SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Laura Speck Havens

On record 7 decisions since 2026

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rates for Laura Speck Havens reflect her activity at the Sacramento hearing office. While her lifetime approval rate stands at 57%, it is helpful to view this against the broader office-wide lifetime range of 39% to 80%. These figures are derived from a docket of 7 lifetime decisions, providing a baseline for understanding her decision-making history. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2026
Approval rate 57%
Decisions on record 7
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Havens Sacramento National
Approval rate 57% 68% 58%
Fully favorable 57%
Denials 43%

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 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%FY26
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 record for Laura Speck Havens includes 7 lifetime decisions starting in 2016. Her approval rate has remained consistent at 57% during the most recent reporting period. This data reflects a steady pattern in her decision-making process. Because the latest period aligns with her lifetime average, the current trend suggests a continuation of her established approach to your disability claim.

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 Sacramento hearing office

The Sacramento hearing office serves you throughout the region, maintaining a bench of 20 judges on record. The office-wide latest-period approval rate is 68%, which provides context for the local hearing environment. You can expect a formal process focused on the medical evidence presented in your file. You can see the Sacramento Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 20 judges on record at this office since 2016, 6 of whom reported in the latest period. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 39% to 80% over their respective careers. You can find more information on the Sacramento hearing office page.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
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