SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Matthew J. Gordon

Last decided Des MoinesJul 2026
Decisions 3,674since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rates for Matthew J. Gordon are calculated based on 3,674 decisions on record since September 2016. When comparing these figures to the broader bench at the Des Moines office, note that the office's 10 judges range from 37% to 70% in their approval rates over the same period. Latest-period data shows you that the judge currently maintains a 65% approval rate, which sits 12 points above the office's latest-period average of 53%.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 63%
Decisions on record 3,674
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Gordon Des Moines National
Approval rate 65% 53% 58%
Fully favorable 54% — —
Denials 35% — —

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

Judge Gordon
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

Since September 2016, the approval trend for Matthew J. Gordon has remained consistent. After an initial period, your judge's annual approval rates have moved between 60% and 68%, with the most recent fiscal year-to-date data showing a 65% approval rate. This pattern reflects a stable approach to case evaluation over the last decade.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Gordon'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 Des Moines hearing office

Matthew J. Gordon's most recent office on record is the Des Moines hearing office, which serves you across Iowa. This office is staffed by a bench of 10 judges who have recorded decisions since 2016. The office-wide latest-period approval rate is 53%, providing a baseline for the region. You can see the Des Moines hearing office page for the full roster of judges.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Des Moines

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 10 judges whose most recent office on record is the Des Moines office, and 7 of them decided cases here in the latest file through July 2026. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 37% to 70% 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