SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Matilda Surh

Last decided San FranciscoJul 2026
Decisions 3,263since 2017

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. While Matilda Surh has a 40% approval rate since 2017, her latest-period approval rate of 43% sits 3 percentage points below the San Francisco office average of 46%. These figures are drawn from a docket of 3,263 total decisions on record. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2017
Approval rate 40%
Decisions on record 3,263
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Surh San Francisco National
Approval rate 43% 46% 58%
Fully favorable 32% — —
Denials 57% — —

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

Judge Surh
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17FY26
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 2017, Matilda Surh has maintained a varied approval pattern. After an initial 51% approval rate in 2017, the data shows a period of lower approval rates before a recovery in recent years. The 2026 fiscal year-to-date rate of 43% follows the 47% rate observed in 2025. This fluctuation highlights the importance of presenting a complete medical record, as the latest period reflects a continuation of this steady pattern.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Surh'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 San Francisco hearing office

The San Francisco hearing office serves you across the region. With 10 judges whose most recent office on record is this location, the office maintains a latest-period approval rate of 46%. You should be prepared for a thorough review of your medical evidence when appearing here. You can see the San Francisco Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is San Francisco

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Among the 10 judges whose most recent office on record is San Francisco, approval rates range from 28% to 65%. Five of these judges decided cases in the latest SSA file from July 2026. 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