Maria N. Kusznir has a lifetime approval rate of 65% across 6,507 lifetime decisions. This sits above the national average of 58%, though it remains 4 points below the latest Montgomery Hearing Office average. Because case assignment is random, understanding these patterns is helpful for your preparation. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific bench.
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 Kusznir maintains a lifetime approval rate of 65%, which compares favorably to the 58% national average. While the local Montgomery Hearing Office currently reports a 69% approval rate, your individual outcome depends on the specific evidence presented in your case. With 6,507 decisions on record, this data provides a look at historical trends rather than a prediction for your 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 Kusznir'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 a three-year tenure, your judge's approval rate shifted from 67% in 2016 to 61% in 2018. This trend reflects a consistent approach to evaluating disability claims across thousands of hearings. While the latest reporting period shows a slight variance from the lifetime average, this is common as case mixes evolve.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Kusznir'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 Kusznir? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Montgomery hearing office
The Montgomery Hearing Office serves a broad population across Alabama, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an office-wide latest approval rate of 69%. You can expect a formal process focused on medical documentation and testimony regarding your ability to perform substantial gainful activity.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning you cannot choose your judge. Within the Montgomery Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 ALJs range from 53% to 78%. Because each judge may weigh medical evidence or vocational testimony differently, your experience will be unique to your specific hearing.
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.
