George W. Reyes is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Tucson Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 80% over 16,009 lifetime decisions. This sits above the national average of 58%. While his recent approval rates remain strong, aggregate data describes past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this judge's courtroom.
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 Reyes maintains a lifetime approval rate of 80%, which outperforms the Tucson Hearing Office latest rate of 71% and the national average of 58%. This data is derived from a career docket of 16,009 lifetime decisions, providing a statistical baseline for understanding how this judge has historically approached disability claims. Aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting your individual outcome.
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 Reyes'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 an 8-year tenure, the approval rate for Judge Reyes has shown a steady pattern, peaking at 87% in 2021 before adjusting to 76% in 2023. This trajectory reflects a consistent approach to evaluating medical evidence and vocational factors across 16,009 lifetime decisions. The judge has maintained a high approval frequency compared to broader regional benchmarks.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Reyes'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 Reyes? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Tucson hearing office
The Tucson Hearing Office serves a large population across Arizona, managing a high volume of SSDI claims with a bench of 6 judges. The office currently reports a 71% approval rate, reflecting the regional complexity of disability cases processed in this jurisdiction. You can visit the Tucson 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 assignment to Judge Reyes is essentially random. Across the Tucson Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 50% to 80%. Because each judge manages their own docket, you may encounter different procedural preferences depending on who is assigned to your 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.
