SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Matthew G. Levin

On record 3,582 decisions since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing a judge's record requires looking at consistent data windows. While Matthew G. Levin maintains a 44% lifetime approval rate, his latest-period approval rate of 39% sits 18 percentage points below the current 57% average for the Manchester office. These figures are based on 3,582 lifetime decisions, providing a statistically significant look at his history. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 44%
Decisions on record 3,582
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Levin Manchester National
Approval rate 39% 57% 58%
Fully favorable 36%
Denials 61%

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

Judge Levin
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

Matthew G. Levin's approval record has shown notable fluctuations since 2016. After reaching a peak of 52% in 2024, the approval rate has trended to 39% in the most recent reporting period. This latest figure represents a departure from his historical average, potentially reflecting changes in case complexity or evidence standards. Understanding these shifts is a critical part of building a case that meets the specific evidentiary requirements of his courtroom.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Levin'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 Manchester hearing office

The Manchester hearing office serves claimants throughout New Hampshire and the surrounding region. With a bench of 11 judges on record, the office maintains an overall latest-period approval rate of 57%. You can see the Manchester 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 you cannot choose your judge. The Manchester office includes 11 judges on record since 2016, 6 of whom reported data in the latest period. Lifetime approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 26% to 86%. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
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