SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Paul G. Martin

Last decided ManchesterJul 2026
Decisions 2,232since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rates for Paul G. Martin reflect a significant volume of work, providing a statistical baseline for your review. In the latest reporting period, the 69% approval rate sits 12 points above the Manchester office average of 57%. These comparisons are based on the most recent data to ensure accuracy. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 62%
Decisions on record 2,232
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Martin Manchester National
Approval rate 69% 57% 58%
Fully favorable 63% — —
Denials 31% — —

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 Martin's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Martin
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17FY26
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 September 2016, Paul G. Martin has issued 2,232 decisions. The yearly trend shows a pattern of approvals with fluctuations between 55% and 69% over the last decade. The most recent reporting period shows a 69% approval rate, which is an increase compared to the long-term average. This recent data reflects the judge's current activity in the Manchester office.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Martin'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

Paul G. Martin's most recent office on record is the Manchester hearing office, with decisions there through July 2026. This office serves the New Hampshire region and maintains a bench of 11 judges. The office-wide latest approval rate is 57%, providing a benchmark for the local judicial environment.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Manchester

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 11 judges whose most recent office on record is the Manchester office, and 6 of them decided cases here in the latest file from July 2026. Approval rates among this bench vary significantly, ranging from 26% to 86% on their records since 2016. Your preparation remains the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
1×
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