Patricia Kendall is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Evanston Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 57% over 8,321 lifetime decisions. This rate is slightly below the national average of 58% but remains consistent with the local office average. Because case assignment is random, your hearing outcome depends on your specific evidence. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific bench.
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
Judge Kendall maintains a lifetime approval rate of 57%, calculated from 8,321 lifetime decisions rendered during her 5-year tenure. In the most recent reporting period, her approval rate was 1 percentage point higher than both the Evanston Hearing Office and the state average, while trailing the national average by 1 point. This volume of decisions provides a stable statistical baseline for understanding her historical adjudication patterns.
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 Kendall'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 5 years on the bench, your judge has shown a varied approval trend. While her early years saw approval rates between 59% and 61%, the most recent data indicates a shift to 48% in 2020. This fluctuation is common in Social Security Disability Insurance hearings and may reflect changes in the complexity of cases or the quality of medical evidence presented.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Kendall'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 with Judge Kendall? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Evanston hearing office
The Evanston Hearing Office serves a significant population across Illinois, managing a high volume of SSDI and SSI claims. With 6 judges on the bench, the office maintains an average approval rate of 56%. You can visit the Evanston Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning you cannot request a specific judge. At the Evanston Hearing Office, the bench is comprised of 6 judges whose lifetime approval rates range from 46% to 76%. This variance highlights why you should focus on the strength of your medical documentation regardless of who presides over your hearing.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.
