SSDI Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Elizabeth Watson

SSDI Administrative Law Judge at the Moreno Valley Hearing Office · 10 years on the bench · 22,347 lifetime decisions

Check My Benefits →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Judge Watson has presided over 22,347 lifetime decisions during a 10-year tenure. In the most recent reporting period, the judge recorded an approval rate of 58%, compared to the Moreno Valley office average of 53% and the national average of 58%. These figures provide a statistical look at how cases have been decided in this courtroom over time, rather than serving as a prediction for your specific hearing.

Metric Judge Watson Moreno Valley National
Approval rate 44% 53% 58%
Fully favorable 54%
Denials 42%

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 Watson's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Watson
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY25
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Over a decade on the bench, Judge Watson has seen fluctuations in approval rates, ranging from a low of 33% in 2021 to a high of 58% in 2025. The data shows a period of lower approval rates between 2020 and 2022, followed by an upward trend in recent years. This latest period reflects a more favorable trend compared to the judge's historical lifetime average. These patterns illustrate the evolution of the judge's decision-making over time.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Watson'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 Watson? See if a free benefits review fits your case.

Check My Benefits
Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Moreno Valley hearing office

The Moreno Valley Hearing Office serves a significant population of claimants across Southern California. With a bench of 6 judges, this office manages a high volume of cases to ensure timely hearings for you. The office-wide latest approval rate currently stands at 53%. You can see the Moreno Valley Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. At the Moreno Valley Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 37% to 60%. Because each judge manages their docket differently, understanding the office-wide environment is helpful for your preparation.

Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer

SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own

WITHOUT A LAWYER
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants
Check My Benefits

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