Tara J. Posner is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Baltimore Hearing Office. With a lifetime approval rate of 61% over 13,304 decisions, your judge's record sits above the national average of 58%. While approval rates fluctuate, they provide a stable baseline for your expectations. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific bench and ensure your evidence is presented effectively.
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
Judge Posner maintains a lifetime approval rate of 61%, which compares favorably to the current national average of 58%. In the most recent reporting period, the judge recorded an approval rate of 60%, which is 5 percentage points below the current Baltimore Hearing Office average of 66%. These statistics are derived from a docket of 13,304 lifetime decisions. These aggregate rates describe past trends rather than individual hearing outcomes.
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 Posner'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 8 years on the bench, Judge Posner has seen her approval rate fluctuate, rising from 56% in 2019 to a peak of 70% in 2023. While the rate moderated to 65% in 2025, the overall trend reflects a period of increased approvals compared to your early tenure. This pattern suggests a judge who has refined her approach to evidence over time.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Posner'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 Posner? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Baltimore hearing office
The Baltimore Hearing Office serves a large population across Maryland. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains a current approval rate of 66%. You can expect a professional environment focused on the evaluation of medical and vocational evidence. You can visit the Baltimore 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. Across the Baltimore Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates for the 6 judges on the bench range from 46% to 81%. Because of this variance, the judge you draw can influence the procedural flow of 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.
