SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Sanya Hill-Maxion

On record 2,056 decisions since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent data sets. The Stockton office bench features judges with lifetime approval rates ranging from 23% to 82%, reflecting the diversity of decision-making patterns within this location. These figures are based on 2,056 lifetime decisions, providing a statistically significant view of past performance. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 82%
Decisions on record 2,056

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Hill-Maxion. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 29, 2023. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

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

Judge Hill-Maxion
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY23
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, your approval trend for Sanya Hill-Maxion has shown variability, starting at 90% and moving through different cycles before reaching 51% in 2023. This record of 2,056 decisions illustrates how judicial patterns can shift over time. While the recent period reflects a departure from earlier, higher approval levels, it remains part of a broader, multi-year history. These fluctuations often correspond to changes in case complexity or the specific evidence presented in your claim.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Hill-Maxion'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 Stockton hearing office

The Stockton hearing office serves you across California, operating as a critical hub for regional disability adjudications. The office bench consists of 11 judges on record, maintaining a latest-period approval rate of 44%. You can expect a formal process where evidence quality and medical documentation are the primary drivers of a favorable outcome. For more information, see the Stockton Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you draw is essentially random. There are 11 judges on record at this office since 2016, 4 of whom reported in the latest SSA period. With lifetime approval rates across the bench spanning from 23% to 82%, the judge assigned to your case is a significant variable. You can find more information on the Stockton 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