SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Elisabeth McGee

On record 3,998 decisions since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing performance requires looking at consistent data windows. While Elisabeth McGee maintains a 54% lifetime approval rate, her latest-period approval rate of 66% sits 5 percentage points above the Fort Smith office average of 61%. These figures are drawn from a docket of 3,998 lifetime decisions, providing a stable view of past trends. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 54%
Decisions on record 3,998
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge McGee Fort Smith National
Approval rate 66% 61% 58%
Fully favorable 57%
Denials 34%

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

Judge McGee
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17FY26
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

Since 2016, the approval trend for Elisabeth McGee has shown movement. After starting with a 40% approval rate in 2017, the figures trended upward, reaching 66% in the most recent reporting period. This pattern reflects a shift in outcomes over the last decade, with the latest period showing a higher approval trend compared to earlier years. These fluctuations often stem from changes in case complexity or the quality of evidence presented in your hearing.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge McGee'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 Fort Smith hearing office

The Fort Smith hearing office serves you and other claimants throughout Arkansas and the surrounding region. With 8 judges on record since 2016, the office maintains an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 61%. You can expect a standard administrative process focused on medical and vocational evidence. You can see the Fort Smith 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, making your judge assignment essentially random. Across the 8 judges on record at the Fort Smith office, lifetime approval rates vary significantly, ranging from 47% to 79%. Of these, 3 judges are currently reported in the latest SSA data. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

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