exemption bolster this conclusion. In a recent case, Cox v. Acme Health Services, Inc., 55 F.3d 1304 (7th Cir.1995), the court considered whether a home health aide, who was employed by a private agency, provided companionship ser vices. Such aides performed more extensive services than those which Ms. Salyer provides for her husband. Id. at 1306. Furthermore, under the applicable state law in Cox, the aide’s services required more training than do the services listed in the federal regulation. Id. Nonetheless, the aide’s medical training was far less than that required of registered or practical nurses. Id. at 1309-10. The court thus held that the home health aide fell under the exemption. Id. at 1311. See also Linn v. Developmental Servs., 891 F.Supp. 574, 576-78 (N.D.Okla.1995) (<HOLDING>); Sandt v. Holden, 698 F.Supp. 64, 67-68
holding that state and federal equal protection guarantees provide similar protections holding testimony about plaintiffs mental and physical state before treatment by physician was relevant holding that plaintiff who provided similar services which were arguably attendant care services under state law fell within the exemption holding that a plaintiff who provided similar services which also required limited training and state certification was employed to provide fellowship and protection for individuals of advanced age and physical and mental infirmities holding that when the claimant has established that his impairment prevents him from returning to his previous employment the burden shifts to the commissioner who must produce evidence to show the existence of alternative substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy and which the claimant could perform considering not only his physical and mental capability but also his age education experience and training