SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Eric Weiss

Last decided AlbuquerqueSep 2021
Decisions 2,179since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same timeframe to ensure accuracy. The 54% approval rate for Eric Weiss reflects performance since 2016, which can be measured against the 41% to 89% range observed among the 14 judges whose most recent office on record is the Albuquerque hearing office. These figures provide a statistical baseline for understanding how different judges have historically approached disability claims.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 54%
Decisions on record 2,179

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Weiss. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 24, 2021. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

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.

Judge Weiss
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY21
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 Eric Weiss has fluctuated over the years, beginning at 45% in 2016 and reaching a high of 60% in 2020. With 2,179 total decisions on record since 2016, the data shows a pattern of variance rather than a singular trend line. The most recent full year of data from 2021 shows an approval rate of 55%, which remains consistent with the historical average. This pattern suggests that the decision-making process has remained relatively stable over the observed period.

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 scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Albuquerque hearing office

Eric Weiss's most recent office on record is the Albuquerque hearing office, with decisions there through September 2021. This office serves you and other claimants across New Mexico. With 14 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, the office handles a diverse range of disability claims. You can see the Albuquerque Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Albuquerque

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 14 judges whose most recent office on record is the Albuquerque hearing office, with approval rates ranging from 41% to 89% on their since-2016 records. Because of this variation, understanding the broader context of the office is helpful for your preparation.

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