SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Lisa Groeneveld-Meijer

Last decided ManchesterJul 2026
Decisions 3,608since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

When evaluating the likelihood of a favorable outcome, it is useful to compare a judge's performance against the broader bench. Lisa Groeneveld-Meijer's 63% approval rate on record since 2016 sits within the 26% to 86% range observed among the 11 judges whose most recent office on record is Manchester. In the most recent reporting period, your judge's 62% approval rate compares to a 57% office-wide rate, a 57% state-wide rate, and a 58% national rate.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 63%
Decisions on record 3,608
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Groeneveld-Meijer Manchester National
Approval rate 62% 57% 58%
Fully favorable 52% — —
Denials 38% — —

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

Judge Groeneveld-Meijer
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

The approval rate for Lisa Groeneveld-Meijer has shown fluctuations across the 3,608 decisions on record since 2016. While the rate reached 72% in 2024, it has also seen periods of lower activity, such as 52% in 2022. The most recent fiscal year-to-date data shows a 62% approval rate, which remains consistent with your judge's long-term average.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Groeneveld-Meijer'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 Manchester hearing office

Lisa Groeneveld-Meijer's most recent office on record is the Manchester hearing office. This office maintains a bench of 11 judges whose most recent office on record is this location. With an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 57%, you can expect a rigorous review of your medical evidence and vocational history.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Manchester

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 11 judges whose most recent office on record is Manchester, and 6 of them decided cases here in the latest file from July 2026. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 26% to 86% on their since-2016 records.

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