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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Janice Ulan | 0% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 1 | 2019 |
| John A Thawley | 38% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 814 | 2014 |
| C. J Sturek | 56% | Above (office avg. 48%) | 2,754 | 2013 |
| L. Rogall | 33% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 440 | 2015 |
| Thomas M Ray | 56% | Above (office avg. 48%) | 4,609 | 2020 |
| Charles Pankow | 33% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 9 | 2013 |
| Timothy C Pace | 50% | Above (office avg. 48%) | 6 | 2013 |
| C. F. Moore | 65% | Above (office avg. 48%) | 81 | 2012 |
| Deborah Mande | 60% | Above (office avg. 48%) | 5 | 2013 |
| Susan Maley | 41% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 990 | 2019 |
| Jennifer M Long | 48% | Near (office avg. 48%) | 1,012 | 2016 |
| Michael A Krasnow | 21% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 1,041 | 2016 |
| M. Krasnow | 24% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 1,359 | 2025 |
| Raghav Kotval | 38% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 1,354 | 2025 |
| B. Hannan | 37% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 495 | 2025 |
| Bonnie Hannan | 37% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 43 | 2016 |
| Richard Furcolo | 23% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 547 | 2020 |
| Andrew M Emerson | 39% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 1,690 | 2025 |
| Michael Carr | 0% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 1 | 2015 |
| Eugene Bond | 44% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 3,203 | 2017 |
| Christine P Benagh | 74% | Above (office avg. 48%) | 2,008 | 2014 |
| Larry Banks | 57% | Above (office avg. 48%) | 3,553 | 2017 |
| F. H Ayer | 41% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 2,471 | 2025 |
| G. B Arthur | 55% | Above (office avg. 48%) | 2,216 | 2013 |
| Francine L Applewhite | 18% | Below (office avg. 48%) | 760 | 2018 |
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.