Anne-Mar A. Ofori-Acquaah is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Raleigh Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 40% across 22,866 decisions. Because case assignment is random, understanding your judge's history is a vital step in your preparation. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific bench.
This page presents publicly available SSA Office of Hearings Operations disposition data, with no editorial rating or evaluation. ALJs are independent decisionmakers; aggregate statistics describe past patterns, not predictions of how any individual case will be decided. Information here is provided for hearing preparation, not as legal advice.
Approval rates
Comparing a judge's performance requires looking at the broader context of the Raleigh Hearing Office and national trends. While the national average approval rate stands at 58%, Judge Ofori-Acquaah has maintained a 40% lifetime approval rate over 22,866 decisions. These figures provide a statistical baseline for the office, though they do not account for the unique medical evidence in your specific claim.
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 Ofori-Acquaah's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.
Decision pattern
Over her 10 years on the bench, Judge Ofori-Acquaah has seen her approval rates fluctuate, ranging from a low of 32% in 2021 to 47% in 2024. Her latest reporting period shows an approval rate of 41%, which remains consistent with her long-term career average. These shifts often reflect changes in the types of cases assigned or evolving standards in Social Security Disability Insurance documentation.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Ofori-Acquaah'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 with Judge Ofori-Acquaah? A free benefit check tells you if you qualify.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Raleigh hearing office
The Raleigh Hearing Office serves a large population across North Carolina, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an overall approval rate that reflects the regional complexity of cases. You can expect a formal process focused on the rigorous documentation of medical limitations. You can visit the Raleigh 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 specific judge is chosen randomly. Within the Raleigh Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 40% to 69%. This variance highlights why preparation is essential regardless of who is assigned to your hearing.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.
