SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Laura S. Havens

Last decided TucsonSep 2025
Decisions 3,993since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same timeframe to ensure accuracy. The 50% approval rate for Laura S. Havens reflects her total decisions on record since 2016, which we compare against the 50% to 79% range of other judges whose most recent office on record is Tucson. These figures provide a stable statistical baseline for understanding how past cases were decided. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 50%
Decisions on record 3,993

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Havens. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 26, 2025. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Havens's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Havens
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY25
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

The approval rate for Laura S. Havens has shown a varied trajectory since 2016. After maintaining a relatively steady pattern between 2016 and 2020, the data shows a decline in the following years, reaching a low in 2023 before showing signs of recovery in 2025. With 3,993 total decisions on record, these fluctuations highlight the importance of your case-specific evidence. The recent 2025 figures reflect a shift from the previous downward trend.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Havens'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 Tucson hearing office

Laura S. Havens's most recent SSA record (September 2025) is at the Tucson hearing office, which serves you if you are in Arizona. This office features a bench of 5 judges whose most recent office on record is this location. You can expect a standard hearing process where the quality of your medical evidence is the primary factor in the outcome.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Tucson

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 5 judges whose most recent office on record is Tucson, with approval rates ranging from 50% to 79% on their records since 2016. While these rates vary across the bench, the fundamental requirements for proving your disability remain consistent. For your preparation, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

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