SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Sally C. Reason

Last decided Los Angeles WestJul 2026
Decisions 3,290since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same timeframe to ensure accuracy. While your judge's 43% approval rate reflects the entire period since 2016, the latest-period figures provide a snapshot of more recent activity. Against the office's bench range of 40% to 67%, this judge's record provides a clear look at historical decision-making. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 43%
Decisions on record 3,290
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Reason Los Angeles West National
Approval rate 42% 62% 58%
Fully favorable 38% — —
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 Reason's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Reason
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

The approval rate for Sally C. Reason has fluctuated since 2016. With 3,290 decisions on record, the data reveals a trend that has remained relatively steady in recent years, despite minor annual variations. The latest-period approval rate of 42% is consistent with the broader patterns observed over the last decade. This stability suggests that the judge's approach to evaluating evidence has been maintained over time.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Reason'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 Los Angeles West hearing office

The Los Angeles West hearing office serves claimants throughout the California region. This office maintains a bench of 9 judges whose most recent office on record is this location. With an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 62%, the environment is one where evidence quality is paramount.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Los Angeles West

The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 9 judges whose most recent office on record is this one. Approval rates among this group range from 40% to 67% on their records since 2016. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

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