Jeffrey S. Ciegel is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Indianapolis Hearing Office, with a lifetime approval rate of 44% over 6,851 lifetime decisions. This rate sits below the national average of 58%. Because case assignment is random, the judge you draw matters. 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 Ciegel has maintained a lifetime approval rate of 44% since joining the bench. These figures are measured against the Indianapolis Hearing Office average of 61% and the national average of 58%. Because this data is drawn from thousands of cases, it provides a stable view of the judge's history. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.
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 Ciegel'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 3 years on the bench, Judge Ciegel has presided over 6,851 lifetime decisions. His approval rate shifted from 52% in 2023 to 42% in 2025. The latest period reflects a 44% approval rate. This data suggests a consistent approach to evidence evaluation that has stabilized over the last two years of his tenure.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Ciegel'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 Ciegel? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Indianapolis hearing office
The Indianapolis Hearing Office serves you throughout Indiana, managing a high volume of cases to ensure timely processing. The office currently maintains an approval rate of 61%, which is higher than the state average of 59%. You can expect a formal process focused on your medical documentation and vocational testimony. You can see the Indianapolis Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning you cannot choose your judge. At the Indianapolis Hearing Office, the bench includes 6 judges with lifetime approval rates ranging from 44% to 72%. While you may be assigned to any of these judges, the fundamental requirements for proving your disability remain consistent. You can view the full roster on the Indianapolis Hearing Office page.
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.
