SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Michael Carr

Last decided NHC AlbuquerqueJul 2026
Decisions 2,032since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. The 31% approval rate on record since 2016 provides a long-term view, while latest-period data offers a snapshot of current trends. Within the NHC Albuquerque office, the bench shows a range of 31% to 61% for approval rates on record since 2016. These figures are derived from a significant volume of decisions, providing statistical context for your hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 31%
Decisions on record 2,032
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Carr NHC Albuquerque National
Approval rate 100% 45% 58%
Fully favorable 50% — —
Denials 0% — —

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

Judge Carr
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

The record for Michael Carr spans from January 2016 to July 2026, covering 2,032 decisions. The yearly trend shows fluctuations, with approval rates moving from 29% in 2016 to 34% in 2025, followed by a partial-year rate of 75% in 2026. The latest reporting period shows a 100% approval rate, which diverges from the long-term average. This recent activity reflects a shift compared to the historical pattern observed since 2016.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

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

The NHC Albuquerque is the most recent office on record for Michael Carr, with data current through July 2026. This office serves claimants across the region, maintaining a bench of 12 judges whose most recent office on record is this location. The office-wide latest-period approval rate is 45%, providing context for local hearing outcomes.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is NHC Albuquerque

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 12 judges whose most recent office on record is the NHC Albuquerque, and 6 of them decided cases here in SSA's latest file through July 2026. Approval rates across this bench vary, ranging from 31% to 61% on their since-2016 records.

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