SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Sharon L. Steckler

Last decided Dallas DowntownSep 2016
Decisions 58since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same period to ensure accuracy. The 43% approval rate for Sharon L. Steckler reflects her decisions on record since 2016, which can be evaluated against the 21% to 76% range observed among the 18 judges whose most recent office on record is the Dallas Downtown hearing office. These figures provide a statistical baseline for understanding how different judges have historically approached disability claims. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 43%
Decisions on record 58

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Steckler. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 30, 2016. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

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

Judge Steckler
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16
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

The approval rate for Sharon L. Steckler is based on 58 decisions on record since January 2016. During this period, the data shows an approval rate of 43%. Because this record is limited to the 2016 window, it provides a specific snapshot of past activity. This pattern helps establish the historical context of the judge's docket during that time.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Steckler'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 Dallas Downtown hearing office

Sharon L. Steckler's most recent office on record is the Dallas Downtown hearing office, with decisions there through September 2016. This office serves you in the Texas region and maintains a bench of 18 judges whose most recent records are tied to this location. You can expect a formal hearing process designed to evaluate the medical evidence supporting your disability claim.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Dallas Downtown

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 18 judges whose most recent office on record is the Dallas Downtown hearing office, with individual approval rates ranging from 21% to 76% since 2016. Because of this variance, understanding the broader bench is helpful for your research. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

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