SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Matthew Malfa

On record 1,997 decisions since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rates for judges at the Manchester office vary significantly, with lifetime records ranging from 26% to 86%. This statistical spread highlights the importance of understanding the specific bench you are assigned to. With 1,997 decisions on record, the data for Matthew Malfa offers a stable look at past outcomes. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 86%
Decisions on record 1,997

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Malfa. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 26, 2025. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

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.

Judge Malfa
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17FY25
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, the approval trend for Matthew Malfa has remained steady, showing consistent patterns in how cases are evaluated. After initial fluctuations in the early years of the record, the rate has maintained a high level of consistency, reflecting a stable approach to case review. The latest period continues to align with this long-term trend. This pattern suggests a judge who applies a reliable standard to the evidence presented in each case.

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 scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Manchester hearing office

The Manchester hearing office serves claimants throughout New Hampshire, operating as a critical hub for regional disability adjudications. The office bench includes 11 judges who have presided over cases since 2016. You can expect a formal administrative process focused on the thorough review of medical and vocational evidence. You can see the Manchester Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. There are 11 judges on record at this office since 2016, 6 of whom are reported in the latest SSA data. With lifetime approval rates across the office ranging from 26% to 86%, the judge you draw can influence the context of your hearing. 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