SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Matthew Kuperstein

Last decided New HavenJul 2026
Decisions 2,404since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

When reviewing the data for the New Haven hearing office, it is helpful to compare individual performance against the broader bench. Judges whose most recent office on record is this one show an approval-rate range of 36% to 58% since 2016. In the most recent reporting period, Matthew Kuperstein's approval rate was 46%, compared to the office-wide rate of 47%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 47%
Decisions on record 2,404
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Kuperstein New Haven National
Approval rate 46% 47% 58%
Fully favorable 31% — —
Denials 54% — —

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 Kuperstein's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Kuperstein
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

Since January 2016, Matthew Kuperstein has issued 2,404 decisions. The yearly trend shows fluctuations, with approval rates reaching a high of 58% in 2016 and a low of 32% in 2021. The latest period rate of 46% is slightly below the long-term average, reflecting a continuation of the patterns observed in recent years. These shifts often stem from changes in case complexity or the specific evidence presented in individual claims.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Kuperstein'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 New Haven hearing office

Matthew Kuperstein's most recent office on record is New Haven, which serves claimants across Connecticut. This office maintains a bench of 8 judges who manage a high volume of disability claims. In the latest reporting period, the office-wide approval rate was 47%. You can see the New Haven hearing office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is New Haven

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 8 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, and 5 of them decided cases here in the latest file. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 36% to 58% since 2016.

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