SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Mary Ryerse

Last decided CharlotteJul 2026
Decisions 3,742since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. While the overall record since 2016 shows a 73% approval rate, recent performance provides a more current snapshot. In the latest reporting period, Mary Ryerse approved 81% of cases, which is 10 percentage points higher than the Charlotte office average of 71%. These figures are based on a substantial volume of decisions, providing a statistical foundation for your review.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 73%
Decisions on record 3,742
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Ryerse Charlotte National
Approval rate 81% 71% 58%
Fully favorable 77% — —
Denials 19% — —

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

Judge Ryerse
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 trend for Mary Ryerse has shown an upward trajectory since 2016. After a period of fluctuation between 2016 and 2021, the approval rate began a steady climb, reaching 83% in 2025. The latest data from 2026 shows an 81% approval rate, which remains above the long-term average of 73%. This recent performance reflects a consistent pattern of decision-making.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Ryerse'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 Charlotte hearing office

Mary Ryerse's most recent office on record is the Charlotte hearing office, which serves you across North Carolina. This office is home to 18 judges whose most recent records are tied to this location. With an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 71%, you can expect a review of your medical evidence and vocational history.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Charlotte

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 18 judges whose most recent office on record is this one. Approval rates among this group vary significantly, ranging from 29% to 83% on their records since 2016. 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