), 156 Pa.Cmwlth.167, 627 A.2d 808 (1993), appeal denied, 537 Pa. 624, 641 A.2d 589 (1994). In my view, the majority in this instance has exceeded its authority by usurping the WCJ’s fact-finding power.
III. Three Incidents in Eight Days
The majority also concludes that Claimant’s psychic injury was not caused by abnormal working conditions because Claimant cited only three incidents of homosexual harassment over an eight-day period. Although a single isolated incident of offensive behavior does not constitute an abnormal working condition, repetitive harassment by a superior over a period of time does constitute an abnormal working condition.4 Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Guaracino), 544 Pa. 203, 675 A.2d 1213 (1996).
Pennsylvania courts have not established a specific number above the number one which transforms multiple incidents of insensitive behavior into abnormal working conditions. To do so would be extremely *845difficult. Here, for example, a supervisor harassed an employee in a homosexual manner, and the employee asked the supervisor to stop. The supervisor did not stop but, rather, continued the harassment a few days later. Although the employee once again asked the supervisor to stop, the supervisor harassed the employee yet again after a few more days. With no indication that the supervisor would ever stop, how many times must the employee endure homosexual harassment before the harassment rises to the level of an abnormal working condition?
By reference to Archer v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (General Motors), 138 Pa.Cmwlth. 309, 587 A.2d 901 (1991), the majority suggests that, as a matter of law, “twenty” is the magic number. (See majority op. at 839.) However, as I explain below, the twenty instances of harassment that the claimant allegedly experienced in Archer were not even considered in this court’s holding.
In Archer, the claimant testified regarding two specific instances of harassment, one on January 3, 1985, and another on March 19, 1985. The claimant also testified that, since October of 1984, she had experienced as many as twenty instances of harassment per week. The claimant did not produce any corroborating evidence, and the issue presented to this court was whether the claimant needed to produce corroborating evidence of the harassment. In deciding the issue, this court considered that, because of the highly subjective nature of psychic injuries, the cause of the injury must be adequately pinpointed. With that principle in mind, this court held that, because the claimant described actual events, it was possible to determine without corroborating evidence whether the claimant’s psychic injury was merely a subjective reaction to normal working conditions. Having made that determination, this court concluded that the actual events described by the claimant constituted abnormal working conditions. Id.
What is significant here is that the claimant in Archer described only turn actual events in a three-month period and that the claimant did not describe any of the twenty instances of harassment she claimed to have experienced weekly between October of 1994 and January of 1995. If two incidents of harassment from January to March of 1985 were sufficient in Archer to establish abnormal working conditions, then, certainly, Claimant established abnormal working conditions here by proving three incidents in eight days.
IV. The 1992 Incident
Although I conclude that Claimant proved by objective evidence that he suffered a psychic injury from abnormal working conditions, to the extent that reasonable minds might disagree, I would remand this ease for additional findings.
The record contains evidence that, in 1992, Rossi grabbed Claimant by his “real’ end” as Claimant was walking by him with an armful of tools, and Rossi “stuck his little finger right up [Claimant’s] anal cavity.” (R.R. at 124a.) Claimant controlled himself, placed the tools in a safe location and told Rossi that if he ever did that again, Claimant would “finish him,” “zip him up” and “put him in a body bag.” (R.R. at 124a.) Rossi did not touch Claimant after that incident. (R.R. at 125a.) Sometime in 1993, Claimant sustained a crushed ankle injury in the course of his employment, and, as a result, Claimant was off work for approximately one year. (R.R. at 127a, 186a-87a.) Claimant returned to work on July 5,1994, and Rossi’s harassing comments began one day later on July 6, 1994. (R.R. at 128a, 135a, 187a.)
I submit that the WCJ should have made findings about the 1992 “finger inci*846dent” and about Claimant’s one-year absence from work in order to provide a proper background for Rossi’s comments. In light of Rossi’s prior assault on Claimant, nobody in Claimant’s position would have taken Rossi’s comments as a mere joke.
Judge LEAVITT joins in this dissent.
. Claimant presented the following testimony about the proposition of his commanding officer.
[My commanding officer] asked me for favors in return for amenities. I asked him what favors.... And he said, well, I want you to allow me to place myself upon your body [for] anal sex. If I ask you to do oral sex, I want you to do it.... If there’s [other *841requests], I want you to do it. And it was at this point that I stood up, took the safety off the M-14, I was going to blow his ass away because I could not tolerate that at that point. I had seen [homosexual activity] in Germany and he wasn't about to do that to me and I wasn’t about to do that to him in exchange for anything. And at that point, the CO put [a] gun to my head and told me, put the fucking safety back on, you son of a bitch, or I’ll blow your fucking head off.... And he didn’t give up until we banded together as a group and we got the bastard out of there.
(R.R. at 94a-95a.)
. Claimant did not take these comments as a joke because, in 1992, Rossi had fondled him in a homosexual manner. (R.R. at 102a.)
There were three other foremen on this catwalk, which was approximately two feet wide. And I was trying to get around them, so I can place these tools in a safe position where they wouldn’t be tripped over. And as I was coming around Rossi close to the rail, I had my back to him, and he-this is tough here. He grabbed a hold of me by my rear end, and stuck his little finger right up the anal cavity.
Now, I didn’t immediately drop them tools, because if I would’ve I'd have hurt myself and the others who were standing close by. So I moved to the area where I could put them down. And I walked right up to him, approximately two inches from his nose, and told him that if he’d ever do that again, I’m throwing him over the rail[.] I'm going to finish him. I’m going to zip him up, I’m going to put him in a body bag.
(R.R. at 124a) (emphasis added).
. Psychic injury cases are highly fact-sensitive and for actual work conditions to be considered abnormal, we must consider them in the context of the specific employment. Logan.
. In Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Guaracino), 544 Pa. 203, 215, 675 A.2d 1213, 1219 (1996) (emphasis added), our supreme court stated:
In assessing whether work conditions are abnormal, we must recognize that the work environment is a microcosm of society. It is not a shelter from rude behavior, obscene language, incivility, or stress. While we do not suggest that insensitive behavior is socially acceptable in the work place, it is unrealistic to expect that such behavior will not occur. Where, as here, the evidence demonstrates that the offensive behavior complained of is an isolated incident, we must conclude that an abnormal working condition has not been established.