SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Dawn M. Gruenburg

On record 4,452 decisions since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing judicial approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. While Dawn M. Gruenburg has an 81% lifetime approval rate, her latest-period approval rate of 86% sits 20 points above the Oak Park office average of 66%. These figures are derived from a substantial docket of 4,452 lifetime decisions, providing a stable view of her decision history. These aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting outcomes for your specific hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 81%
Decisions on record 4,452
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Gruenburg Oak Park National
Approval rate 86% 66% 58%
Fully favorable 78%
Denials 14%

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

Judge Gruenburg
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 2016, the approval rate for Dawn M. Gruenburg has shown a generally high and stable trend. The data indicates a consistent pattern of approvals, with the most recent reporting period showing an 86% approval rate. This latest performance reflects a continuation of her long-term record, suggesting that her approach to evaluating evidence has remained steady over the years.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Gruenburg'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 Oak Park hearing office

The Oak Park hearing office serves you throughout the region, operating as a key hub for disability adjudications in Michigan. The office maintains a bench of 20 judges on record, with an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 66%. You can expect a formal hearing process focused on the medical and vocational evidence presented in your file. See the Oak Park Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 20 judges on record at this office since 2016, 10 of whom reported in the latest period. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 36% to 83% on lifetime records. You can find the full list of judges on the Oak Park hearing office page.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
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