SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Therese A. Hardiman

Last decided Wilkes BarreJul 2026
Decisions 2,976since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rates for Therese A. Hardiman are calculated based on 2,976 decisions on record since 2016. When comparing these figures, consider the bench's since-2016 range of 27% to 57% for judges whose most recent office on record is the Wilkes Barre hearing office. Latest-period data also shows how the judge compares to the broader office, state, and national averages.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 51%
Decisions on record 2,976
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Hardiman Wilkes Barre National
Approval rate 60% 45% 58%
Fully favorable 56% — —
Denials 40% — —

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

Judge Hardiman
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY26
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, Therese A. Hardiman has maintained a consistent volume of decisions, with an approval rate that has fluctuated over the years. The data shows a trend that moved from 39% in 2016 to 60% in the latest period. This latest-period performance is 15 percentage points higher than the office-wide average of 45%. These patterns reflect the judge's approach to the evidence presented in each case.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Hardiman'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 Wilkes Barre hearing office

The Wilkes Barre hearing office is the most recent office on record for Therese A. Hardiman, with activity recorded through July 2026. This office serves claimants across the region and maintains a bench of 13 judges. With an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 45%, you should focus on building a robust medical record to support your disability claim.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Wilkes Barre

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 13 judges whose most recent office on record is the Wilkes Barre hearing office, and 11 of them decided cases here in SSA's latest file through July 2026. Approval rates among this bench range from 27% to 57% on their records since 2016.

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