SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Nancy M. Stewart

Last decided FresnoJul 2026
Decisions 3,072since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rates for Nancy M. Stewart are based on 3,072 decisions on record since 2016. When comparing these figures, consider the bench's since-2016 range of 36% to 72% for context. Recent data shows a 50% approval rate in the latest period, which differs from the office-wide latest-period rate of 66%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 68%
Decisions on record 3,072
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Stewart Fresno National
Approval rate 50% 66% 58%
Fully favorable 38% — —
Denials 50% — —

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

Judge Stewart
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

The approval rate for Nancy M. Stewart has shown variation across the 3,072 decisions on record since 2016. The trend moved upward from 2016 through 2024, reaching a peak of 79% before shifting in the most recent data. The latest period reflects a departure from the long-term average, though the small sample size of 9 decisions in 2026 makes it a partial view. This pattern highlights how case mix and evidence quality influence outcomes over time.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Stewart'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 Fresno hearing office

Nancy M. Stewart's most recent office on record is the Fresno hearing office, with decisions there through July 2026. This office serves the California region and maintains a bench of 6 judges. You can expect a standard hearing process where the focus remains on the medical and vocational evidence you present.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Fresno

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 6 judges whose most recent office on record is this one. Approval rates among this bench vary significantly, ranging from 36% to 72% on their records since 2016. 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