SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Corey Ayling

Last decided MinneapolisJul 2026
Decisions 4,022since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. The 60% approval rate on record since 2016 sits within the 33% to 68% range observed among the bench at the Minneapolis hearing office. In the most recent reporting period, the 55% approval rate compares to a 52% rate for the office and a 52% rate for the state. These figures are based on a significant volume of decisions, providing a stable view of past activity.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 60%
Decisions on record 4,022
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Ayling Minneapolis National
Approval rate 55% 52% 58%
Fully favorable 45% — —
Denials 45% — —

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 Ayling's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Ayling
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY26
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

Since April 2016, 4,022 decisions have been issued. The yearly approval trend shows fluctuation, starting at 73% in 2016 and moving to 55% in the most recent partial year of 2026. While the rate has seen periods of variance, such as the 66% approval observed in 2023, the overall pattern reflects a steady engagement with the caseload. The latest period's 55% approval rate is consistent with recent activity.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Ayling'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 Minneapolis hearing office

The most recent office on record for this judge is the Minneapolis hearing office, which serves you across Minnesota. This office features a bench of 14 judges whose most recent office on record is this location. The office-wide approval rate in the latest period was 52%, reflecting the broader environment in which your hearing occurs.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Minneapolis

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 14 judges whose most recent office on record is the Minneapolis hearing office, and 7 of them decided cases here in the latest file through July 2026. Approval rates across this bench range from 33% to 68% on their records since 2016.

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