SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. William Shenkenberg

Last decided MilwaukeeJul 2026
Decisions 3,709since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. While the 52% approval rate on record since 2016 provides a long-term view, the latest-period approval rate of 56% offers a current snapshot of recent activity. This latest-period figure sits 5 percentage points above the Milwaukee office average of 51%. These figures are based on thousands of decisions and describe past trends rather than predicting outcomes for individual hearings.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 52%
Decisions on record 3,709
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Shenkenberg Milwaukee National
Approval rate 56% 51% 58%
Fully favorable 52% — —
Denials 44% — —

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

Judge Shenkenberg
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

Since January 2016, the approval rate for William Shenkenberg has varied across 3,709 decisions on record. After reaching 58% in 2017, the rate fluctuated, including a low of 45% in 2022, before trending upward. The latest reporting period shows an approval rate of 56%, which aligns with the higher end of historical performance and continues the pattern observed over the last three years.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Shenkenberg'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 Milwaukee hearing office

William Shenkenberg's most recent office on record is the Milwaukee hearing office. This office maintains a bench of 13 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, reflecting a diverse range of decision patterns. With an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 51%, you can expect a review of your medical evidence and vocational history.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Milwaukee

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. At the Milwaukee hearing office, there are 13 judges whose most recent office on record is this one. These judges show a wide range of approval rates, spanning from 27% to 56% on their since-2016 records.

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