(d) Duration and Impact of Impairment -- One of the factors that may be relevant to whether an impairment is substantially limiting is the duration of the impairment. The length of time that an impairment affects major life activities may help to determine whether the impairment substantially limits those activities. As with all other matters, the determination must be made on a case-by-case basis. There are no set time limits for determining whether an impairment is of sufficient duration to be considered substantially limiting. There are, however, a few basic guidelines.
Generally, conditions that last for only a few days or weeks and have no permanent or long-term effects on an individual's health are not substantially limiting impairments. Examples of such transitory conditions are common colds, influenza, and most broken bones and sprains. The mere fact that an individual may have required absolute bed rest or hospitalization for such a condition does not alter the transitory nature of the condition. Even the necessity of surgery, without more, is not sufficient to raise a short-term condition to the level of a disability. Thus, for example, an employee who had an undisclosed temporary illness that required exploratory surgery but who was expected to recover completely in six to eight weeks did not have an impairment that substantially limited major life activities. Stevens v. Stubbs, 576 F. Supp. 1409, 1 AD Cas. (BNA) 546 (N.D. Ga. 1983). In that case, a temporary illness with no permanent effects on the individual's health was not a substantially limiting impairment. 576 F. Supp. at 1414, 1 AD Cas. at 549-50. Similarly, an employee who incurred a knee injury that required surgery was not an individual with a disability. Evans v. City of Dallas, 861 F.2d 846, 49 EPD Par. 38,674, 1 AD Cas. (BNA) 1394 (5th Cir. 1988). Although the injury may have limited the employee's major life activities during his recuperation, it did not continue to do so after his recuperation. See 861 F.2d at 852-53, 49 EPD at 55,700, 1 AD Cas. at 1398-99 (quoting district court opinion). For the same reason, an attack of appendicitis accompanied by a "routine" appendectomy would not constitute a disability. The condition might restrict an individual's activities for a few days or weeks, but the restrictions would be only temporary.
