SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Frederick Upshall Jr.

Last decided AlbuquerqueSep 2019
Decisions 1,577since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same timeframe. The 64% approval rate for Frederick Upshall Jr. reflects all decisions on record since 2016, which you can measure against the 41% to 89% range observed among the 14 judges whose most recent office on record is Albuquerque. These figures provide a statistical baseline derived from a significant volume of cases. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 64%
Decisions on record 1,577

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Upshall Jr.. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 27, 2019. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

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

Judge Upshall Jr.
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY19
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

The approval rate for Frederick Upshall Jr. across 1,577 decisions on record since 2016 shows a variable trend. After an initial 62% approval rate in 2016, the figures rose to 71% in 2017 and 71% in 2018 before declining to 52% in 2019. This fluctuation indicates that the judge's decision-making pattern shifted over the recorded period. The decline in the final year of the record may reflect changes in case mix or evidence quality.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Upshall Jr.'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 Albuquerque hearing office

The Albuquerque hearing office serves you and other claimants across New Mexico and the surrounding region. It is staffed by 14 judges whose most recent office on record is this location, reflecting a diverse range of decision patterns. You can expect a standard administrative process focused on the medical and vocational evidence presented in your file. You can see the Albuquerque Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Albuquerque

SSA assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Within the Albuquerque hearing office, there are 14 judges whose most recent office on record is this location, with approval rates ranging from 41% to 89% on their since-2016 records. 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