greater than 5-10 pounds on a continuous basis____ [He] do[es] not expext [sic] to ever be able to perform the abovementioned activities.” (McCollough Aff. [30] at ¶ 6.) In addition, he states that: “As a result of [his] back injury, [he] can not [sic] drive an automobile for greater than 30 minutes at a time without stopping to stand and rest my back for a while.” {Id. at ¶ 8.) Clearly, as noted by defendant, plaintiffs ease could have been bolstered by corroborating evidence from his physician, Dr. Disch. Notwithstanding this omission, plaintiffs sworn testimony constitutes evidence that plaintiff was substantially limited in his ability to lift, which is one of the major life activities set out by the regulation. See Haysman v. Food Lion, Inc., 893 F.Supp. 1092, 1100 (S.D.Ga.1995) (<HOLDING>). A literal application of the regulation thus
holding that if no material issues of fact are in dispute and an appeal presents only a question of law we apply de novo review holding that restrictions that plaintiff not lift more than twentyfive pounds or bend repetitively are not evidence of a permanent impairment that substantially limits any major life activity holding that dispute of material fact existed where plaintiff presented evidence that he could lift no more than 1015 pounds stand for only 30 minutes at a time and walk continuously for only 3 minutes holding no prejudice occurred because no new information was presented on the material matter in dispute holding that an employees inability to lift more than 30 to 40 pounds did not substantially limit his ability to engage in ordinary daily activities