SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Mark C. Ziercher

Last decided Fayetteville NCSep 2019
Decisions 809since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same timeframe to ensure accuracy. The 35% approval rate for Mark C. Ziercher reflects all decisions on record since 2016, which can be measured against the 35% to 78% range seen among other judges whose most recent office on record is Fayetteville NC. These figures provide a statistical baseline derived from hundreds of cases. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 35%
Decisions on record 809

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Ziercher. 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 Ziercher's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Ziercher
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 Mark C. Ziercher showed variation across the 809 decisions on record since 2016. The data indicates an approval rate of 29% in 2016, 35% in 2017, 44% in 2018, and 30% in 2019. This trend reflects the judge's historical decision-making pattern within the provided data window. The fluctuations observed in these years suggest that case outcomes can vary based on the specific evidence presented in each claim.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Ziercher'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 Fayetteville NC hearing office

The Fayetteville NC hearing office serves you if you are in North Carolina and is part of the broader SSA regional network. There are 7 judges whose most recent office on record is this location. If you are appearing here, you should be prepared for a thorough review of your medical and vocational evidence.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Fayetteville NC

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 7 judges whose most recent office on record is Fayetteville NC, and they exhibit a broad range of approval rates from 35% to 78% on their since-2016 records. Because each judge has a unique approach to evaluating evidence, understanding the office-wide landscape is helpful for calibrating your expectations.

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