Rolesia Dancy is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Montgomery hearing office. With a lifetime approval rate of 54% over 5,189 lifetime decisions, their record sits below the national average of 58%. Because case assignment is random, understanding your judge's history is a vital step in your preparation. 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
Comparing a judge's approval rate to regional and national benchmarks provides context for your upcoming hearing. Judge Dancy maintains a lifetime approval rate of 54%, which tracks 15 points below the Montgomery Hearing Office average and 4 points below the national average of 58%. These figures are derived from a docket of 5,189 lifetime decisions. 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 Dancy'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 a three-year tenure, Judge Dancy's approval rate moved from 62% in 2017 to 48% by 2019. While lifetime averages provide a broad baseline, recent data points are often the most relevant for your current claim. This pattern suggests a rigorous approach to evidence evaluation that requires you to provide thorough documentation to meet your burden of proof.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Dancy'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 Dancy? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Montgomery hearing office
The Montgomery Hearing Office serves a significant population of claimants across Alabama. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an overall latest approval rate of 69%. You should expect a professional environment focused on the medical and vocational evidence you present.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning you cannot choose your judge. Within the Montgomery Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates across the bench range from 53% to 78%. This variance highlights why your case requires a tailored strategy regardless of the specific judge assigned.
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.
