of Americans restricted by back problems to light work is legion. They are not disabled.”). Likewis 79, 689 (7th Cir.2010) (stating that “walking with difficulty is not a significant restriction on walking”). Neither has McDonough produced evidence to support her contention that she was substantially limited in her ability to stand. It is undisputed that she could stand for one hour a day and intermittently for four hours a day. She was also able to perform all of the following activities, each of which involves standing: vacuuming, doing laundry, putting dishes in the dishwasher, mowing, baking, and gardening. Consequently, we cannot agree with McDonough’s claim that she was substantially limited in her ability to stand and therefore, disabled. See, e.g., Neal, 379 Fed.Appx. at 634 (<HOLDING>); see also Dupre v. Charter Behavioral Health
holding that plaintiffs inability to stand for more than one hour did not render her disabled holding that a plan administrators decision to deny benefits was arbitrary and capricious even though an attending physician had submitted a form stating the plaintiff could sit for six hours stand for two hours and walk for two hours holding that plaintiffs inability to stand more than two hours was insufficient as a matter of law to prove that she was disabled holding that evidence that plaintiff could walk only four hours a day was insufficient as a matter of law to prove that she was disabled holding that the state does not have to prove a defendants competency to stand trial