Monica J. Anderson is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the New Orleans office. Her lifetime approval rate of 47% sits below the national average of 58%. Over your 10 years on the bench and 17,080 lifetime decisions, her patterns have remained stable. Because case assignment is random, understanding your judge is vital. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific bench.
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
Comparing a judge's lifetime performance against current office and national data helps provide context for your upcoming hearing. Judge Anderson has maintained a consistent presence on the bench over 10 years, with a lifetime approval rate of 47% based on 17,080 decisions. While her latest period shows a 52% approval rate, this remains lower than the 58% national average.
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 Anderson'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 her 10-year career, Judge Anderson has navigated a significant volume of cases, showing a steady trend in her decision-making. Starting with a 39% approval rate in 2016, her annual approval figures have fluctuated but generally trended upward, reaching 52% in 2025. This latest period reflects a continuation of a more active approval pattern compared to her earlier years on the bench.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Anderson'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 Anderson? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the New Orleans hearing office
The New Orleans Hearing Office serves a large population across Louisiana, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office operates under the broader SSA regional guidelines to process cases efficiently. The office's latest approval rate of 53% provides a baseline for local outcomes.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Within the New Orleans Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench vary significantly, ranging from 36% to 70%. This variance highlights why focusing on your own medical documentation is vital regardless of the judge assigned.
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.
