SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. John T. Molleur

SSA Administrative Law Judge at the New Haven Hearing Office · 10 years on the bench · 12,384 lifetime decisions

Hearing scheduled?

Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Comparing a judge's history to broader benchmarks provides context for your upcoming hearing. While the New Haven Hearing Office maintains a recent approval rate of 52%, Judge Molleur's latest reporting period shows an approval rate of 36%. This data is drawn from 12,384 lifetime decisions, offering a look at past trends. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Metric Judge Molleur New Haven National
Approval rate 37% 52% 58%
Fully favorable 24%
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 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%FY16FY25
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Over a 10-year tenure, you will find that Judge Molleur has navigated a variety of caseloads across multiple offices. The yearly trend shows fluctuations, with approval rates moving from 35% in 2016 to a peak of 46% in 2020, before settling into a more recent range of 36% to 40%. This pattern suggests that while the judge's approach remains consistent, the specific outcomes are influenced by the nature of the cases presented. The latest period reflects a continuation of this steady pattern.

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 serves a significant population across Connecticut, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains a latest-period approval rate of 52%, which is lower than the state average of 59%. You can expect a professional environment where thorough documentation of medical limitations is prioritized. You can visit the New Haven 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 your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the New Haven Hearing Office, the bench consists of 6 judges with lifetime approval rates ranging from 37% to 57%. Because you cannot choose your judge, focusing on the strength of your medical evidence is the most effective way to prepare for your hearing.

Your odds change dramatically 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