SSDI Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Sean Teehan

SSDI Administrative Law Judge at the Boston Hearing Office · 10 years on the bench · 16,001 lifetime decisions

Check My Benefits →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Comparing a judge's performance requires looking at both their lifetime record and recent activity. Over 10 years on the bench, Judge Teehan has issued 16,001 decisions with an overall approval rate of 38%. In the most recent reporting period, his approval rate was 35%, which is 20 percentage points lower than the national average of 58%. These figures reflect historical trends rather than specific outcomes for your case.

Metric Judge Teehan Boston National
Approval rate 38% 53% 58%
Fully favorable 31%
Denials 65%

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

Judge Teehan
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY25
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Judge Teehan's career shows a consistent pattern of decision-making across his 10-year tenure. While his approval rate reached 45% in 2016, it has fluctuated within a stable range, settling at 38% in 2025. The recent period shows a 35% approval rate, which aligns with his long-term historical average. This trend reflects a steady approach to evaluating evidence and medical documentation over time.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Teehan'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 Teehan? See if a free benefits review fits your case.

Check My Benefits
Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Boston hearing office

The Boston Hearing Office serves you and other claimants across Massachusetts and the surrounding region. It is staffed by a team of 6 administrative law judges who manage a high volume of disability claims. The office currently maintains an approval rate of 53%, reflecting the local landscape of SSDI adjudications. You can visit the Boston Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your judge is selected randomly. Within the Boston Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench vary significantly, ranging from 37% to 65%. While these differences exist, the core requirements for proving your disability remain consistent regardless of who presides over your hearing.

Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer

SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own

WITHOUT A LAWYER
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants
Check My Benefits

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