SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. John T. Molleur

Last decided New HavenJul 2026
Decisions 2,225since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. The 36% approval rate on record since 2016 provides a long-term view, while the latest-period data allows for a direct comparison against the office, state, and national benchmarks. With 2,225 decisions on record, the data provides a look at past outcomes. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 36%
Decisions on record 2,225
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Molleur New Haven National
Approval rate 38% 47% 58%
Fully favorable 30% — —
Denials 62% — —

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

Judge Molleur
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY26
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 John T. Molleur has fluctuated. While the rate reached 43% in 2019 and 2020, recent years have seen a return to a more moderate range, with 38% approval recorded in the partial 2026 fiscal year. This latest-period performance is 9 points lower than the office average of 47%. The current trend reflects a pattern where outcomes remain sensitive to the specific evidence you present in your case.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Molleur'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 New Haven hearing office

The New Haven hearing office is the most recent office on record for John T. Molleur as of July 2026. This office is part of a larger network of hearing locations where 8 judges have their most recent records. You face an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 47%. To learn more about the local bench, see the New Haven hearing office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is New Haven

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you draw is essentially random. There are 8 judges whose most recent office on record is this one. These judges show an approval-rate range of 36% to 58% on their records since 2016. For your preparation, the guidance is 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