SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Malik Cutlar

Last decided WashingtonJul 2026
Decisions 2,697since 2017

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. While you see a 57% approval rate across the entire record since 2017, recent data shows a 66% approval rate in the latest reporting period. This latest-period figure sits 3 percentage points above the Washington office average of 63%, 7 points above the state average of 59%, and 8 points above the national average of 58%. These figures reflect past trends rather than specific outcomes for your case.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2017
Approval rate 57%
Decisions on record 2,697
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Cutlar Washington National
Approval rate 66% 63% 58%
Fully favorable 46% — —
Denials 34% — —

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

Judge Cutlar
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17FY26
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 approval trend for Malik Cutlar has fluctuated since 2017. After a period of lower approval rates between 2018 and 2019, the data indicates a recovery. The latest reporting period shows a 66% approval rate, which reflects a continuation of the upward trend observed since 2024. This pattern suggests that recent case outcomes have trended higher than the overall average on record.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Cutlar'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 Washington hearing office

The Washington hearing office serves you if you are in the District of Columbia and surrounding areas. As of the most recent office on record in July 2026, this location manages a diverse docket of disability claims. You can expect a standard hearing process focused on your medical evidence and vocational testimony.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Washington

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 33 judges whose most recent office on record is this one. Approval rates among this bench vary significantly, ranging from 29% to 85% on their records since 2016. Your preparation remains consistent regardless of which judge is assigned to your case.

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