Judith M. Stolfo maintains a lifetime approval rate of 62% across 6,008 decisions, which sits above the national average of 58%. While this rate is a helpful indicator, it is a probability cloud from past decisions, not a prediction for your specific hearing. An attorney can help you organize your medical evidence to meet the specific standards of your judge.
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 Stolfo maintains a lifetime approval rate of 62%. Her recent performance is 3 percentage points higher than the Springfield MA office average, 6 points above the state average, and 4 points above the national average. These figures are derived from a docket of 6,008 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 Stolfo'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 her 3 years on the bench, Judge Stolfo has demonstrated a consistent approach to disability adjudication. Her approval rates have remained steady, moving from 62% in 2016 to 63% in 2017, and returning to 62% in 2018. This stability suggests a predictable decision-making process. The data reflects a continuation of this steady pattern throughout her tenure.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Stolfo'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 Stolfo? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Springfield MA hearing office
The Springfield MA Hearing Office serves a large population across Massachusetts. With 6 judges on the bench, the office maintains a latest approval rate of 59%. You can expect a professional environment focused on the evaluation of medical and vocational evidence. You can see the Springfield MA 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 the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Within the Springfield MA office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges vary, ranging from 42% to 65%. This variance highlights why your specific case evidence remains the most important factor in your hearing. You can review the full ALJ roster on the Springfield MA Hearing Office page.
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.
