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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G. Ross Wheatley | 31% | Below (office avg. 37%) | 1,905 | 2017 |
| Sheila Walters | 17% | Below (office avg. 37%) | 644 | 2018 |
| Howard K Treblin | 54% | Above (office avg. 37%) | 109 | 2010 |
| William C Thompson | 28% | Below (office avg. 37%) | 999 | 2014 |
| Matilda Surh | 26% | Below (office avg. 37%) | 758 | 2020 |
| Raymond L Souza | 45% | Above (office avg. 37%) | 708 | 2013 |
| Timothy S Snelling | 50% | Above (office avg. 37%) | 3,338 | 2016 |
| Trevor Skarda | 45% | Above (office avg. 37%) | 4,489 | 2025 |
| Sandra K Rogers | 50% | Above (office avg. 37%) | 702 | 2011 |
| Danny Pittman | 49% | Above (office avg. 37%) | 304 | 2017 |
| James M Mitchell | 41% | Above (office avg. 37%) | 392 | 2011 |
| Vincent A. Misenti | 25% | Below (office avg. 37%) | 1,475 | 2025 |
| Dianne S Mantel | 26% | Below (office avg. 37%) | 19 | 2016 |
| Jane M Maccione | 41% | Above (office avg. 37%) | 1,076 | 2020 |
| Judith A Kopec | 49% | Above (office avg. 37%) | 1,319 | 2020 |
| William J King | 50% | Above (office avg. 37%) | 2 | 2010 |
| Christopher R Inama | 49% | Above (office avg. 37%) | 252 | 2012 |
| Serena S Hong | 100% | Above (office avg. 37%) | 3 | 2020 |
| Sanya Hill-Maxion | 74% | Above (office avg. 37%) | 1,067 | 2020 |
| Evangelina P Hernandez | 52% | Above (office avg. 37%) | 1,346 | 2016 |
| Daniel G Heely | 48% | Above (office avg. 37%) | 6,524 | 2019 |
| Laura S Havens | 45% | Above (office avg. 37%) | 1,417 | 2012 |
| Philip E Callis | 60% | Above (office avg. 37%) | 1,202 | 2013 |
| E. Alis | 35% | Below (office avg. 37%) | 86 | 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.