Elizabeth M. Tafe maintains a lifetime approval rate of 56% across 2,301 decisions. This sits slightly below the national average of 58% and the Manchester office average of 59%. While these figures offer a window into past trends, they are not a prediction for your specific hearing. An attorney can help you organize your medical evidence to meet the specific requirements of your case.
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 Tafe maintains a lifetime approval rate of 56% based on 2,301 lifetime decisions. In the latest reporting period, the judge's rate was 3 percentage points below the Manchester office average of 59% and 2 points below the national average of 58%. These comparisons are drawn from a significant docket size, providing a look at historical trends. 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 Tafe'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 2-year tenure, Judge Tafe has presided over 2,301 lifetime decisions. The yearly trend shows an approval rate of 60% in 2016 and 46% in 2017. These patterns often emerge from shifts in case complexity or the specific medical evidence presented in a given year, rather than a fundamental change in judicial philosophy.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Tafe'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 Tafe? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Manchester hearing office
The Manchester Hearing Office serves you and other claimants across New Hampshire. It is staffed by 6 judges who manage a high volume of disability claims. The office currently maintains an approval rate of 59%, reflecting regional trends in SSDI adjudication. You can expect a standard hearing process focused on your medical documentation and vocational testimony.
Other judges at this hearing office
The SSA uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to Judge Tafe is essentially random. Across the Manchester bench, lifetime approval rates for the 6 judges range from 46% to 64%. This variance highlights why focusing on the strength of your own medical evidence is the most effective strategy. You can find more information on the Manchester 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.
