Michael J. Kopicki is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the NHC Baltimore office with a lifetime approval rate of 55% over 12,561 decisions. This rate is 3 percentage points below the national average of 58%. Because case assignment is random, understanding your judge's history is a vital step in your preparation. 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
When evaluating your chances at a hearing, it is helpful to look at how a judge's approval rate compares to broader benchmarks. Judge Kopicki has maintained a 55% approval rate over his 6-year tenure, compared to the 49% average at the NHC Baltimore Hearing Office and the 58% national average. These figures are derived from a docket of 12,561 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 Kopicki'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
The approval trend for Judge Kopicki has shown a decline over his 6 years on the bench. Starting with a 59% approval rate in 2016, the data shows a shift toward lower approval percentages in more recent years, reaching 42% in 2021. This pattern suggests a change in the types of cases heard or evolving standards for evidence. Understanding this trajectory is useful for your representative when organizing your medical records and testimony.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Kopicki'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 NHC Baltimore hearing office
The NHC Baltimore Hearing Office serves claimants across Maryland and the surrounding region. With a bench of 6 judges, this office manages a high volume of cases to ensure timely processing for those seeking disability benefits. The office currently reports an average approval rate of 49%, reflecting the local landscape of claims. You can visit the NHC Baltimore Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the NHC Baltimore Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench vary significantly, ranging from 46% to 81%. Because you cannot choose your judge, your focus should remain on building the strongest possible case. The guidance for your preparation remains consistent 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.



