William E. Kenworthy is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Pittsburgh Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 55% over 5,804 decisions. This sits below the national average of 58%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An experienced attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this judge's 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
Comparing a judge's performance to broader benchmarks provides context for your hearing. Judge Kenworthy maintains a 55% lifetime approval rate across 5,804 decisions. This sits 7 points above the latest Pittsburgh Hearing Office average of 48% and aligns with the state average of 55%, while remaining 3 points below the 58% national average. These figures reflect historical trends rather than specific outcomes for your case.
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 Kenworthy'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 a 3-year tenure, Judge Kenworthy has presided over 5,804 decisions. The yearly trend shows an approval rate of 54% in 2016 and 57% in 2017. This career pattern indicates a consistent approach to evaluating your disability claim. This stability suggests that the judge follows a predictable framework when you present your medical evidence and vocational testimony.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Kenworthy'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 Kenworthy? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Pittsburgh hearing office
The Pittsburgh Hearing Office serves a large population across Pennsylvania, managing a high volume of SSDI claims. With 6 judges on the bench, the office maintains a latest approval rate of 48%. When you appear here, you should expect a thorough review of your medical records and work history. You can visit the Pittsburgh 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. Across the Pittsburgh bench, lifetime approval rates for the 6 ALJs range from 28% to 57%. Because each judge has a unique perspective on evidence, understanding the local office environment is helpful for your preparation.
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.
