SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Christine A. Guard

Last decided MaconJul 2026
Decisions 1,972since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing Christine A. Guard's performance requires looking at consistent data periods. While the judge has a 57% approval rate across all decisions since 2016, recent trends show a 64% approval rate in the latest reporting period. This latest-period figure sits 18 percentage points above the Macon office average of 46%. These metrics provide a statistical baseline for your hearing, though aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than individual outcomes.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 57%
Decisions on record 1,972
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Guard Macon National
Approval rate 64% 46% 58%
Fully favorable 57% — —
Denials 36% — —

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 Guard's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Guard
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17FY26
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

Since 2016, Christine A. Guard has issued 1,972 decisions. After a period of lower approval rates between 2018 and 2019, the approval frequency has seen a consistent rise, reaching 64% in the most recent reporting period. This latest-period performance indicates a shift from the historical average, suggesting that recent case outcomes have been more favorable. This trend reflects a pattern of stability in how evidence is weighed over time.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Guard'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 Macon hearing office

The Macon hearing office serves claimants across Georgia and is a key hub for regional disability adjudications. There are 13 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, and the office maintains an overall latest-period approval rate of 46%. You can expect a standard administrative process focused on medical evidence and vocational testimony.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Macon

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. At the Macon office, there are 13 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, with 7 of them having decided cases in the latest SSA file. Approval rates among this bench vary significantly, ranging from 31% to 72% on their since-2016 records. Your preparation remains consistent regardless of which judge is assigned to your case.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
1×
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