SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Michael Leppala

Last decided AlbuquerqueJul 2026
Decisions 3,733since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. Over the 12 months to July 31, 2026, Michael Leppala decided 369 cases. These figures are measured against the Albuquerque Hearing Office, state, and national averages for the same period.

Last 12 months July 26, 2025 – July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Leppala Albuquerque National
Approval rate 51% 50% 58%
Fully favorable 39% — —
Denials 49% — —
Decisions 369 — —
All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 45%
Decisions on record 3,733

SSA publishes no office- or national-level breakdown of fully favorable and denial rates. The 12 months are SSA's figures for this fiscal year to date plus the rest of the previous fiscal year; how we calculate them.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Leppala's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Leppala
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17FY26
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 2016, Michael Leppala has issued 3,733 decisions. The yearly approval rate has fluctuated, reaching 51% in 2021, 2025, and 2026. The most recent 12 months sit above the 45% approval rate recorded across the entire period since 2016.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Leppala'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 Albuquerque hearing office

The Albuquerque Hearing Office serves you across New Mexico and parts of the surrounding region. As of the latest data, 5 judges have recorded decisions at this location. Over the 12-month window ending July 31, 2026, the office maintained a 50% approval rate.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Albuquerque

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm. Among the 5 judges who decided cases at the Albuquerque Hearing Office in the latest SSA file, approval rates range from 42% to 61% over the 12 months to July 31, 2026.

Judges with similar approval rates

These active judges' approval rates over the same 12 months (July 26, 2025 – July 31, 2026) are closest to Judge Leppala's 51%. Two of them last decided cases in New Mexico. With too few close matches there, the rest come from SSA's Dallas region.

Rates within 5 points of each other are hard to tell apart at a typical caseload, so treat these as judges with comparable records, not a ranking. See Judge Leppala and the three closest side by side →

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