SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Mara-Louise Anzalone

Last decided Mt Pleasant MISep 2016
Decisions 115since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same timeframe to ensure accuracy. We evaluate the performance of Mara-Louise Anzalone against the bench at the MT Pleasant MI, which shows a range of 30% to 63% for judges with records since 2016. This comparison provides a clearer picture of how individual judicial patterns align with local office trends. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 58%
Decisions on record 115

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Anzalone. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 30, 2016. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

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

Judge Anzalone
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16
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 approval rate for Mara-Louise Anzalone is based on 115 decisions on record since 2016. During the 2016 period, the judge maintained a 58% approval rate. This data window provides a stable look at the judge's historical decision-making pattern. Because the record covers a specific timeframe, the pattern reflects a consistent approach to case evaluation during that period.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Anzalone'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 Mt Pleasant MI hearing office

Mara-Louise Anzalone's most recent office on record is the MT Pleasant MI, with decisions there through September 2016. This office serves the surrounding region in Michigan and maintains a bench of 8 judges with records since 2016. Focus on building a strong evidentiary record, as approval rates vary significantly among the bench. You can see the MT Pleasant MI Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Mt Pleasant MI

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 8 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, with approval rates ranging from 30% to 63% on their since-2016 records. Of those, 6 judges decided cases here in SSA's latest file (July 2026). For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
1×
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