With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". temporary, lasting only from May 4, 1995 to August 10, 1995. Defendant reasons that even if the plaintiff suffered from bipolar disorder, that disorder could not substantially interfere with a major life activity because it lasted only four months. Plaintiff has a well-documented history of bipolar disorder since 1989. (Pl.’s Stmt. Ex. 2.) Defendant’s view of plaintiffs disability ignores the teaching of Sutton, where the Supreme Court acknowledged that medication may partially, but not wholly, relieve an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, and expressly rejected the notion that partial amelioration of a disabling condition renders the individual ineligible for protection under the ADA. Sutton, 527 U.S. at 488, 119 S.Ct. 2139; accord Vande Zande, 44 F.3d at 544 (<HOLDING>). In addition, contrary to the defendant’s

A: holding that periodic alimony is not mandatory
B: holding that the periodic characteristic disabling manifestation is part of the underlying recognized disability
C: holding that a proceeding on a writ of error coram nobis is part of the underlying criminal matter
D: holding evidence of a 13 permanent partial disability insufficient to establish disability for purposes of ada
B.