Matthew Allen is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the San Antonio hearing office, where you will find he has maintained a 48% lifetime approval rate over 28,580 decisions. This sits below the national average of 58%, though his latest reporting period shows a 54% approval rate. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific bench and ensure your medical evidence is properly presented.
This page presents publicly available SSA Office of Hearings Operations disposition data, with no editorial rating or evaluation. ALJs are independent decisionmakers; aggregate statistics describe past patterns, not predictions of how any individual case will be decided. Information here is provided for hearing preparation, not as legal advice.
Approval rates
Judge Allen's approval rate is calculated based on 28,580 lifetime decisions. In the latest reporting period, he maintained a 54% approval rate. These figures offer a baseline for understanding the judicial environment in San Antonio, though they do not predict the outcome of your individual hearing.
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 Allen's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.
Decision pattern
Over his 10 years on the bench, Judge Allen has seen his approval rates fluctuate, ranging from 43% in 2021 to 55% in 2017. The data indicates a consistent approach to evaluating disability claims based on the evidence presented. Recent trends may reflect changes in case mix or the quality of evidence submitted in recent filings.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Allen'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 with Judge Allen? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the San Antonio hearing office
The San Antonio Hearing Office serves a large population in Texas, managing a high volume of disability claims with a team of 6 administrative law judges. The office currently maintains an office-wide approval rate that reflects regional trends in disability adjudication. You can expect a professional environment focused on the thorough review of medical and vocational evidence.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment is essentially random. Within the San Antonio Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 39% to 66%. Because of this variance, the judge you draw can influence the procedural flow of your hearing.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.
