Michelle S. Marcus maintains a 70% lifetime approval rate across 10,222 lifetime decisions, which sits above the national average of 58%. At the Albany Hearing Office, where the latest approval rate is 67%, Michelle S. Marcus currently trends 3 points higher. Because SSA case assignment is random, these aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than specific outcomes for your hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of 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
When evaluating your potential outcome, it is helpful to look at how Michelle S. Marcus compares to broader benchmarks. While the national approval rate for the latest reporting period is 58%, Michelle S. Marcus has maintained a 73% rate during the same timeframe. This performance is consistent with the Albany Hearing Office average of 67% and the New York state average of 65%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual 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 Marcus'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 10 years on the bench, Michelle S. Marcus has demonstrated a varied but generally high approval trend. After a dip to 56% in 2021, the approval rate saw a steady climb, reaching 78% in 2024 before settling at 73% in the most recent period. This pattern suggests a judge who evaluates cases based on the specific evidence presented in each file.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Marcus'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 Marcus? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Albany hearing office
The Albany Hearing Office serves a significant population across New York, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an office-wide latest approval rate of 67%. You can see the Albany Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning you cannot choose your judge. Within the Albany Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 49% to 81%. This variance highlights why your specific case evidence is the most critical factor in your hearing.
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.
