SSDI Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Tierney Carlos

SSDI Administrative Law Judge at the Baltimore Hearing Office · 5 years on the bench · 11,505 lifetime decisions

Check My Benefits →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

The approval rate for Judge Carlos is calculated from a docket of 11,505 lifetime decisions. In the most recent reporting period, the judge's approval rate was 12 points below the Baltimore Hearing Office average and 4 points below the national average of 58%. These figures provide a statistical baseline for your hearing. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual case.

Metric Judge Carlos Baltimore National
Approval rate 54% 66% 58%
Fully favorable 46%
Denials 46%

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

Judge Carlos
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY20
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Over a 5-year tenure, the approval rate for Judge Carlos has shown an upward trend. Starting at 41% in 2016, the rate climbed to 61% by 2020. This progression reflects changes in the types of cases assigned to the judge's docket. The recent data shows a continuation of this pattern, moving closer to state and national benchmarks.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Carlos'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 Carlos? A free benefit check tells you if you qualify.

Check My Benefits
Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Baltimore hearing office

The Baltimore Hearing Office serves a large population across Maryland, managing a high volume of disability claims. With 6 judges on the bench, the office maintains an active docket that reflects regional trends in SSDI adjudication. You should be prepared for a thorough review of your medical evidence and vocational testimony. See the Baltimore Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

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 random. Within the Baltimore Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 46% to 81%. This variance highlights why understanding the local judicial environment is important for your hearing. You can find more information on the office's general trends on the Baltimore Hearing Office page.

Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer

SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own

WITHOUT A LAWYER
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants
Check My Benefits

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