SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Ramon Suris-Fernandez

Last decided NHC BaltimoreSep 2020
Decisions 1,509since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rate for Ramon Suris-Fernandez is based on 1,509 decisions on record since 2016. This figure is compared against the 40% to 90% range seen among the 16 judges whose most recent office on record is the NHC Baltimore. Because case assignment is random, understanding the broader bench context is helpful for your preparation. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 76%
Decisions on record 1,509

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Suris-Fernandez. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 25, 2020. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Suris-Fernandez's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Suris-Fernandez
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY20
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 2016, the approval rate for Ramon Suris-Fernandez has shown a generally rising trend, starting at 71% in 2016 and reaching 81% in 2019 before settling at 79% in 2020. With 1,509 total decisions on record, this pattern reflects a consistent approach to case evaluation over the observed period. The data suggests a stable decision-making process that has remained above the 70% mark throughout the window.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Suris-Fernandez'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 NHC Baltimore hearing office

The NHC Baltimore hearing office serves you if you are in Maryland and the surrounding region. There are 16 judges whose most recent office on record is this location. You can expect a standard hearing process where evidence quality and medical documentation remain the primary factors in a decision. See the NHC Baltimore Hearing Office page for the full roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is NHC Baltimore

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 16 judges whose most recent office on record is the NHC Baltimore, with approval rates ranging from 40% to 90% on their since-2016 records. While you cannot choose your judge, understanding the variety of approaches at this office can help you prepare. 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