Susan Hoffman is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Los Angeles West office. Over 4 years on the bench and 3,698 lifetime decisions, your approval rate is 43%. This is 15 percentage points below the national average of 58%. Office-wide, judges range from 39% to 66% in approval rates. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this judge's courtroom.
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
Evaluating a judge's history provides context for your upcoming hearing, though it is only one factor in your case. Judge Hoffman has maintained a 43% lifetime approval rate, which contrasts with the 63% average seen recently at the Los Angeles West office and the 58% national benchmark. These figures are derived from a docket of 3,698 lifetime decisions, offering a look at past trends. 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 Hoffman'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 her 4 years on the bench, your judge's approval rates have fluctuated. After starting with a 50% approval rate in 2016, the data shows a shift to 40% in 2018 before a rise to 44% in 2019. This pattern reflects a period of adjustment in her decision-making approach. The recent data shows a continuation of this steady, cautious pattern of adjudication.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Hoffman'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.
About the Los Angeles West hearing office
The Los Angeles West hearing office serves a large population in California, managing a high volume of disability claims. With an office-wide latest approval rate of 63%, it functions as a hub for regional SSDI hearings. You can expect a review process where medical evidence and vocational testimony are prioritized. You can visit the Los Angeles West 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 you cannot choose your judge. At the Los Angeles West hearing office, individual lifetime approval rates among the 6 ALJs range from 39% to 66%. Because this variation exists, understanding the local landscape is useful, but the core requirements for proving your disability remain consistent. The guidance for your preparation is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.



