Sharon L. Madsen is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Fresno hearing office, with a lifetime approval rate of 37% across 7,818 decisions. Because case assignment is random, understanding your judge's history is a vital step in your preparation. 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 Madsen has issued 7,818 lifetime decisions during a 4-year tenure. When comparing the latest reporting period to the Fresno Hearing Office average of 62%, Judge Madsen's rate is 25 percentage points lower. These figures provide a statistical baseline for understanding the judge's historical decision-making. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.
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 Madsen'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
The yearly trend for Judge Madsen shows an approval rate of 38% in 2016, 38% in 2017, and 37% in 2018. The most recent data from 2019 shows a shift to 31%. This pattern reflects the judge's historical approach to evaluating evidence. The recent change may reflect shifts in case mix or the quality of evidence presented in court.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Madsen'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 Madsen? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Fresno hearing office
The Fresno Hearing Office serves a significant population in California and manages a high volume of SSDI claims. The office maintains an average approval rate of 62%, which is higher than the national average of 58%. You can expect a formal process focused on your medical evidence and vocational testimony. You can view the full ALJ roster on the Fresno Hearing Office page.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Within the Fresno Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 37% to 73%. Because of this variance, understanding the local bench is helpful for your preparation. You can find more information on the Fresno Hearing Office page.
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.
