along plaintiffs surgical scar do not constitute a disability. 3. Asthma Defendant claims that while plaintiffs asthmatic condition may, on occasion, restrict his breathing, the impairment does not rise to the level of a “disability” under the ADA. The court agrees with defendant that plaintiffs frequent workouts do cast doubt on the severity of his breathing impairment. Athough plaintiff contends that heightened exertion “sets off’ his asthma, he testified that he regularly exercises and goes to the gym to use a treadmill. These activities appear to be inconsistent with one whose breathing is as substantially impaired as plaintiff contends his to be. See Heilweil v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 32 F.3d 718, 723 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1095, 130 L.Ed.2d 1063 (1995) (<HOLDING>). It is unknown, however, how intensely
holding that participation in recreational activities such as exercise tends to undermine a finding of disability based on diminishedbreathing capacity holding evidence of a 13 permanent partial disability insufficient to establish disability for purposes of ada holding that a physicians conservative medical treatment for a particular condition tends to negate a claim of disability holding that a state officer sued in his individual capacity may be held personally liable for damages under 42 usc  1983 based upon actions taken in his official capacity holding parent entitled to credit for any social security disability benefits paid to child as a result of parents disability