as a salesperson at Wal-Mart. (Pl.’s Dep. at 109) In addition, plaintiff drives herself to and from both jobs. (Pl.’s Dep. at 56, 109) Aside from the limitation on her ability to see beginning around 10:00 p.m., plaintiff does not allege that there are any other visual aspects of either her work or social life that are affected by her visual impairment. “[A] visual impairment which hinders, or makes it more difficult for an individual to function at a full visual capacity, does not amount to a substantial limitation on one’s ability to see where the evidence suggests the individual can otherwise conduct activities requiring visual acuity.” Cline v. Fort Howard Corp., 963 F.Supp. 1075, 1080 (E.D.Okla.1997); see also Roth v. Lutheran Gen’l Hospital, 57 F.3d 1446, 1454-56 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Overturf v. Penn Ventilator Co., Inc., 929
holding that statements made by a child who was brought to an emergency room by her mother were admissible when the child knew a doctor would conduct a medical exam the physician explained he was a doctor and he asked questions about medical history and performed a physical examination of the child holding that a doctor with strabismus crossed eyes was not disabled because he was able to read write lecture and successfully earned both a pharmacy degree and a law degree before entering medical school holding that because the tendered expert witness was a licensed psychologist and not a medical doctor he was not qualified to state an expert medical opinion regarding the cause of johns injury holding that evidence of prior similar acts was not proof of medical malpractice or whether the doctor lacked the proper degree of knowledge or skill holding that employees requests for accommodation were not protected activity because the evidence did not show that he had a reasonable good faith belief that he was disabled or perceived as disabled