Margaret A. Carey is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Chicago Hearing Office. Over 10 years on the bench and 19,246 lifetime decisions, their approval rate is 44%. This sits below the national average of 58%, but aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. Because case assignment is random, understanding your judge's history is a vital step in preparing your case with an experienced attorney who can help you.
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 performance requires looking at both lifetime averages and recent trends. Judge Carey has maintained a consistent presence in the Chicago Hearing Office, where her latest approval rate of 52% is evaluated against the office-wide average of 56% and the national average of 58%. With a docket spanning 19,246 lifetime decisions, this data provides a stable view of her decision-making history.
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 Carey'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 her 10-year tenure, your judge has seen approval rates fluctuate, moving from a low of 37% in 2017 and 2018 to 51% in 2025. This trend shows a rise following the 2020 period, where approval rates peaked at 57%. The latest reporting period indicates a pattern that remains below the broader office average.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Carey'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 Carey? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Chicago hearing office
The Chicago (Illinois) Hearing Office serves a large population across the region, managing a high volume of disability claims. With 6 judges currently on the bench, the office maintains an average approval rate of 56%. You should expect a professional environment focused on the specific medical documentation of your impairment.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the Chicago Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 41% to 69%. Because you cannot choose your judge, understanding the office-wide environment is helpful for your preparation.
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.
