SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Hortensia Haaversen

Last decided WashingtonJul 2026
Decisions 4,859since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. Hortensia Haaversen's 62% approval rate since 2016 provides a long-term view of decision-making, while the latest-period rate of 65% offers a more current snapshot. This latest figure sits 2 percentage points above the Washington office average of 63%, 6 points above the state average of 59%, and 7 points above the national average of 58%. These figures reflect recent trends in the Washington hearing office.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 62%
Decisions on record 4,859
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Haaversen Washington National
Approval rate 65% 63% 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 Haaversen's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Haaversen
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 trend for Hortensia Haaversen has shifted over the 4,859 decisions on record since 2016. After a period of fluctuation, the data shows a rise in approvals between 2022 and 2025, reaching 77% in 2024 and 2025. The 2026 fiscal year-to-date rate of 65% suggests a moderation from that recent peak. This pattern reflects changes in case volume and evidence quality over the last decade.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Haaversen'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 Washington hearing office

The Washington hearing office serves claimants in the District of Columbia and surrounding areas. As the most recent office on record for Hortensia Haaversen as of July 2026, it operates with a bench of 33 judges. The office maintains an overall latest-period approval rate of 63%, reflecting the local environment for disability claims.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Washington

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 33 judges whose most recent office on record is this one. These judges show a wide range of approval rates, spanning from 29% to 85% on their records since 2016. Preparation remains consistent regardless of which judge is assigned to your case.

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