William J. Bezego has a lifetime approval rate of 56% across 23,726 lifetime decisions. While this sits slightly below the national average of 58%, your recent approval rate of 64% shows a positive trend. Because case assignment is random, understanding your judge's history is vital. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. 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
Judge Bezego maintains a lifetime approval rate of 56% based on 23,726 lifetime decisions. In the most recent reporting period, his approval rate reached 64%, which is 2 percentage points below the national average of 58% and 15 points below the current Seven Fields office average of 71%. These figures provide a statistical look at his tenure, though they do not account for the unique medical evidence in your case.
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 Bezego'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 his 10 years on the bench, Judge Bezego has seen his approval rates shift. Starting at 45% in 2016, the trend has moved upward, reaching 67% in 2024 and 2025. This steady increase reflects evolving judicial patterns within his courtroom. The recent period reflects a continuation of this upward trend, moving away from his lower lifetime average.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Bezego'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 Bezego? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Seven Fields hearing office
The Seven Fields Hearing Office serves you and other claimants across Pennsylvania and the surrounding region. It is staffed by 6 judges who manage a high volume of disability claims. The office currently maintains an approval rate of 71%, reflecting the broader environment in which Judge Bezego operates.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. At the Seven Fields Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 54% to 71%. Because each judge brings a different perspective to the hearing room, your focus should remain on the strength of your medical documentation.
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.
