SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Virginia Herring

Last decided Oak ParkJul 2026
Decisions 3,861since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes to ensure a fair assessment. While Virginia Herring has a 51% approval rate since 2016, the latest-period data shows a 51% rate, which sits 15 points below the Oak Park office average of 66%. These figures are derived from a significant volume of 3,861 decisions on record. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 51%
Decisions on record 3,861
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Herring Oak Park National
Approval rate 51% 66% 58%
Fully favorable 40% — —
Denials 49% — —

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

Judge Herring
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

The approval rate for Virginia Herring has fluctuated since 2016. After starting at 41% in 2016, the rate reached a high of 62% in 2024 before settling at 51% in the most recent partial year of 2026. With 3,861 total decisions on record, the data reflects a varied history of case outcomes. The latest period reflects a return to the long-term average, suggesting that recent decisions remain consistent with the established pattern.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Herring'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 Oak Park hearing office

Virginia Herring's most recent office on record is the Oak Park hearing office, with decisions there through July 2026. This office serves the surrounding region in Michigan and maintains a bench of 19 judges. The office-wide approval rate in the latest period was 66%, providing context for the local hearing environment. You can see the Oak Park Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Oak Park

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 19 judges whose most recent office on record is the Oak Park office, with 9 of them deciding cases in the latest file. Approval rates among this bench range from 36% to 83% on their since-2016 records. For preparation purposes, 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