SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Mark Naggi

Position Administrative Law Judge
On record SSA records since 2016
Decisions 3,294 lifetime

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

The approval rates for Mark Naggi reflect a significant body of work, with 3,294 lifetime decisions providing a stable statistical foundation. When compared to the 33% to 77% lifetime approval range seen across the Kansas City bench, your record stands out. In the most recent reporting period, your 90% approval rate outperformed the national average of 58% by 32 percentage points. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 77%
Decisions on record 3,294
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Naggi Kansas City National
Approval rate 90% 56% 58%
Fully favorable 82%
Denials 10%

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

Judge Naggi
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY26
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Since 2016, the approval trend for Mark Naggi has shown a distinct upward trajectory. After a period of relative stability between 2019 and 2022, the rate began a consistent climb, reaching 90% in the latest reporting period. This recent shift marks a departure from your earlier lifetime average, suggesting a change in case outcomes. 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 Naggi'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 Kansas City hearing office

The Kansas City hearing office serves you across Missouri and the surrounding region. With a bench of 17 judges on record, the office maintains an active docket to manage local disability claims. The office-wide latest approval rate is 56%, providing a baseline for the region. You can see the Kansas City 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 draw is essentially random. There are 17 judges on record at this office since 2016, 12 of whom reported data in the latest period. Approval rates across this bench vary widely, ranging from 33% to 77% on a lifetime basis. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

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