SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. James W. Sherry

Position Administrative Law Judge
On record SSA records since 2016
Decisions 429 lifetime

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

The approval rates for James W. Sherry are based on 429 lifetime decisions recorded between 2016 and 2017. When evaluating these figures, compare them against the broader bench at the Tacoma hearing office, where lifetime approval rates for all judges on record range from 30% to 78%. This range provides a baseline for understanding how individual judicial patterns vary within the same office. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 56%
Decisions on record 429

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Sherry. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 29, 2017. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Sherry's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Sherry
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY17
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

The decision record for James W. Sherry covers the period from 2016 to 2017. During this time, your approval rate showed a slight shift, moving from 57% in 2016 to 54% in 2017. This trend reflects a steady approach to case evaluation over the observed window. Because these figures are based on 429 lifetime decisions, they offer a consistent view of how evidence is weighed in this courtroom. The data suggests a stable pattern of adjudication that remains within the expected range for this office.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Sherry'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 Tacoma hearing office

The Tacoma hearing office serves you throughout the Washington region. With 18 judges on record since 2016, this office manages a diverse caseload and maintains an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 58%. You can expect a formal process where the quality of your medical evidence remains the primary factor in a favorable outcome. You can see the Tacoma Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning you cannot choose your judge. There are 18 judges on record at this office since 2016. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, spanning from 30% to 78% over their respective lifetime records. You can view the full roster of judges at the Tacoma 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