(1988 & Supp.1995), and the court will look to case law interpreting both statutes when analyzing plaintiff’s evidence of "disability”. See Nedder, supra, 908 F.Supp. at 74 n. 7. 6 . The EEOC, in regulations promulgated to implement the ADA, defines "physical or mental impairment” as: (1) Any physiological disorder, or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, [inter alia]; or (2) Any mental or psychological disorder. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h) (1995). Ordinarily plaintiff would have to show that her obesity is of physiological origin and that it impairs a body system. Cf. Cook v. Rhode Island Dep't of Mental Health, Retardation & Hosps., 10 F.3d 17, 23 (1st Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). 7 .This court has previously observed that
holding that testimony of plaintiff and her coworkers regarding cause of her injury was pure conjecture holding that jury could plausibly have found that plaintiff had a physical impairment based on her own testimony and the testimony of an expert who stated that her morbid obesity was the result of a physiological disorder holding that the proper question for the agency is not whether stones obesity is in some clinical sense remediable but whether her obesity is the sole cause of her disabilities and if so whether her obesity is reasonably remediable by her holding that a jury may conclude that morbid obesity constitutes a disability in cases in which the plaintiff presents expert testimony that the morbid obesity at issue is a physiological disorder involving a dysfunction of both the metabolic system and the neurological appetitesuppressing signal system capable of caus ing adverse effects within the musculoskeletal respiratory and cardiovascular systems holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive