SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Jeffrey Raeber

Position Administrative Law Judge
On record SSA records since 2016
Decisions 2,795 lifetime

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at the same timeframes to ensure accuracy. While Jeffrey Raeber maintains a 56% lifetime approval rate, his latest-period performance shows a 68% approval rate, which sits 3 points above the MT Pleasant MI office average of 65%. These figures are derived from 2,795 lifetime decisions. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 56%
Decisions on record 2,795
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Raeber Mt Pleasant MI National
Approval rate 68% 65% 58%
Fully favorable 48%
Denials 32%

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

Judge Raeber
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY26
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate (SSA's term: allowance rate) = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total decisions, which exclude dismissals.

Decision pattern

Since 2016, your approval trend for Jeffrey Raeber has shown notable shifts. After a period of relative stability in the mid-2010s, the rate saw a dip in 2021 before trending upward in recent years. The latest reporting period reflects a continuation of this recent pattern, with an approval rate of 68% compared to the 56% lifetime average. This recent uptick may reflect changes in case mix or evidence quality presented at the MT Pleasant MI office.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Raeber'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 Mt Pleasant MI hearing office

The MT Pleasant MI hearing office serves you across the region. With a bench of 8 judges on record, the office maintains a consistent approach to processing disability claims. You can expect a standard hearing process focused on medical evidence and vocational testimony. See the MT Pleasant MI Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 8 judges on record at this office since 2016, 6 of whom reported in the latest period. Across the office, lifetime approval rates range from 30% to 63%. 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