SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Robert R. Schriver

Position Administrative Law Judge
On record SSA records since 2017
Decisions 2,572 lifetime

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. While Robert R. Schriver holds a 65% lifetime approval rate, his latest-period performance shows a 72% approval rate, which sits 4 points below the Queens office's latest-period average of 76%. These figures are drawn from a significant volume of cases, providing a stable baseline for understanding the judge's decision history. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2017
Approval rate 65%
Decisions on record 2,572
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Schriver Queens National
Approval rate 72% 76% 58%
Fully favorable 58%
Denials 28%

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

Judge Schriver
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY18FY26
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Since 2017, Robert R. Schriver has maintained a consistent decision pattern across 2,572 lifetime decisions. The yearly trend shows a rise in approval rates, moving from the mid-50% range in earlier years to a more recent peak of 77% in 2025. The latest period of 72% reflects a continuation of this steady pattern, suggesting that the approach to evaluating evidence has remained relatively stable over the last several years.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Schriver'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 Queens hearing office

The Queens hearing office serves you throughout the New York region. With 11 judges on record, this office maintains a latest-period approval rate of 76%. You can expect a formal administrative process where evidence quality is the primary factor in a favorable outcome. 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 the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 11 judges on record at this office since 2016, 6 of whom are reported in the latest period. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 49% to 85% on lifetime records. You can find more information on the Queens hearing office page.

Approval rates change 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