Meryl L. Lissek is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Newark Hearing Office, maintaining a 70% lifetime approval rate over 15,165 decisions. This sits above the national average of 58%. While these figures provide context, they are not a prediction for your specific hearing. An attorney can help you prepare your case by identifying the medical evidence most relevant to this judge's 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 Lissek maintains a lifetime approval rate of 70%, derived from 15,165 total decisions during her 7-year tenure. In the most recent reporting period, her approval rate outperformed the Newark Hearing Office average by 13 percentage points and the national average by 12 points. These figures provide a statistical baseline for understanding her history on the bench, though they do not predict your individual hearing result.
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 Lissek'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 her 7 years on the bench, Judge Lissek has demonstrated a consistent decision pattern. Her approval rates remained stable between 66% and 68% for much of her early career, with a peak of 77% in 2020. Recent data shows a return to a 66% approval rate, suggesting a stabilization in her decision-making process. This trend reflects a continuation of her long-term approach to evaluating disability evidence.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Lissek'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 Lissek? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Newark hearing office
The Newark Hearing Office serves a significant population across New Jersey, managing a high volume of disability claims with a bench of 6 judges. The office maintains an average approval rate of 57%, which serves as a benchmark for the region. You can visit the Newark Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment is random. Across the Newark bench, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 40% to 70%. Because of this variance, the specific judge you draw can influence the procedural flow of your hearing. You can find more information on the Newark Hearing Office page.
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.
