SSDI Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Maribeth McMahon

SSDI Administrative Law Judge at the Paducah Hearing Office · 8 years on the bench · 11,742 lifetime decisions

Check My Benefits →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Comparing a judge's lifetime approval rate to current office and national benchmarks provides context for your upcoming hearing. With 11,742 lifetime decisions, the data for Judge McMahon offers a clear view of her historical decision-making patterns. Her latest approval rate trails the Paducah office average by 14 percentage points, though these figures represent broad trends rather than specific outcomes for your case.

Metric Judge McMahon Paducah National
Approval rate 42% 56% 58%
Fully favorable 36%
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 McMahon's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge McMahon
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY23
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Over her 8 years on the bench, Judge McMahon has maintained a consistent decision-making profile. Her approval rate fluctuated in her early years, dipping to 35% in 2020 before showing a recovery to 47% in 2022. The most recent data from 2023 shows a rate of 44%. These shifts often reflect changes in the complexity of cases or the quality of evidence presented.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge McMahon'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 McMahon? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.

Check My Benefits
Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Paducah hearing office

The Paducah Hearing Office serves claimants across Kentucky and surrounding regions, managing a high volume of disability appeals. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an office-wide latest approval rate of 56%. You can expect a standard administrative process focused on medical evidence and vocational testimony. You can visit the Paducah 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 the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Across the Paducah office, lifetime approval rates for the bench range from 42% to 65%. While some judges may approve more cases than others, the requirements for proving disability remain consistent under federal law.

Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer

SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own

WITHOUT A LAWYER
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants
Check My Benefits

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