Therese A. Hardiman has a lifetime approval rate of 51% across 16,575 decisions. In the most recent reporting period, your approval rate reached 62%, which is 5 percentage points above the Wilkes Barre office average but 7 points below the national average of 58%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific 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
Comparing a judge's approval rate to regional and national benchmarks provides context for your upcoming hearing. Judge Hardiman's lifetime rate of 51% is measured against a docket of 16,575 decisions over her 10-year tenure. While her latest reporting period shows an approval rate of 62%, these figures fluctuate based on case complexity and evidence. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.
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.
Decision pattern
Over her 10 years on the bench, Judge Hardiman has shown an upward trend in approval rates. After starting at 39% in 2016, her annual approval rate has climbed, reaching 64% in 2025. This shift reflects a change from her earlier decision-making patterns. The latest period continues this trend, which may be influenced by changes in the types of cases or the quality of evidence presented in your courtroom.
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?
About the Wilkes Barre hearing office
The Wilkes Barre Hearing Office serves you and other applicants across Pennsylvania and the surrounding region. With a bench of 6 judges, the office manages a high volume of disability claims. The office-wide latest approval rate is 46%, reflecting local standards for evaluating medical and vocational evidence. You can visit the Wilkes Barre Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The SSA assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. At the Wilkes Barre Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 29% to 59%. Because every judge approaches evidence differently, understanding the office-wide environment is helpful for your preparation.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.
