SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Donald G. D'Amato

Last decided Livonia MIJul 2026
Decisions 4,513since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes to understand how a judge performs relative to their peers. While the 64% approval rate since 2016 provides a long-term view, recent data shows a 66% approval rate in the latest reporting period. This latest-period performance sits 8 points above the Livonia MI office average of 58%. These figures reflect historical trends rather than specific outcomes for your hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 64%
Decisions on record 4,513
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge D'Amato Livonia MI National
Approval rate 66% 58% 58%
Fully favorable 60% — —
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 D'Amato's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge D'Amato
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 approval rate for Donald G. D'Amato has remained relatively steady since 2016. After a dip in 2021, the trend has shown resilience, with the most recent fiscal year-to-date data showing a 66% approval rate. This pattern suggests a consistent approach to evaluating evidence over the last decade. The latest period reflects a continuation of this stable pattern, showing that the judge's decision-making remains aligned with historical averages.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge D'Amato'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 Livonia MI hearing office

The Livonia MI hearing office serves you and other claimants across the region. With 18 judges whose most recent office on record is this location, the office maintains an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 58%. You can expect a standard administrative hearing process focused on your medical and vocational evidence.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Livonia MI

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 18 judges whose most recent office on record is the Livonia MI office, 8 of whom decided cases in the latest file. Approval rates across this bench range from 44% to 74% since 2016.

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