SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Ghermann Magana

Last decided PasadenaJul 2026
Decisions 1,344since 2023

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes to ensure accuracy. The data shows how Ghermann Magana performs relative to the broader bench of 11 judges whose most recent office on record is the Pasadena hearing office. With 1,344 decisions on record since 2023, the statistical sample provides a clear view of historical trends. These aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting the outcome of your specific hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2023
Approval rate 68%
Decisions on record 1,344
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Magana Pasadena National
Approval rate 67% 67% 58%
Fully favorable 52% — —
Denials 33% — —

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

Judge Magana
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY23FY26
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

The approval rate for Ghermann Magana has remained steady since 2023, with 1,344 decisions on record. While the rate reached 71% in 2024, it stabilized at 67% in the most recent partial fiscal year. This pattern suggests a consistent approach to evaluating your disability claim, with the latest period showing no significant deviation from the historical average.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Magana'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 Pasadena hearing office

Ghermann Magana's most recent office on record is the Pasadena hearing office. This office maintains a bench of 11 judges whose most recent office on record is this location, with an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 67%. You can expect a standard hearing process focused on your medical evidence and vocational testimony.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Pasadena

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 11 judges whose most recent office on record is the Pasadena hearing office, and 5 of them decided cases here in SSA's latest file through July 2026. Approval rates across this bench range from 35% to 70% on their records. Your preparation remains the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
1×
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