Eric Weiss is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Albuquerque Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 54% over 13,797 lifetime decisions. Because your case assignment is random, understanding your judge's history is a helpful step in your preparation. 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
Comparing a judge's history to broader benchmarks provides context for your hearing. Judge Weiss maintains a lifetime approval rate of 54%, which aligns closely with the 55% average seen at the Albuquerque office. While these figures offer a look at historical trends, they are not a guarantee of your future outcome. 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 Weiss'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 6 years on the bench, Judge Weiss has presided over 13,797 decisions. His yearly approval trends show fluctuations, moving from 45% in 2016 to 59% in 2017 and 2020, and 58% in 2021. This pattern reflects his established decision-making habits over the course of his tenure.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Weiss'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 Weiss? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Albuquerque hearing office
The Albuquerque Hearing Office serves you throughout New Mexico, managing disability appeals. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an overall latest approval rate of 55%. You can expect a professional environment focused on the medical and vocational evidence presented in your file. You can visit the Albuquerque 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 the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Within the Albuquerque office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 41% to 61%. This variance highlights why focusing on the specific evidence in your file is more important than the identity of the judge. You can find more information on the Albuquerque 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.
