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.