Sarah Ehasz is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Pittsburgh Hearing Office with a 56% lifetime approval rate across 19,433 decisions. Her recent performance shows a notable uptick, though aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific evidence 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 Ehasz maintains a lifetime approval rate of 56% based on 19,433 total decisions. In the most recent reporting period, her 58% approval rate outperformed the Pittsburgh office average of 48% by 8 percentage points. These figures provide a statistical baseline for your hearing, though they represent historical trends rather than a guarantee for your specific case.
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 Ehasz'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 your 10 years on the bench, Judge Ehasz has demonstrated a steady decision-making pattern. While her approval rate fluctuated between 52% and 58% for much of her tenure, recent years show a shift toward higher approval outcomes, reaching 64% in 2024 and 60% in 2025. This recent trend suggests an evolving approach to case evaluation compared to her earlier years.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Ehasz'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 Ehasz? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Pittsburgh hearing office
The Pittsburgh Hearing Office serves a broad population across Pennsylvania, managing a high volume of disability claims. With 6 judges currently presiding, the office maintains a diverse range of decision outcomes that reflect the complex nature of regional SSDI filings. You should expect a thorough review of your medical documentation and vocational history. You can find more information on the local bench by visiting the Pittsburgh Hearing Office page.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to Judge Ehasz is essentially random. Across the Pittsburgh office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 28% to 57%. Because you cannot choose your judge, focusing on the strength of your medical evidence remains the most effective way to prepare for your hearing.
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.
