Mary E. Richardson is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Middlesboro hearing office. With a lifetime approval rate of 53% across 14,387 decisions, their record sits below the national average of 58%. While these statistics provide a helpful baseline, they represent a probability cloud rather than a prediction for your specific hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific bench.
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 Richardson maintains a lifetime approval rate of 53% across 14,387 lifetime decisions. In the most recent reporting period, her approval rate was 1% higher than the Middlesboro office average and equal to the state average, though 5% below the national average. These figures provide a statistical baseline for your hearing preparation.
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 Richardson'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 9 years on the bench, Judge Richardson has seen her approval rates fluctuate. While your case is unique, her career began with approval rates in the mid-50% range, followed by a period of decline and a 60% approval rate in 2024. These shifts often reflect changes in the complexity of cases or the quality of evidence presented in the hearing room.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Richardson'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 Richardson? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Middlesboro hearing office
The Middlesboro Hearing Office serves a population across Kentucky and the surrounding region. It is staffed by 6 judges who manage a high volume of disability claims. The office currently maintains an approval rate of 52%, which is slightly lower than the national average. You can expect a professional environment focused on the specific medical evidence of your claim. You can find more information on the Middlesboro Hearing Office page.
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 Middlesboro bench, the 6 ALJs range from 46% to 59% in their lifetime approval rates. While these variations exist, the fundamental requirements for proving your disability remain consistent regardless of which judge you are assigned.
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.
