SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Nicholas Grey

Last decided MinneapolisJul 2026
Decisions 2,675since 2017

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same timeframe. While Nicholas Grey has an approval rate of 46% across all decisions on record since 2017, his latest-period approval rate is 42%. This latest-period figure sits 10 percentage points below the Minneapolis office average of 52%. These figures provide a baseline for understanding the judge's history, though they do not predict the outcome of your specific hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2017
Approval rate 46%
Decisions on record 2,675
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Grey Minneapolis National
Approval rate 42% 52% 58%
Fully favorable 36% — —
Denials 58% — —

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

Judge Grey
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY18FY26
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 Nicholas Grey has fluctuated over the years, starting at 47% in 2018 and reaching 54% in 2024 before settling at 42% in the most recent partial fiscal year. With 2,675 total decisions on record since 2017, the data shows a pattern of variance. The latest period reflects a departure from the higher approval rates seen in 2024 and 2025.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Grey'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 Minneapolis hearing office

The Minneapolis hearing office serves you if you are in Minnesota and the surrounding region. This office maintains a bench of 14 judges whose most recent office on record is this location, with an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 52%. You can expect a standard administrative hearing process focused on your medical and vocational evidence.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Minneapolis

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 14 judges whose most recent office on record is the Minneapolis hearing office. These judges show an approval-rate range of 33% to 68% on their records since 2016. Preparation remains consistent 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