SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Patricia S. McKay

Last decided Oak ParkJul 2026
Decisions 2,938since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing Patricia S. McKay's approval rate to the broader bench provides context for your upcoming hearing. While the judge has an approval rate of 41% across 2,938 decisions on record since 2016, the bench at this office shows a range of 36% to 83%. In the most recent reporting period, the judge's 42% approval rate sits 24 points below the office rate of 66%, 18 points below the state rate of 60%, and 16 points below the national rate of 58%. These figures reflect past decisions rather than predictions for your hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 41%
Decisions on record 2,938
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge McKay Oak Park National
Approval rate 42% 66% 58%
Fully favorable 34% — —
Denials 58% — —

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

Judge McKay
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY26
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, your judge's approval rate has fluctuated. The record includes 2,938 decisions, with the most recent period showing an approval rate of 42%. This latest figure is consistent with the long-term average, and yearly trends remain varied. These patterns reflect the complexity of individual cases rather than a fixed approach to your claim.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge McKay'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 Oak Park hearing office

The Oak Park hearing office serves you and other claimants across Michigan. With 19 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, the office maintains a latest-period approval rate of 66%. You can expect a formal administrative environment where the focus remains on the medical and vocational evidence presented in your case.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Oak Park

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you draw is essentially random. There are 19 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, and 9 of them decided cases here in SSA's latest file through July 2026. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 36% to 83% on their since-2016 records. Your preparation remains the same regardless of which judge is assigned to your case.

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