Maria Herrero-Jaarsma is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Buffalo office, with a lifetime approval rate of 54% across 3,254 lifetime decisions. This sits below the national average of 58%. While these statistics provide a baseline of past performance, they are not a prediction for your specific hearing. An attorney can help you prepare your case to meet the evidentiary standards of this judge.
This page presents publicly available SSA Office of Hearings Operations disposition data, with no editorial rating or evaluation. ALJs are independent decisionmakers; aggregate statistics describe past patterns, not predictions of how any individual case will be decided. Information here is provided for hearing preparation, not as legal advice.
Approval rates
Comparing a judge's performance to broader benchmarks provides context for your upcoming hearing. Judge Herrero-Jaarsma maintains a 54% lifetime approval rate, which sits 1% above the Buffalo Hearing Office average and 4% below the national average of 58%. These figures are derived from 3,254 lifetime decisions. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.
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 Herrero-Jaarsma's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.
Decision pattern
Over 4 years on the bench, the approval pattern for Judge Herrero-Jaarsma has shifted. After an initial period in 2017 with a 72% approval rate, the volume of cases increased in 2018, resulting in a 53% rate. By 2019, the rate adjusted to 44%. These fluctuations are common and often relate to changes in the complexity of cases or the evidence presented during your hearing process.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Herrero-Jaarsma'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 with Judge Herrero-Jaarsma? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Buffalo hearing office
The Buffalo Hearing Office serves you and other claimants across Western New York, managing a high volume of disability appeals. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an average approval rate of 53%. You can see the Buffalo Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the Buffalo Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 ALJs range from 46% to 54%. While these variations exist, the fundamental requirements for proving your disability remain consistent across all courtrooms.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.
