Cole Gerstner is an ALJ at the Albuquerque Hearing Office, with a lifetime approval rate of 46% across 12,943 decisions. This rate sits below the national average of 58%. Because case assignment is random, understanding your judge's history is a vital part of your preparation. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this judge's 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 performance to broader benchmarks provides context for your upcoming hearing. Judge Gerstner's lifetime approval rate of 46% is evaluated against the latest Albuquerque Hearing Office average of 55% and the national average of 58%. These figures are derived from a substantial docket of 12,943 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 Gerstner'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 6-year tenure, your judge's approval rate has evolved. After an initial period of 65% in 2016, the data indicates a shift toward a more consistent pattern between 2018 and 2019. Recent years have seen a rise in the approval rate, reaching 51% by 2021. This trend reflects a stabilization following earlier fluctuations in case volume.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Gerstner'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 Gerstner? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Albuquerque hearing office
The Albuquerque Hearing Office serves you and other claimants throughout New Mexico. With 6 judges currently on the bench, the office maintains an average approval rate of 55% based on recent reporting. You can expect a formal administrative process focused on your medical documentation and vocational testimony. You can visit the Albuquerque Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your judge is selected randomly. Within the Albuquerque Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 41% to 61%. While these variations exist, the fundamental requirements for proving your disability remain consistent across all courtrooms.
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.
