SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Mary Chrzanowski

On record 95 decisions since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rate for Mary Chrzanowski is 87% based on 95 lifetime decisions. This figure is part of a broader landscape at the Ft Lauderdale hearing office, where lifetime approval rates among the 19 judges on record range from 21% to 87%. These statistics provide a window into past performance, though they do not guarantee future outcomes. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 87%
Decisions on record 95

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Chrzanowski. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 29, 2017. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Chrzanowski's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Chrzanowski
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17
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 record for Mary Chrzanowski spans from 2016 to 2017, encompassing 95 lifetime decisions. During this period, the data shows a consistent pattern of approvals. Because case assignment is random, your hearing outcome depends heavily on the specific evidence presented in your file. The observed trend reflects a stable approach to disability adjudication, though each case remains unique in its medical and vocational complexity.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Chrzanowski'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 Ft Lauderdale hearing office

The Ft Lauderdale hearing office serves you throughout the region, operating as a critical hub for disability adjudication in Florida. This office maintains a bench of 19 judges on record, with a latest-period approval rate of 51%. You should expect a formal process focused on the objective medical evidence supporting your claim. You can see the Ft Lauderdale Hearing Office page for the full ALJ 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. There are 19 judges on record at this office since 2016, 10 of whom are reported in the latest SSA period. With lifetime approval rates across the bench ranging from 21% to 87%, the judge you draw can influence the context of your hearing. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
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