SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Sujata Rodgers

Last decided BostonJul 2026
Decisions 3,343since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rates for Sujata Rodgers are calculated based on 3,343 total decisions on record since 2016. When comparing these figures to the broader bench at the Boston hearing office, note that the office's 15 judges range from 37% to 75% in their individual approval rates over the same period. In the latest reporting period, your judge had an approval rate of 46%, while the office-wide rate was 54%.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 38%
Decisions on record 3,343
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Rodgers Boston National
Approval rate 46% 54% 58%
Fully favorable 27% — —
Denials 54% — —

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

Judge Rodgers
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

The approval rate for Sujata Rodgers has fluctuated since 2016. After a period of lower approval rates between 2021 and 2022, the data shows an uptick in recent years, with 45% approval in 2025. The latest reporting period reflects a continuation of this recent pattern, which differs from the long-term average on record. These trends provide context for how cases have been decided over the 3,343 total decisions on record.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Rodgers'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 Boston hearing office

Sujata Rodgers's most recent office on record is the Boston hearing office, with decisions there through July 2026. This office serves claimants across Massachusetts and the surrounding region, maintaining a bench of 15 judges whose most recent records are tied to this location. The office-wide approval rate in the latest reporting period was 54%.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Boston

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 15 judges whose most recent office on record is the Boston hearing office. Approval rates across this bench range from 37% to 75% on their since-2016 records. You should prepare for your hearing based on the specific requirements of your claim.

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