SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Gregory Moldafsky

Position Administrative Law Judge
On record SSA records since 2016
Decisions 2,217 lifetime

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

The data shows that Gregory Moldafsky's lifetime approval rate of 37% sits within the broader office range of 33% to 85% for all judges on record at the Washington office. In the most recent reporting period, his 36% approval rate is lower than the office-wide rate of 63%. These figures are based on a substantial docket of 2,217 lifetime decisions, providing a stable view of his past record.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 37%
Decisions on record 2,217
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Moldafsky Washington National
Approval rate 36% 63% 58%
Fully favorable 27%
Denials 64%

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

Judge Moldafsky
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 2016, your approval rate for Gregory Moldafsky has fluctuated, showing a peak of 51% in 2017 followed by varying annual results. His recent activity shows a 36% approval rate in the latest period, which is consistent with his long-term average. This pattern suggests a steady approach to case evaluation. Understanding these trends helps you and your legal representative focus on the evidence that matters most in your specific case.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Moldafsky'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 Washington hearing office

The Washington hearing office serves you throughout the region, managing a diverse caseload of disability applications. With a bench of 19 judges on record, the office maintains an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 63%. You can expect a professional environment where thorough documentation of medical evidence is essential for a successful outcome. You can see the Washington Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Washington hearing office utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your judge is selected randomly. There are 19 judges on record at this office since 2016, with 14 currently reporting in the latest SSA data. These judges demonstrate a wide range of lifetime approval rates, spanning from 33% to 85%.

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