Facts

After Tigran Iskenyan's disability application was rejected, a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ensued. Dr. Stolz performed a consultative examination of Iskenyan that concluded with his opinion that Iskenyan did not have any limits with standing, sitting, or walking except that he should be allowed to take a rest break every hour. However, the ALJ rejected that suggestion, finding that it was inconsistent with the doctor's other objective findings nor the entirety of the evidence, and that the particular suggestion relied on Iskenyan's own subjective reports. A magistrate judge, in reviewing the ALJ's decision, found that the ALJ had identified the specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the doctor's limitations. Ultimately, the magistrate judge recommended for denial of Iskenyan's appeal.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that the magistrate judge erred in its findings that the ALJ properly evaluated his subjective complaints and regarding the doctor's medical opinion, maintaining that the ALJ failed to properly account for his need for the hourly breaks.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that the ALJ's decision should be affirmed. Other doctors' opinions, on the record, did not identify the need for a rest break.

Result

The court determined that the ALJ's rejection of the rest break limitation was supported by the record's substantial evidence, fully adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, and denied plaintiff's appeal.