(Docket No. 22 at pp. 5-9.) Accordingly, her claim is governed by the ADAAA, which became effective on January 1, 2009. Due to. the shortage of caselaw on this subject, the Court looks to the few cases in other districts that have addressed the post-ADAAA standard for determining a disability. Some post-ADAAA bases based decisions on the table in the EEOC proposed regulations, which categorize certain impairments as those that “almost always,” “sometimes,” and “never” constitute a disability under’ the ADA See Proposed Rules, Regulations -to Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act, as amended, 74 Fed.Reg. 48431-01 (Sept. 23, 2009) [hereinafter EEOC Proposed Rules] (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630); see also Feldman, 779 F.Supp.2d at 483-85 (<HOLDING>); Horgan v. Simmons, 704 F.Supp.2d 814, 819
holding that an impairment lasting seven months was too brief in duration to qualify as an adaqualifying disability holding that episodic multiple sclerosis is categorized as an impairment  that will consistently meet the definition of disability and a ministroke is categorized as an impairment that may be disabling for some individuals but not for others holding that for a plaintiff to prove that he has a record of impairment under 42 usc  121022b there must be a record of an impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities holding that to the extent medical records may be properly categorized as business records such records are properly categorized as nontestimonial holding that monocular vision is not invariably a disability but should be analyzed on an individual basis taking into account the individuals ability to compensate for the impairment