Laurie Wardell is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Chicago hearing office. Over 9 years on the bench, she has issued 21,447 lifetime decisions with a 41% approval rate. This is below the national average of 58%. Because case assignment is random, these aggregate rates describe past patterns rather than predicting your specific outcome. An attorney can help you prepare your case 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
Comparing a judge's historical approval rate to current office and national benchmarks offers insight into the broader judicial environment. Judge Wardell's lifetime rate of 41% is based on 21,447 decisions. In the most recent reporting period, the judge's approval rate trailed the Chicago office average of 56% by 15 percentage points. You can find more information on the Chicago Hearing Office page.
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 Wardell'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 a 9-year tenure, Judge Wardell has presided over 21,447 decisions. The yearly trend shows fluctuation, with approval rates moving from 36% in 2016 to 47% in 2020, before reaching 42% in 2024. This pattern reflects the judge's established approach to case evaluation over the last decade.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Wardell'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 Wardell? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Chicago hearing office
The Chicago Hearing Office manages a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains a latest approval rate of 56%. You can expect a review process focused on your medical documentation and vocational evidence. You can see the Chicago Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Within the Chicago office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 41% to 69%. Because of this variance, understanding the office-wide environment is as important as reviewing an individual judge's history. You can learn more about the office's 6 ALJs on the Chicago Hearing Office page.
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.
