Leonard F. Costa is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Newark Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 52% over 18,973 decisions. While this sits below the national median, recent trends show a shift toward 62% in the latest period. Newark ALJs as a group range from 40% to 74% across the office's 6 judges. 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 Costa maintains a lifetime approval rate of 52%, calculated from a docket of 18,973 lifetime decisions. In the most recent reporting period, his approval rate reached 60%, which compares to the 57% average at the Newark office and the 58% national average. These figures provide a statistical baseline for understanding his courtroom history.
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 Costa'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 Costa has navigated a varied caseload. His approval rate saw a low point in 2018 at 42%, followed by an upward trend in recent years, reaching 62% in 2025. This recent performance represents a departure from his earlier career averages, reflecting a shift in his approach to case evidence.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Costa'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 Costa? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Newark hearing office
The Newark Hearing Office serves a large population across New Jersey, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office handles complex cases requiring careful documentation of medical evidence. The office-wide latest approval rate of 57% reflects the regional environment in which your hearing will occur.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Across the Newark Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates for the bench range from 40% to 74%. This variance highlights why understanding the tendencies of your assigned judge is a standard part of your case preparation.
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.
