Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Matczak v. Frankford Candy and Chocolate Co., 136 F.3d 933, 938 (3d Cir.1997) (“Some individuals suffer from relatively mild forms of epilepsy which cause nothing more than ‘minor isolated mus cle jerks'-so we cannot and do not conclude that all epileptics are substantially limited by the impairment."). See also, e.g., Baert v. Euclid Beverage, Limited, 149 F.3d 626, 631 (7th Cir.1998) (insulin dependent diabetes is not a per se disability under the ADA); Burch v. Coca-Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305, 316 (5th Cir.1997), cert. denied, - U.S. 118 S.Ct. 871, 139 L.Ed.2d 768 (1998) ("Unlike HW infection, the EEOC has not attempted to classify alcoholism as a per se disability, and we decline to adopt such a questionable position."); Still v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 120 F.3d 50, 52 (5th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Bridges v. City of Bossier, 92 F.3d 329, 336 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim (B) holding evidence of a 13 permanent partial disability insufficient to establish disability for purposes of ada (C) holding disability discrimination claim barred (D) holding that blindness in one eye did not automatically constitute a disability (E) holding that an individual alleged a disability under the ada because he was blind in one eye and had severe diabetes causing him to fall asleep at unpredictable times
Output (English): holding that an individual alleged a disability under the ada because he was blind in one eye and had severe diabetes causing him to fall asleep at unpredictable times