James R. McHenry III has a lifetime Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) approval rate of 41% over 2,883 decisions. This sits below the national average of 58%. While these statistics offer insight into past trends, they are not a prediction for your specific hearing. Because every case is unique, having an experienced attorney can help you present the strongest possible evidence to support your claim.
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 McHenry maintains a lifetime approval rate of 41% based on 2,883 total decisions. When comparing this to the most recent reporting period, the judge's rate sits 8 points below the NHC Baltimore office average and 17 points below the national average of 58%. These figures are derived from a substantial docket, providing a clear view of historical decision patterns. 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 McHenry III'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 two-year tenure, the approval rate for Judge McHenry moved from 45% in 2016 to 24% in 2017. While lifetime averages provide a baseline, the recent data highlights the importance of current evidence standards. These patterns suggest that the judge's approach to case evaluation has evolved, making thorough preparation of your medical records essential for your hearing.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge McHenry III'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.
About the NHC Baltimore hearing office
The NHC Baltimore Hearing Office serves you throughout Maryland, managing a high volume of disability appeals. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an average approval rate of 49% in the latest reporting period. You can expect a formal environment where the quality of medical documentation is the primary factor in a favorable decision. You can see the NHC Baltimore 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 your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Across the NHC Baltimore office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 ALJs range from 41% to 81%. This variance underscores why your specific judge matters, as different jurists may weigh evidence differently. You can find more information on the NHC Baltimore Hearing Office page.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.



