SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Ben Ballengee

Last decided AlbuquerqueSep 2019
Decisions 1,308since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rate for Ben Ballengee is based on 1,308 decisions recorded since 2016. When evaluating this figure, compare it against the broader bench at the Albuquerque Hearing Office, where judges' individual approval rates range from 41% to 89% on their records since 2016. These data points provide a statistical baseline for understanding how different judges have historically approached disability claims. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 61%
Decisions on record 1,308

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Ballengee. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 27, 2019. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

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

Judge Ballengee
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY19
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 2016, Ben Ballengee has maintained a pattern of decision-making across 1,308 decisions on record. His annual approval rates fluctuated, showing a peak in 2017 before settling in subsequent years. This data reflects a period of activity that concluded in September 2019. The observed trend suggests that while your hearing outcome depends on the specific evidence you present, the judge's overall approach remained within a stable range throughout his time on record.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Ballengee'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 Albuquerque hearing office

Ben Ballengee's most recent office on record is the Albuquerque Hearing Office, which serves you in New Mexico. This office is part of a regional network that handles a volume of disability appeals. You can expect a formal process where the quality of your medical documentation is the primary factor in a favorable outcome. You can see the Albuquerque Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Albuquerque

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you draw is essentially random. At the Albuquerque Hearing Office, there are 14 judges whose most recent office on record is this location. These judges show a wide variance in approval rates, ranging from 41% to 89% on their records since 2016. 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