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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arthur Zeidman | 37% | Below (office avg. 55%) | 1,092 | 2020 |
| Major Williams | 69% | Above (office avg. 55%) | 2,701 | 2020 |
| Bradlee S Welton | 56% | Near (office avg. 55%) | 550 | 2017 |
| Robert P Wenten | 59% | Above (office avg. 55%) | 1,396 | 2014 |
| Debra M Underwood | 57% | Above (office avg. 55%) | 1,131 | 2025 |
| Cheryl Tompkin | 39% | Below (office avg. 55%) | 727 | 2020 |
| Timothy G Stueve | 36% | Below (office avg. 55%) | 1,024 | 2012 |
| Randolph E Schum | 42% | Below (office avg. 55%) | 250 | 2010 |
| Mary P Parnow | 49% | Below (office avg. 55%) | 2,313 | 2016 |
| David R Mazzi | 64% | Above (office avg. 55%) | 1,189 | 2020 |
| Katherine Loo | 52% | Below (office avg. 55%) | 783 | 2016 |
| Nancy Lisewski | 34% | Below (office avg. 55%) | 699 | 2015 |
| Richard P Laverdure | 46% | Below (office avg. 55%) | 3,208 | 2018 |
| David LaBarre | 40% | Below (office avg. 55%) | 1,280 | 2025 |
| Sanya Hill-Maxion | 81% | Above (office avg. 55%) | 2,591 | 2016 |
| Evangelina P Hernandez | 52% | Below (office avg. 55%) | 1,308 | 2025 |
| Alan K Goldhammer | 0% | Below (office avg. 55%) | 0 | — |
| Kevin Gill | 48% | Below (office avg. 55%) | 1,468 | 2025 |
| John J Flanagan | 61% | Above (office avg. 55%) | 4,320 | 2020 |
| Philip E Callis | 64% | Above (office avg. 55%) | 1,162 | 2016 |
| Michael Blume | 59% | Above (office avg. 55%) | 2,097 | 2018 |
| Caroline H Beers | 44% | Below (office avg. 55%) | 677 | 2013 |
| Homer T Ball | 69% | Above (office avg. 55%) | 389 | 2011 |
| E. Alis | 46% | Below (office avg. 55%) | 1,685 | 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.