SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. MaryKay Rauenzahn

Last decided NHC AlbuquerqueJul 2026
Decisions 3,021since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. While your judge's overall record since 2016 shows a 61% approval rate, recent data provides a different snapshot. By evaluating performance against the office, state, and national benchmarks, you can better understand the current environment. These statistics are derived from a large volume of cases, providing a reliable basis for comparison.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 61%
Decisions on record 3,021
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Rauenzahn NHC Albuquerque National
Approval rate 44% 45% 58%
Fully favorable 31% — —
Denials 56% — —

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

Judge Rauenzahn
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 January 2016, the approval rate for MaryKay Rauenzahn has shown a steady pattern across 3,021 decisions on record. While yearly fluctuations occurred, the judge maintained consistent approval levels for several years before recent shifts. The latest reporting period shows a 44% approval rate, which reflects a shift in the current decision environment compared to the historical trend observed since 2016.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Rauenzahn'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 NHC Albuquerque hearing office

NHC Albuquerque is the most recent office on record for MaryKay Rauenzahn, with activity recorded through July 2026. This office maintains a bench of 12 judges whose most recent office on record is this one. With an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 45%, you can expect a rigorous review of your medical evidence and vocational factors.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is NHC Albuquerque

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 12 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, and 6 of them decided cases here in SSA's latest file through July 2026. Approval rates for these judges vary significantly, ranging from 31% to 61% on their since-2016 records.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
1×
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