SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Matt Midles

Position Administrative Law Judge
On record SSA records since 2023
Decisions 1,053 lifetime

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same timeframes. While Matt Midles has a lifetime approval rate of 55%, his most recent reporting period shows an approval rate of 45%, which sits 1 percentage point below the San Francisco office average of 46%. These figures are derived from a volume of 1,053 lifetime decisions. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2023
Approval rate 55%
Decisions on record 1,053
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Midles San Francisco National
Approval rate 45% 46% 58%
Fully favorable 35%
Denials 55%

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

Judge Midles
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY23FY26
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

The record for Matt Midles spans from 2023 to 2026, covering 1,053 total decisions. His approval trend has shown a shift, moving from 62% in 2023 to 45% in the most recent reporting period. This decline reflects a change in the frequency of favorable outcomes compared to his earlier activity on the bench. The latest period indicates a departure from his historical average, which may be influenced by shifts in case complexity or the evidence presented in recent hearings.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Midles'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 San Francisco hearing office

The San Francisco hearing office serves you throughout the California region. With a bench of 10 judges on record, this office manages a diverse caseload of disability applications. The office-wide latest-period approval rate is 46%, providing a local benchmark for hearing outcomes. You can see the San Francisco Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 10 judges on record at this office since 2016, 5 of whom are reported in the latest SSA file. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, with lifetime records ranging from 28% to 65%.

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