SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Sarah Lough

Position Administrative Law Judge
On record SSA records since 2023
Decisions 979 lifetime

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Comparing a judge's performance requires looking at consistent data periods. While Sarah Lough maintains a 56% lifetime approval rate, her latest-period approval rate of 58% sits 6 points above the Minneapolis office average of 52%. These figures are drawn from 979 lifetime decisions, providing a view of her recent activity. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2023
Approval rate 56%
Decisions on record 979
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Lough Minneapolis National
Approval rate 58% 52% 58%
Fully favorable 46%
Denials 42%

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

Judge Lough
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY24FY26
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Sarah Lough has presided over 979 decisions since her record began in 2023. Her approval rate has shown a steady trend, moving from 55% in 2024 to 57% in 2026. This recent performance indicates a consistent approach to case evaluation that aligns with national averages. The latest period reflects a continuation of this pattern, suggesting that your decision-making process remains stable as she manages her current caseload.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Lough'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 Minneapolis hearing office

The Minneapolis hearing office serves you if you are in Minnesota and the surrounding region. With a bench of 16 judges on record, the office maintains a latest-period approval rate of 52%. You can expect a formal administrative process focused on the medical and vocational evidence presented in your file. See the Minneapolis Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. The Minneapolis office features 16 judges on record since 2016, 9 of whom reported in the latest period. These judges exhibit a wide range of lifetime approval rates, spanning from 26% to 68%. You can find the full roster on the Minneapolis 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