Sara L. Alston is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the NHC Baltimore office, with a lifetime approval rate of 90% over 2,729 lifetime decisions. This exceeds the national average of 58%. While these figures provide a look at past trends, they are a reflection of past decisions, not a prediction for your specific hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the 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
Judge Alston maintains a lifetime approval rate of 90%, which stands in contrast to the NHC Baltimore office's latest average of 49% and the national average of 58%. These figures are derived from a substantial docket of 2,729 lifetime decisions, providing a clear view of the judge's historical decision-making tendencies. 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 Alston'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 a 2-year tenure, Judge Alston has demonstrated a consistent approach to disability claims. The data shows a trend of high approval rates, moving from 89% in 2016 to 96% in 2017. This upward trajectory suggests a stable pattern of evaluation that has remained well above regional and national benchmarks throughout the judge's time on the bench.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Alston'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 Alston? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Nhc Baltimore hearing office
The NHC Baltimore Hearing Office serves you and other claimants across Maryland and the surrounding region. It is one of several offices managing a high volume of SSDI cases, with a diverse bench of 6 judges. You can expect a professional environment focused on the thorough review of medical and vocational evidence. You may visit the NHC Baltimore Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Within the NHC Baltimore office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 46% to 90%. For preparation purposes, the guidance remains consistent regardless of which judge you are assigned.
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.
