Marc Jones is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the San Antonio Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 32% across 13,154 lifetime decisions. Because case assignment is random, your specific judge matters. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare your case for this specific 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
Judge Jones has maintained a 32% lifetime approval rate over his 8-year tenure. When compared to the latest reporting period, where the office approval rate stands at 52% and the national average at 58%, his historical data provides a broad view of his decision-making tendencies. These figures are derived from a substantial docket of 13,154 lifetime decisions, offering a stable statistical baseline.
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 Jones'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 his 8 years on the bench, your judge has seen his approval rates fluctuate. While his lifetime average is 32%, the yearly trend shows a shift from lower rates in the early years to a notable increase in the most recent reporting period. This recent uptick suggests a departure from his long-term historical baseline. Such patterns often reflect changes in the types of cases assigned or evolving evidentiary standards.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Jones'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 Jones? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Check My BenefitsAbout the San Antonio hearing office
The San Antonio Hearing Office serves a large population across Texas, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an office-wide latest approval rate of 52%. You can expect a formal administrative process focused on your medical evidence and vocational testimony. You can visit the San Antonio 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 Judge Jones is essentially random. Within the San Antonio Hearing Office, the 6 ALJs range from 32% to 51% in their lifetime approval rates. This variation highlights why understanding the local judicial environment is useful for your preparation.
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.
