will suffer an “undue hardship” if required to repay the Loan. Under the first prong, Marcotte has shown that, without considering the Loan payments, his monthly income is insufficient to meet his basic needs. Therefore, if required to make monthly payments on the Loan, his budget would result in a larger deficit and he would be unable to maintain a minimal standard of living. With regard to the second prong, Mar-cotte has proven that additional circumstances exist indicating that his state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the loan’s repayment period. His injuries have rendered him unable to work and there is no indication that his condition will improve. He collects SSDI as his only income and his medical expenses will persist. Cf. Spence, 541 F.3d at 544 (<HOLDING>); Frushour, 433 F.3d at 401 (finding that the
holding that an answer that asserts a counterclaim against a plaintiff who then becomes a bankruptcy debtor is an action or proceeding against the debtor within the meaning of  362a1 notwithstanding the fact that the debtor initiated the lawsuit holding that debtor failed to meet the second prong because despite the fact that debtor suffers from diabetes and high blood sugar those ailments did not affect her ability to work fulltime holding debtor could cure after the debtor had previously made payments to the bank holding the conduct element satisfied where debtor failed to timely file tax returns and failed to pay taxes for those years holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default