Judges at this hearing office vary in approval rates and decision volume. Select a judge to view individual statistics.
(Judge-level statistics reflect the most recent fiscal year with available data.
Approval rates may vary over time and by case type.)
| Judge Name | Approval Rate | Compared to Office Average | Decision Count | Data Recency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zachary S Weiss | 48% | Near (office avg. 48%) | 2,969 | 2020 |
| Sean P Walsh | 57% | Above (office avg. 48%) | 3,444 | 2016 |
| Selwyn S Walters | 47% | Near (office avg. 48%) | 3,177 | 2020 |
| Mark Sochaczewsky | 21% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 57 | 2012 |
| Miriam L Shire | 46% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 1,915 | 2020 |
| Kenneth L Scheer | 43% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 2,385 | 2015 |
| Kimberly L Schiro | 46% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 1,565 | 2025 |
| Raymond Prybylski | 44% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 604 | 2025 |
| Marissa A Pizzuto | 20% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 5 | 2010 |
| Margaret L Pecoraro | 60% | Above (office avg. 48%) | 130 | 2010 |
| John W Noonan | 60% | Above (office avg. 48%) | 2,034 | 2013 |
| Lynn Neugebauer | 53% | Above (office avg. 48%) | 1,053 | 2019 |
| Alexander G Levine | 48% | Near (office avg. 48%) | 1,286 | 2020 |
| James Kearns | 56% | Above (office avg. 48%) | 9 | 2018 |
| Brian G Kanner | 48% | Near (office avg. 48%) | 1,363 | 2025 |
| Paul A Heyman | 49% | Near (office avg. 48%) | 2,571 | 2015 |
| Seth I Grossman | 33% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 3,400 | 2017 |
| Benjamin Green | 35% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 144 | 2017 |
| Jeffrey Gardner | 30% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 279 | 2017 |
| Elias Feuer | 28% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 1,675 | 2025 |
| Lauren A Esposito | 64% | Above (office avg. 48%) | 437 | 2011 |
| John Carlton | 32% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 607 | 2025 |
| William W Berg | 70% | Above (office avg. 48%) | 400 | 2010 |
| Angela Banks | 41% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 548 | 2025 |
These statistics provide additional context about how cases are processed at this hearing office.
They reflect system-level activity, not individual judge decision behavior, and may vary based on administrative and procedural factors.