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 | 0% | Below (office avg. 46%) | 1 | 2020 |
| Peter J Valentino | 100% | Above (office avg. 46%) | 2 | 2020 |
| Christopher T Skarda | 55% | Above (office avg. 46%) | 285 | 2010 |
| Trevor Skarda | 23% | Below (office avg. 46%) | 492 | 2011 |
| Regina L Sleater | 50% | Above (office avg. 46%) | 3,997 | 2020 |
| Brenton L Rogozen | 46% | Near (office avg. 46%) | 4,956 | 2019 |
| Mary P Parnow | 71% | Above (office avg. 46%) | 234 | 2011 |
| Frederick Michaud | 59% | Above (office avg. 46%) | 1,044 | 2016 |
| Frederick C Michaud | 69% | Above (office avg. 46%) | 2,055 | 2013 |
| Ruxana Meyer | 44% | Below (office avg. 46%) | 508 | 2020 |
| Phillip C Lyman | 62% | Above (office avg. 46%) | 4,354 | 2020 |
| Nancy Lisewski | 42% | Below (office avg. 46%) | 730 | 2011 |
| Christopher R Inama | 27% | Below (office avg. 46%) | 1,505 | 2016 |
| Teresa L Hoskins Hart | 41% | Below (office avg. 46%) | 3,783 | 2018 |
| Sanya Hill-Maxion | 90% | Above (office avg. 46%) | 159 | 2010 |
| Mason D Harrell | 100% | Above (office avg. 46%) | 2 | 2020 |
| T. Patrick Hannon | 55% | Above (office avg. 46%) | 4,838 | 2020 |
| Thomas J Gaye | 51% | Above (office avg. 46%) | 3,069 | 2019 |
| Robert Freedman | 28% | Below (office avg. 46%) | 819 | 2018 |
| Sandra R DiMaggio Wallis | 100% | Above (office avg. 46%) | 1 | 2020 |
| Betty J Barbeito | 38% | Below (office avg. 46%) | 141 | 2020 |
| Betty Roberts Barbeito | 49% | Above (office avg. 46%) | 3,576 | 2018 |
| Kyle E Andeer | 33% | Below (office avg. 46%) | 9 | 2016 |
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.