Mary Sparks is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Albany hearing office. Over 7 years on the bench and 11,583 lifetime decisions, they have maintained a 69% approval rate. This sits 11 percentage points above the current national average of 58%. While these statistics offer a look at past performance, they are not 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 Sparks maintains a lifetime approval rate of 69% across 11,583 lifetime decisions. In the most recent reporting period, her approval rate outperformed the Albany Hearing Office average by 2 percentage points and the national average by 11 percentage points. These figures provide a stable view of her historical decision-making, though they do not predict the outcome of your specific hearing.
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 Sparks'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 7 years on the bench, Judge Sparks has seen fluctuations in annual approval rates. After a period of high approval rates between 2016 and 2018, the data shows a decline in 2019 followed by a gradual recovery. The most recent data from 2022 shows an approval rate of 78%, indicating a return toward earlier historical trends. This recent uptick may reflect changes in case mix or evidence quality presented in her courtroom.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Sparks'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 Sparks? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Albany hearing office
The Albany Hearing Office serves a large population across New York, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an average approval rate of 67%. If you are appearing here, you should be prepared for a rigorous review of medical evidence and vocational testimony.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment is essentially random. Within the Albany Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 49% to 81%. Because case assignment is outside of your control, understanding the broader office environment is as important as reviewing any single 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.
