Dory Sutker is an ALJ at the Manchester office with a lifetime approval rate of 61% over 14,551 decisions. This sits above the national median of 58%, reflecting a stable decision pattern. While approval rates vary across the office's 6 judges, aggregate data describes past trends rather than predicting your individual hearing outcome. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this judge's 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
Judge Sutker maintains a 61% lifetime approval rate, which tracks 3 percentage points higher than the national average of 58%. At the Manchester Hearing Office, the latest reporting period shows an approval rate of 59%, placing this judge slightly above the local benchmark. These figures are derived from a docket of 14,551 decisions. Aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting your individual outcome.
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 Sutker'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 a 9-year tenure, Judge Sutker has seen fluctuations in approval patterns, starting at 68% in 2016 and reaching a low of 56% in 2020 and 2022. The most recent data shows a positive trend, with approval rates climbing to 61% in 2023 and 65% in 2024. These patterns reflect the evolving nature of disability adjudication over the last decade.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Sutker'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 Sutker? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Manchester hearing office
The Manchester Hearing Office serves you and other applicants throughout New Hampshire. It is staffed by 6 administrative law judges who manage disability appeals. The office currently maintains a 59% approval rate. You can visit the Manchester Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Across the Manchester Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates for the 6 judges on the bench range from 46% to 64%. Because your judge is determined by this automated process, you cannot request a specific individual.
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.
