by his injuries. The second impairment that could potentially support a claim of disability under the ADA is the shoulder injury that William sustained in the second accident. From March through June of 1998, William was released for employment by his physician despite his still-injured shoulder. Although this is a physical impairment, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that any of his major life activities were substantially limited by the injury. As before, there is no evidence that this injury prevented William from performing “a class of jobs” or a “broad range of jobs in various classes.” William has therefore failed to establish that any major life activities were substantially limited by his shoulder impairment. See Kelly v. Drexel Univ., 94 F.3d 102, 105 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, because William is unable to
holding that the scope of crossexamination did not extend to any bad acts committed by the defendant during his life where defendant presented evidence of adverse circumstances that he experienced in his early childhood rather than evidence of his general good character holding that the district court did not err in finding the record sufficient to conclude prior conviction qualified as a violent felony for purposes of the acca as the evidence was sufficient to conclude the criminal action charged in one court was the basis for a judgment against the defendant in a different court holding that the test for harmless error is whether in the mind of the average juror the prosecutions case would have been significantly less persuasive had the improper evidence been excluded citations and internal quotation marks omitted holding that the question presented is whether he adduced sufficient evidence from which a factfinder reasonably could conclude that the nature and severity of his injury significantly restricted his ability to walk as compared with an average person in the general population holding that nonexpert evidence of the plaintiffs state of general health before the wreck as compared to his physical condition afterwards was sufficient to allow a layperson of common knowledge and experience to conclude that his wreck made it necessary to transport the plaintiff to an emergency room and be physically examined while there