Margaret A. Donaghy has a lifetime approval rate of 68% across 8,905 decisions, which is higher than the national average of 58%. While your latest reporting period shows a 77% approval rate, these aggregate statistics represent past trends rather than a prediction for your specific hearing. An attorney can help you prepare your case to meet the evidentiary standards required for a favorable outcome.
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 Donaghy's approval rates are calculated based on 8,905 lifetime decisions. In the most recent reporting period, your 77% approval rate remains higher than the 58% national average. These figures allow you to see how your bench compares to the broader Social Security Administration landscape. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings.
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 Donaghy'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 10 years on the bench, Judge Donaghy has maintained a consistent pattern of approvals. Your yearly trend shows a rise in favorable outcomes, moving from 62% in 2016 to 84% in 2024. The latest period approval rate of 77% reflects a continuation of this stable, long-term trend. This pattern suggests that your approach to evidence and testimony has remained steady throughout your tenure.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Donaghy'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 Donaghy? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Queens hearing office
The Queens (New York) Hearing Office serves a large population of claimants across the region. With a bench of 6 judges, the office manages a high volume of disability hearings. The office currently maintains an approval rate of 78%, which is higher than the national average. You can find more information on the Queens (New York) Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration uses a randomized workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning you cannot choose your judge. At the Queens Hearing Office, the bench consists of 6 judges with lifetime approval rates ranging from 64% to 84%. Because case assignment is random, you may be scheduled with any judge at this office. The office's overall performance provides a baseline for the local hearing environment.
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.
