William T. Ross is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Boston Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 56%. This sits slightly below the national average of 58%, but remains within the range of stable judicial patterns. Over 10 years on the bench and 18,145 lifetime decisions, your judge's approval rates have shown variance. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific bench.
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
Comparing a judge's performance to broader benchmarks provides context for your upcoming hearing. Judge Ross maintains a lifetime approval rate of 56%, which we evaluate against the latest Boston Hearing Office average of 53% and the national average of 58%. These figures are derived from a significant docket of 18,145 lifetime decisions. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.
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 Ross'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 his 10-year tenure, Judge Ross has seen his approval rates fluctuate. While his lifetime average stands at 56%, recent data shows a trend toward higher approval rates, reaching 66% in the most recent reporting period. This shift illustrates how your judge's approach to medical and vocational evidence may evolve over time.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Ross'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 Ross? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Boston hearing office
The Boston Hearing Office serves a large population across Massachusetts, managing a high volume of SSDI and SSI claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office operates under the broader SSA Region 1 guidelines to process hearings efficiently. You can expect a formal proceeding where medical documentation and vocational testimony are prioritized.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the Boston Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench vary significantly, ranging from 37% to 65%. This variance highlights why understanding the local judicial environment is important, even though you cannot choose your judge.
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.
