Daniel J. Mages is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Indianapolis Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 67% over 26,508 decisions. This rate sits above the national average. Because case assignment is random, your outcome depends on the specific evidence in your file. 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 Mages maintains a lifetime approval rate of 67% across 26,508 decisions. In the most recent reporting period, his approval rate reached 74%, which is higher than the 61% office average and the 58% national average. These figures provide a historical baseline for his judicial activity, though they do not predict the outcome of your specific 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 Mages'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 his 10 years on the bench, Judge Mages has maintained a consistent approach to disability adjudication. While his annual approval rate has fluctuated—ranging from a low of 61% in 2021 to a high of 73% in 2025—the overall trend remains steady. Recent decisions show a higher frequency of favorable outcomes compared to the middle of his tenure, reflecting the judge's current approach to the evidence presented in his courtroom.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Mages'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 Mages? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Indianapolis hearing office
The Indianapolis Hearing Office serves a large population across Indiana, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an environment where caseloads are distributed to ensure timely processing. The office-wide approval rate currently sits at 61%, reflecting the broader regional trends in disability adjudication.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning you have no control over which judge hears your case. At the Indianapolis Hearing Office, the bench includes 6 judges with lifetime approval rates ranging from 48% to 72%. This variance highlights why understanding the local judicial environment is useful for your preparation.
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.
