SSRs and Mental Impairments: What You Must Know in 2025

Social Security Rulings (SSRs) play a critical role in how mental impairments are evaluated in disability claims. The Piemonte’s Perspective (NOSSCR) series often emphasizes how advocates must build narratives aligned with SSRs to succeed. In this update, we present five of the most-cited SSRs used in mental impairment cases, explain their application, and show how Green and Greenberg use them in practice.

Why SSRs Matter for Mental Impairments

• SSRs are internal policy guidance that ALJs, DDS offices, and appeals bodies often follow.
• They help interpret regulatory language especially around Residual Functional Capacity (RFC), symptom evaluation, and non-exertional limitations like responding to supervision or stress.
• In mental health claims, where symptoms are often subjective and fluctuating, SSRs provide guardrails for consistency.
• As Piemonte’s columns highlight, many claims fail because the evidence is not structured to match SSR standards (e.g. mapping symptoms to domains).

Below are five SSRs frequently invoked in mental impairment cases, with summaries and practical notes.

1. SSR 85-16: Residual Functional Capacity for Mental Impairments

It guides how to evaluate mental impairments that do not meet a Listing. Even if a mental disorder is not severe enough to “equal” a Listing, it may impose significant restrictions on your ability to work. The SSR directs adjudicators to consider how symptoms affect the ability to understand instructions, respond to supervision, interact with co-workers, and deal with work pressures.

Why it’s used:

• It fills the gap when a claimant does not meet a strict Listing but still has meaningful limitations.
• Advocates often ask treating sources to address specific functional abilities (such as responding to criticism) in their medical statements, referencing SSR 85-16.
• Piemonte has urged more attention to supervision-related limitations, which SSR 85-16 frames as a core factor (e.g. “respond appropriately to supervision”) in mental impairment RFCs. NOSSCR+1

2. SSR 96-8p: Assessment of RFC (Including Mental Impairments)

SSR 96-8p lays out how adjudicators assess Residual Functional Capacity (RFC), including mental limitations. It requires an RFC finding based on all relevant evidence and translating those limitations into work-related functional terms.

Why it’s important:

• It requires that limitations be described “function by function” (rather than generic statements).
• The ruling demands clear explanations of how evidence supports the RFC conclusions.
• In mental impairment cases, limitations on concentration, persistence, adaptation, etc. must be tied to medical and non-medical evidence.
• Piemonte has noted that ALJs often use boilerplate mental RFCs; SSR 96-8p is the tool to fight that.

3. SSR 16-3p: Evaluating Symptoms in Disability Claims (Mental & Physical)

SSR 16-3p (which replaced SSR 96-7p) clarifies how adjudicators evaluate symptoms like fatigue, mood swings, or anxiety. It removes the term “credibility” and emphasizes that subjective symptom evaluation must align with the regulatory standard (intensity, persistence, limiting effects) and the objective evidence.

Why it’s critical in mental health claims:

• Mental health symptoms are often episodic and subjective. SSR 16-3p requires adjudicators to explain how they weighed those symptoms.
• It pushes ALJs to avoid dismissive language and anchor symptom findings to functional limitations.
• Piemonte has underscored that claimants must testify about limitations, and that ALJs must bridge symptom statements with evidence (per SSR 16-3p).

4. SSR 82-63: Adjudicative Presumptions / “Adverse Profiles”

SSR 82-63, paired with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1562, outlines two “adverse profiles” which, when met, result in a presumption of disability. These are rarely invoked, but when a claimant meets certain criteria (e.g., limited education, prior long unskilled work), they may be deemed disabled earlier in the process.

Why it’s relevant:

• Piemonte highlights that ALJs and practitioners sometimes forget or overlook adverse profiles.
• In certain mental impairment claims, combining functional limitations with an adverse profile can strengthen the case.
• It’s a lesser-used SSR, but valuable when the claimant meets the profile elements.

5. SSR 88-13: Evaluation of Pain and Other Symptoms (Overlapping with Mental)

SSR 88-13 addresses how pain and other symptoms should be evaluated in disability claims (applies to both physical and mental contexts). It mandates considering how symptoms limit ability to function and requiring explanation when claims are denied due to absence of objective findings.

Why it’s used:

• Many mental impairment claims involve overlap with physical symptoms like fatigue, pain, or psychosomatic conditions.
• When adjudicators rely heavily on a lack of objective medical evidence (e.g. imaging), SSR 88-13 offers a counter to that reasoning.
• Advocates can cite SSR 88-13 to demand explanation when symptom denial is based on an absence of objective tests.

Integrating Piemonte’s Insights

George Piemonte’s writing frequently emphasizes:

• Documenting how a mental impairment affects the ability to accept supervision (a key factor in SSR 85-16)
• Demonstrating when an ALJ uses overly broad mental RFCs and failing to tie them to record evidence
• Pushing for detailed cross-examination of vocational experts, especially when limitations like needing reminders or off-task behavior are at issue

Thus, applying SSRs strategically—rather than just citing them generically—is crucial in mental impairment cases.

How Green and Greenberg Uses SSR Strategy in Mental Impairment Cases

At Green and Greenberg, we adopt SSR-focused advocacy to strengthen disability claims involving mental health conditions:

• Evidence Structuring: We help clients and their treating providers frame limitations (e.g. in supervision, persistence) using SSR-relevant language.
• Cross-examination Preparation: We prepare precise lines of questioning for vocational experts to expose gaps in hypothetical limitations.
• Decision Review & Appeal: We analyze ALJ decisions for SSR compliance (e.g. required explanations under SSR 96-8p or SSR 16-3p) and, when breaches exist, challenge them at appeal.
• Client Testimony Coaching: We guide clients on how to testify about symptom impact, fluctuation, and real-world limitations, so their testimony aligns with SSR expectations.

What This Means for Claimants

If you’re applying for SSDI or SSI based on a mental health disorder in 2025:

• Know that SSRs like 85-16, 96-8p, and 16-3p are frequently applied to your case—they are not optional.
• Ask your providers to frame medical opinions in terms of how symptoms affect your ability to do certain job tasks (e.g. respond to stress or criticism).
• Keep a detailed symptom diary over time to document fluctuations and limitations.
• Work with attorneys (like Green and Greenberg) who understand how to weave SSRs into every stage—from initial claim through appeal.

When SSRs are properly applied, they often shift the balance in favor of the claimant in mental impairment cases.

If you or someone you know has a mental health condition and is applying for SSDI or SSI, SSR expertise can make a real difference. Contact Green and Greenberg today for a consultation