Ben Willner is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the NHC Albuquerque office. Over 8 years on the bench and 13,796 lifetime decisions, they have maintained a 39% approval rate. This sits below the national average of 58%, making thorough evidence preparation essential. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this judge's courtroom.
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
When evaluating your claim, it is helpful to look at how Judge Willner compares to broader benchmarks. His lifetime approval rate of 39% is measured against the latest office average of 50% and the national average of 58%. These figures are derived from a significant docket of 13,796 lifetime decisions. 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 Willner'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 his 8 years on the bench, Judge Willner has presided over 13,796 lifetime decisions. His yearly trend shows a decline in approval rates from 47% in 2016 to 29% in 2021. This pattern reflects the specific cases heard during his tenure rather than a change in his personal approach to the law. The latest period reflects a continuation of this steady trend.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Willner'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.
About the NHC Albuquerque hearing office
The NHC Albuquerque Hearing Office serves you throughout New Mexico and the surrounding region. With a bench of 6 judges, this office manages a high volume of cases to ensure timely processing for your disability benefits. The office currently maintains an approval rate of 50%, which serves as a local benchmark for your hearing. You can visit the NHC Albuquerque Hearing Office page for more information on the local 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 NHC Albuquerque Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 39% to 61%. This variation highlights why focusing on the strength of your own medical evidence is essential. The guidance for your preparation remains consistent regardless of which judge you are assigned.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.



