Wallace Tannenbaum is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the New York Hearing Office. Over 2 years on the bench, they have issued 2,134 lifetime decisions with an approval rate of 58%. This aligns with the national average of 58% but sits 2 points below the local office average. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific 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
The approval rate for Judge Tannenbaum is calculated based on 2,134 lifetime decisions. This metric provides a snapshot of how often claims are granted compared to the broader New York Hearing Office, which currently maintains a 60% approval rate. These figures are influenced by the specific types of cases assigned to the judge, and aggregate rates do not serve as 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 Tannenbaum'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, the approval rate for Judge Tannenbaum has remained consistent with national benchmarks. The data shows a steady volume of decisions, reflecting the standard pace of the New York Hearing Office. This consistency helps provide a baseline expectation for how evidence is reviewed in this courtroom.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Tannenbaum'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 Tannenbaum? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the New York hearing office
The New York Hearing Office serves a diverse population across the region, managing a high volume of SSDI claims. With a bench of 6 ALJs, the office maintains an overall approval rate of 60%. You can expect a formal process focused on the medical and vocational evidence presented in your file. You can visit the New York 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 New York Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 ALJs range from 37% to 82%. Because of this variance, understanding the local office environment is a standard part of your hearing preparation.
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.
