Sandra M. McKenna is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Queens Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 66% across 15,221 decisions. This is above the national average of 58%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of your hearing.
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 McKenna maintains a lifetime approval rate of 66% across 15,221 total decisions. In the most recent reporting period, her approval rate reached 71%, which is 8 percentage points higher than the national average of 58%. While these figures provide a snapshot of her tenure, they should be viewed alongside the broader context of the Queens office. 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 McKenna'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 her 9 years on the bench, Judge McKenna has seen her approval rates fluctuate, moving from a low of 56% in 2020 and 2021 to a more recent period of higher approvals. The 2024 and 2025 data show a sustained trend of approval rates in the 70% range, indicating a shift from the mid-tenure period. These trends are useful for understanding the judge's historical decision-making environment.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge McKenna'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 with Judge McKenna? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Queens hearing office
The Queens Hearing Office serves a high volume of claimants across the New York region. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an active docket and a latest approval rate of 78%. You should expect a professional environment focused on the specific medical evidence presented in your file. You can see the Queens Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning you cannot request a specific judge. The Queens Hearing Office features a diverse bench with lifetime approval rates ranging from 64% to 84%. Because your assignment is essentially random, you may be paired with any of the 6 judges at this location. You can find more information on the office's general trends on the Queens Hearing Office page.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.
