Joanna Papazekos is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Pittsburgh Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 56% over 18,567 lifetime decisions. Her recent approval rate of 63% shows a positive trend. Because case assignment is random, your preparation is vital. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings. 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
Understanding your judge's history is a key part of preparing for your Social Security Disability Insurance hearing. Judge Papazekos maintains a lifetime approval rate of 56% over 18,567 decisions. In the most recent reporting period, her 63% approval rate outperformed both the state average of 55% and the national average of 58%. These figures reflect historical trends rather than specific outcomes for your case.
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 Papazekos'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 Papazekos has shown a fluctuating but generally upward trend in approvals. After a period of lower approval rates between 2019 and 2020, her decisions have trended higher, reaching 66% in 2025. This recent activity reflects a shift in case outcomes compared to her earlier tenure.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Papazekos'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 Papazekos? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Pittsburgh hearing office
The Pittsburgh Hearing Office serves a large population across Pennsylvania, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains a latest approval rate of 48%, which serves as a baseline for the region. You can visit the Pittsburgh Hearing Office page for more information on the local roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment is essentially random. Within the Pittsburgh office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 ALJs range from 28% to 57%. Because you cannot choose your judge, focus on the strength of your medical evidence to build a successful case.
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.
