SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Laureen Penn

SSA Administrative Law Judge at the NHC Baltimore Hearing Office · 10 years on the bench · 19,362 lifetime decisions

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Comparing a judge's performance to broader benchmarks provides context for your upcoming hearing. Judge Penn maintains a lifetime approval rate of 46%, which currently tracks 3 points below the NHC Baltimore office average and 12 points below the national average. These figures are derived from a significant docket of 19,362 lifetime decisions. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Metric Judge Penn NHC Baltimore National
Approval rate 46% 58%
Fully favorable 39%
Denials 54%

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

Judge Penn
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY25
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Over her 10 years on the bench, Judge Penn has navigated a varied caseload with a steady decision pattern. While her approval rate saw a notable increase during 2022 and 2023, the most recent data shows a return to a 44% approval rate. This shift suggests that her current decision-making is consistent with her long-term historical average. The latest period reflects a continuation of this steady pattern, indicating that the judge's approach to evaluating evidence remains grounded in established criteria.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Penn'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 the Maryland region, 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 should expect a thorough review of your medical records and vocational history. See the NHC Baltimore Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Within the NHC Baltimore office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 46% to 81%. Because you cannot choose your judge, focusing on the strength of your medical evidence is the most effective way to prepare. Guidance remains consistent regardless of which judge you are assigned.

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