Matthew Malfa is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Manchester Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 87% across 12,906 decisions. This is well above the national average of 58%. While this data provides a look at past patterns, it is not a prediction for your specific hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this judge's courtroom.
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
Comparing a judge's performance to broader benchmarks helps provide context for your upcoming hearing. Judge Malfa maintains a lifetime approval rate of 87% based on 12,906 decisions, which stands in contrast to the latest national approval rate of 58%. These figures are derived from a decade of service, offering a robust sample size for analysis.
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 Malfa'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 Malfa has maintained a consistent pattern of approvals. His yearly trend shows a stable high-approval trajectory, with recent data from 2023 through 2025 reflecting rates between 91% and 100%. This consistency suggests a steady approach to evaluating evidence and disability claims. The latest period indicates a continuation of this long-term pattern, which remains significantly higher than the office-wide average.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Malfa'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 Malfa? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Manchester hearing office
The Manchester Hearing Office serves you across New Hampshire and the surrounding region. It is staffed by a team of judges who manage a high volume of disability appeals. The office currently reports a latest approval rate of 59%, which serves as a baseline for the local jurisdiction.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the Manchester Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 46% to 87%. Because you cannot choose your judge, understanding the office environment is a vital part of 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.
