Moira Ausems is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Eugene Hearing Office. With a lifetime approval rate of 81% over 15,100 decisions, she sits well above the national average of 58%. While her recent approval rates have remained high, aggregate data describes past patterns, not predictions for your specific hearing. An experienced attorney can help you prepare for your hearing.
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 Ausems demonstrates a high approval frequency compared to broader benchmarks. In the most recent reporting period, this judge's approval rate sat 17 points above the Eugene office average and 23 points above the national average of 58%. These statistics are derived from a docket of 15,100 lifetime decisions. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for 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 Ausems'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 a 7-year tenure, Judge Ausems has shown a consistent pattern of approvals. While the rate fluctuated between 74% and 81% during the first four years, the most recent data shows a rise, with approval rates reaching 96% in 2021 and 93% in 2022. This trend reflects the cases heard and evidence presented during those years. Understanding these patterns helps you prepare a case that addresses the requirements of this bench.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Ausems'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 Ausems? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Eugene hearing office
The Eugene Hearing Office serves you and other claimants across Oregon, managing a diverse caseload. With 6 judges on the bench, the office maintains an office-wide latest approval rate of 64%. You should be prepared for a formal administrative process focused on medical documentation and vocational testimony. You can visit the Eugene Hearing Office page for more information.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Within the Eugene Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 44% to 81%. Because case assignment is outside of your control, the most effective strategy is to focus on the strength of your medical evidence.
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.
