Mental RFCs Require Real Analysis
As the holiday season wraps up and the New Year approaches, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit quietly issued a decision that Social Security disability practitioners should not overlook: Nunez v. Commissioner of Social Security.
This decision reinforces a critical point in Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) analysis: there must be a clear connection between acknowledged mental limitations and the actual functional limitations reflected in the RFC.
Key Issue in Nunez: Ignored Mental Limitations in RFC
In Nunez, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) acknowledged that the claimant had:
Moderate limitations in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace (CPP)
Diagnoses of panic disorder and anxiety
However, these findings did not translate into any RFC limitations related to:
Time off task, or
Absenteeism
Instead, the RFC restricted the claimant to “goal-oriented work”—a vague term left unexplained in relation to the claimant’s mental health limitations.
Q: What did the vocational expert (VE) testify?
A: The VE testified that:
Being off task more than 10% of the workday, or
Missing more than one day per monthwould preclude competitive employment.
Despite this uncontroverted expert testimony, the ALJ failed to include any related RFC limitations.
Court’s Holding: Substantial Evidence Must Be Articulated
The Second Circuit vacated and remanded the decision, sending a strong message about the evidentiary standards required in RFC assessments:
What the Court Emphasized:
Substantial evidence requires an articulated evidentiary bridge between medical findings and the RFC.
If an ALJ concludes a claimant can stay on task 90% of the day and attend work regularly, the record must explicitly support that.
Silence is insufficient—especially when medical opinions suggest greater impairment.
Q: Can an ALJ reject psychiatric opinions based solely on self-reporting?
A: No. The Second Circuit rejected this common rationale, emphasizing that:
Psychiatric evaluations inherently rely on subjective reporting
This does not invalidate the medical opinion if it is otherwise well-supported
This is a crucial clarification, given how often mental health opinions are discounted on this basis.
Dissent vs. Majority: The Limits of Deference
While the dissenting opinion highlighted the deferential standard of review, the majority clarified:
Deference does not permit unexplained assumptions.
ALJs must explain how the RFC accommodates all established impairments, including mental limitations.
Practitioner Takeaway: Mental RFC Limitations Must Be Specific
When moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace are found, they must show up meaningfully in the RFC.
Key Practice Points:
Do not rely on vague terms like “goal-oriented work” without further explanation
Ensure RFCs address time off task and absenteeism where applicable
Challenge any rejection of psychiatric evidence based solely on “subjectivity”
🧠 Explore more: What Should Be in a Proper Mental RFC?
Final Thought: A Timely Reminder for the New Year
Nunez serves as a timely reminder that precision still matters in Social Security disability determinations. As we head into the New Year, this case underscores the need for:
Thorough analysis
Clear articulation
Evidence-based conclusions
Let this decision guide your approach to RFC assessments in 2025—and beyond.
Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.
