SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Amy L. Rosenberg

Last decided LansingJul 2026
Decisions 3,862since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

This table compares the approval rates of Amy L. Rosenberg against the broader bench at the Lansing hearing office. We focus on the since-2016 record to provide a statistical baseline, while also highlighting performance in the most recent reporting period. By examining these figures, you can better understand how this judge's history aligns with regional and national trends. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 59%
Decisions on record 3,862
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Rosenberg Lansing National
Approval rate 62% 53% 58%
Fully favorable 52% — —
Denials 38% — —

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

Judge Rosenberg
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, Amy L. Rosenberg has issued 3,862 decisions. The yearly trend shows a fluctuating pattern, with approval rates moving from 58% in 2016 to 62% in the 2026 fiscal year to date. While the rate dipped to 53% in 2022, the most recent period shows a return to higher approval levels. This latest-period performance of 62% sits above the office average, reflecting a recent shift in the outcomes of cases heard by this judge.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Rosenberg'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 Lansing hearing office

Amy L. Rosenberg's most recent office on record is the Lansing hearing office, with decisions there through July 2026. This office serves claimants across Michigan and maintains a bench of 9 judges. With an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 53%, you can expect a rigorous review of your medical evidence and vocational history. You can see the Lansing Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Lansing

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 9 judges whose most recent office on record is the Lansing hearing office, 5 of whom decided cases in the latest SSA file. Approval rates among this group range from 37% to 68% on their since-2016 records. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

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