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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timothy G Stueve | 37% | Below (office avg. 50%) | 180 | 2010 |
| Steven C Smith | 70% | Above (office avg. 50%) | 212 | 2017 |
| Sarah R Smisek | 51% | Near (office avg. 50%) | 1,133 | 2020 |
| William G Reamon | 40% | Below (office avg. 50%) | 4,867 | 2025 |
| Dennis Raterink | 57% | Above (office avg. 50%) | 1,193 | 2025 |
| II Prothro | 50% | Near (office avg. 50%) | 4 | 2010 |
| James F Prothro | 21% | Below (office avg. 50%) | 2,955 | 2016 |
| W. Baldwin Ogden | 75% | Above (office avg. 50%) | 2,440 | 2014 |
| Nicholas M Ohanesian | 43% | Below (office avg. 50%) | 4,629 | 2025 |
| David Kurtz | 42% | Below (office avg. 50%) | 645 | 2018 |
| Alexandra Kwak | 24% | Below (office avg. 50%) | 49 | 2017 |
| William J King | 57% | Above (office avg. 50%) | 7 | 2010 |
| Paul W Jones | 26% | Below (office avg. 50%) | 876 | 2011 |
| Douglas W Johnson | 54% | Above (office avg. 50%) | 3,292 | 2018 |
| Lori Imsland | 39% | Below (office avg. 50%) | 64 | 2016 |
| Kevin Himebaugh | 52% | Above (office avg. 50%) | 1,320 | 2025 |
| Cynthia S Harmon | 46% | Below (office avg. 50%) | 1,692 | 2025 |
| Carol Guyton | 36% | Below (office avg. 50%) | 1,084 | 2015 |
| Donna J Grit | 42% | Below (office avg. 50%) | 4,034 | 2020 |
| William E Decker | 57% | Above (office avg. 50%) | 1,291 | 2012 |
| Michael S Condon | 36% | Below (office avg. 50%) | 3,811 | 2020 |
| Luke A Brennan | 36% | Below (office avg. 50%) | 952 | 2014 |
| Kenneth E Ball | 32% | Below (office avg. 50%) | 119 | 2015 |
| Janet L Alaga-Gadigian | 42% | Below (office avg. 50%) | 677 | 2013 |
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.