SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Rolesia Dancy

Last decided MontgomerySep 2019
Decisions 753since 2017

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same timeframe. The bench at the Montgomery office shows a wide range of outcomes, with individual judge approval rates varying from 21% to 92% on their records since 2016. With 753 decisions on record, the data for this judge provides a clear view of past activity. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2017
Approval rate 56%
Decisions on record 753

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Dancy. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 27, 2019. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

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.

Judge Dancy
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17FY19
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 this judge showed a downward trend over the recorded window, moving from 67% in 2017 to 48% by 2019. This pattern is based on 753 total decisions on record. While the yearly figures indicate a shift, these numbers reflect past case mixes and evidence quality rather than a change in judicial philosophy. The data suggests that the later period saw a lower frequency of allowances compared to the initial year on record.

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 scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Montgomery hearing office

The Montgomery hearing office serves claimants across Alabama and the surrounding region. This office features a bench of 17 judges whose most recent office on record is this one. You should be prepared for a thorough review of your medical evidence and vocational history. You can see the Montgomery Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Montgomery

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 17 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, and they demonstrate a broad spectrum of approval rates. Because each judge evaluates evidence differently, the specific assignment can influence the hearing process. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

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