SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. James R. McHenry III

SSA Administrative Law Judge at the NHC Baltimore Hearing Office · 2 years on the bench · 2,883 lifetime decisions

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

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.

Metric Judge McHenry III NHC Baltimore National
Approval rate 41% 58%
Fully favorable 35%
Denials 59%

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.

Judge McHenry III
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY17
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

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.

Hearing scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

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

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