Melinda Yurich is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the San Francisco Hearing Office with a 29% lifetime approval rate. Over her 3 years on the bench and 3,305 lifetime decisions, her recent approval rate has trended to 23%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare 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
The approval rate for Melinda Yurich is 29% based on 3,305 lifetime decisions. During the most recent reporting period, her approval rate was 23%, which is 16 percentage points lower than the San Francisco Hearing Office average of 45%. These figures are measured against a national average of 58%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not 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 Yurich'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 3 years on the bench, Melinda Yurich has presided over 3,305 decisions. Her yearly trend shows a decline in approval rates, moving from 41% in 2023 to 25% in 2025. This latest period reflects a continuation of a downward trend in favorable outcomes. Understanding this pattern helps you frame the evidence for your specific medical conditions.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Yurich'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 Yurich? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the San Francisco hearing office
The San Francisco Hearing Office serves you and other applicants across Northern California. The office maintains a latest approval rate of 45%, reflecting the caseloads handled by the 6 judges stationed here. You can expect a formal hearing process focused on your medical documentation and vocational testimony. You can find more information on the San Francisco Hearing Office page.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Within the San Francisco Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 29% to 66%. This variance highlights why you should focus on the strength of your own medical evidence. For preparation purposes, the guidance remains consistent regardless of which judge you are assigned.
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.
