SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Andrea Addison

On record 3,227 decisions since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. Andrea Addison's lifetime approval rate of 79% sits within the Jersey City office-wide lifetime range of 44% to 79%. In the most recent reporting period, you would find the judge approved 71% of cases, which is 6 points higher than the office average of 65%. These figures are based on 3,227 lifetime decisions, providing a stable statistical baseline for your review.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 79%
Decisions on record 3,227
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Addison Jersey City National
Approval rate 71% 65% 58%
Fully favorable 62%
Denials 29%

Office- and national-level breakdowns of fully favorable vs denial rates aren't currently published by SSA in the per-office disposition data. The judge's own breakdown is the detail we have today.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Addison's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Addison
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17FY26
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate (SSA's term: allowance rate) = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total decisions, which exclude dismissals.

Decision pattern

The record for Andrea Addison, spanning from 2016 to 2026, shows a varied approval trend. After reaching a peak of 91% in 2022, the approval rate has seen a shift, landing at 71% in the most recent reporting period. This pattern reflects the judge's history across 3,227 total decisions. While the latest period shows a decline from the 2022 high, it remains above the national average of 58%. The recent data suggests a shift in case outcomes compared to the judge's multi-year average.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Addison's bench. Judge-specific preparation guidance requires a corpus of public Appeals Council decisions involving each judge, which we haven't built yet.

  • Bring a clean treating-physician record. Longitudinal primary-care or specialist notes spanning the disability period, with consistent symptom documentation, are typically the strongest evidence at hearing. A single month's records usually aren't enough.
  • Don't rely on consultative exams alone. If your medical evidence is built primarily around a one-time CE finding, expect detailed questioning. Supplement with treating-source statements where possible.
  • Prepare for daily-activity questions. Have honest, specific answers about a typical day. Answers that conflict with the medical record (in either direction) tend to hurt credibility.
  • Expect transferable-skills probing. A vocational expert will usually testify about jobs available to someone with your limitations. Your representative should be prepared to cross-examine.

Hearing scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Jersey City hearing office

The Jersey City hearing office serves you throughout the region, operating as a key hub for SSDI hearings in New Jersey. With 11 judges on record, the office maintains a latest-period approval rate of 65%. You can expect a formal administrative process focused on your medical evidence and vocational testimony. You can see the Jersey City Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Jersey City hearing office utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to Andrea Addison is essentially random. There are 11 judges on record at this office since 2016, 10 of whom reported data in the latest period. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 44% to 79% on a lifetime basis.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants

Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.

Frequently asked questions