Trevor Skarda is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Stockton Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 56% over 22,934 decisions. This sits near the national average of 58%. In the latest reporting period, Trevor Skarda approved 64% of cases, which is 12 percentage points higher than the Stockton office average. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings. 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
Comparing a judge's performance requires looking at both their long-term history and recent activity. Judge Skarda has issued 22,934 lifetime decisions. While their lifetime approval rate stands at 56%, their most recent reporting period shows an approval rate of 64%, which is 12 points higher than the current Stockton Hearing Office average of 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 Skarda'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 a decade on the bench, Judge Skarda has shown a clear evolution in their decision-making. After a period of lower approval rates between 2017 and 2019, the trend has shifted upward significantly in recent years, reaching 68% in 2025. This recent activity indicates a more favorable environment for your claim than in previous years.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Skarda'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 Skarda? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Stockton hearing office
The Stockton Hearing Office manages a high volume of disability cases. As part of a regional network, this office handles a diverse caseload that requires careful documentation of medical and vocational evidence. The office-wide latest approval rate is 44%, which provides a baseline for the local judicial environment.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the Stockton Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench vary significantly, ranging from 30% to 83%. Understanding the general environment of the office is as important as knowing your specific judge.
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.
