Nancy M. Stewart is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Fresno hearing office. With a 69% lifetime approval rate over 19,074 decisions, her record sits above the national latest approval rate of 58%. While her recent 70% approval rate remains strong, aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific bench and ensure your medical evidence is complete.
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 Stewart's approval rates are measured against the broader context of the Fresno Hearing Office and national standards. In the latest reporting period, her approval rate reached 70%, which is 11 percentage points higher than the national average of 58%. With a career spanning 19,074 lifetime decisions, the data offers a stable view of her decision-making history. These aggregate rates describe past outcomes rather than predictions for your individual 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 Stewart'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 her 10 years on the bench, Judge Stewart has shown a consistent trend in her approval patterns. Starting at 59% in 2016, her approval rate trended upward over the last decade, reaching a peak of 79% in 2024 before settling at 74% in 2025. This steady pattern reflects a long-term decision-making trajectory.
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 with Judge Stewart? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Fresno hearing office
The Fresno Hearing Office serves a large population across California, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an environment where approval rates vary between individual ALJs. You should be prepared for a thorough review of your medical evidence regardless of the assigned judge.
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 Fresno Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 ALJs range from 37% to 73%. Because you cannot choose your judge, understanding the office-wide environment is as important as looking at one individual's history.
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.
