|
A ranking of the 149 ODAR hearing offices by the average number of
hearings dispositions per ALJ per day. The
average shown will be a combined average
for all ALJs working in that hearing office.
Users will be able determine where a particular
hearing office stands among the total with
respect to this workload category.
National Ranking Report
By ALJ Dispositions Per Day Per ALJ
Fiscal YTD Ending: 09/24/2010
Workdays: 249
| Rank |
Hearing Office |
Region |
ALJ Dispositions Per Day Per ALJ |
| 1 |
HONOLULU, HI |
09 |
3.65 |
| 2 |
PONCE, PR |
02 |
3.64 |
| 3 |
ANCHORAGE, AK |
10 |
3.30 |
| 4 |
FORT SMITH, AR |
06 |
3.25 |
| 5 |
MAYAGUEZ, PR |
02 |
3.13 |
| 5 |
HARRISBURG, PA |
03 |
3.13 |
| 7 |
METAIRIE, LA |
06 |
3.11 |
| 8 |
SHREVEPORT, LA |
06 |
3.02 |
| 9 |
ATLANTA, GA |
04 |
3.00 |
| 10 |
ALEXANDRIA, LA |
06 |
2.99 |
| 11 |
BROOKLYN, NY |
02 |
2.98 |
| 12 |
HUNTINGTON, WV |
03 |
2.93 |
| 13 |
SAN BERNARDINO, CA |
09 |
2.89 |
| 14 |
FORT WORTH, TX |
06 |
2.82 |
| 14 |
MCALESTER, OK |
06 |
2.82 |
| 16 |
LOS ANGELES (DT), CA |
09 |
2.80 |
| 17 |
KINGSPORT, TN |
04 |
2.79 |
| 18 |
WILKES-BARRE, PA |
03 |
2.78 |
| 18 |
SEVEN FIELDS, PA |
03 |
2.78 |
| 20 |
CHARLESTON, WV |
03 |
2.76 |
| 21 |
LONG BEACH, CA |
09 |
2.73 |
| 22 |
ST. LOUIS, MO |
07 |
2.67 |
| 22 |
GRAND RAPIDS, MI |
05 |
2.67 |
| 24 |
COLUMBIA, SC |
04 |
2.66 |
| 25 |
GREENVILLE, SC |
04 |
2.65 |
| 25 |
TUCSON, AZ |
09 |
2.65 |
| 27 |
FLINT, MI |
05 |
2.63 |
| 28 |
FORT MYERS, FL |
04 |
2.61 |
| 29 |
WICHITA, KS |
07 |
2.60 |
| 30 |
TULSA, OK |
06 |
2.59 |
| 31 |
COLORADO SPR, CO |
08 |
2.58 |
| 31 |
STOCKTON, CA |
09 |
2.58 |
| 33 |
LOS ANGELES (W), CA |
09 |
2.57 |
| 33 |
PADUCAH, KY |
04 |
2.57 |
| 35 |
MEMPHIS, TN |
04 |
2.56 |
| 35 |
JOHNSTOWN, PA |
03 |
2.56 |
| 37 |
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL |
04 |
2.55 |
| 37 |
LEXINGTON, KY |
04 |
2.55 |
| 37 |
MINNEAPOLIS, MN |
05 |
2.55 |
| 40 |
KNOXVILLE, TN |
04 |
2.54 |
| 40 |
MACON, GA |
04 |
2.54 |
| 40 |
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA |
03 |
2.54 |
| 43 |
CHARLOTTE, NC |
04 |
2.53 |
| 44 |
MIDDLESBORO, KY |
04 |
2.49 |
| 45 |
DALLAS (DT), TX |
06 |
2.48 |
| 45 |
W. DES MOINES, IA |
07 |
2.48 |
| 47 |
ORANGE, CA |
09 |
2.47 |
| 47 |
BIRMINGHAM, AL |
04 |
2.47 |
| 47 |
ORLANDO, FL |
04 |
2.47 |
| 50 |
SAN ANTONIO, TX |
06 |
2.46 |
| 50 |
JERICHO, NY |
02 |
2.46 |
| 50 |
PROVIDENCE, RI |
01 |
2.46 |
| 53 |
SPRINGFIELD, MA |
01 |
2.45 |
| 53 |
MOBILE, AL |
04 |
2.45 |
| 53 |
NEW ORLEANS, LA |
06 |
2.45 |
| 56 |
OMAHA, NE |
07 |
2.44 |
| 56 |
NEW YORK, NY |
02 |
2.44 |
| 56 |
PITTSBURGH, PA |
03 |
2.44 |
| 59 |
PORTLAND, ME |
01 |
2.43 |
| 60 |
MANCHESTER, NH |
01 |
2.42 |
| 60 |
ORLAND PARK, IL |
05 |
2.42 |
| 62 |
MONTGOMERY, AL |
04 |
2.41 |
| 62 |
GREENSBORO, NC |
04 |
2.41 |
| 64 |
HOUSTON (DT), TX |
06 |
2.40 |
| 64 |
RICHMOND, VA |
03 |
2.40 |
| 66 |
EVANSVILLE, IN |
05 |
2.39 |
| 66 |
CREVE COEUR, MO |
07 |
2.39 |
| 66 |
PHOENIX, AZ |
09 |
2.39 |
| 69 |
RALEIGH, NC |
04 |
2.38 |
| 69 |
ALBANY, NY |
02 |
2.38 |
| 71 |
HATTIESBURG, MS |
04 |
2.37 |
| 71 |
LITTLE ROCK, AR |
06 |
2.37 |
| 73 |
JACKSON,MS |
04 |
2.36 |
| 73 |
HARTFORD, CT |
01 |
2.36 |
| 75 |
TUPELO, MS |
04 |
2.35 |
| 76 |
CHATTANOOGA, TN |
04 |
2.34 |
| 76 |
ALBUQUERQUE, NM |
06 |
2.34 |
| 76 |
LANSING, MI |
05 |
2.34 |
| 76 |
NEW HAVEN, CT |
01 |
2.34 |
| 76 |
JACKSONVILLE, FL |
04 |
2.34 |
| 81 |
SAN JUAN, PR |
02 |
2.33 |
| 81 |
HOUSTON, TX |
06 |
2.33 |
| 83 |
FORT WAYNE,IN |
05 |
2.32 |
| 83 |
ROCHESTER, NY |
02 |
2.32 |
| 83 |
MORGANTOWN, WV |
03 |
2.32 |
| 83 |
NORFOLK, VA |
03 |
2.32 |
| 83 |
SPOKANE, WA |
10 |
2.32 |
| 88 |
SAN FRANCISCO, CA |
09 |
2.30 |
| 88 |
FARGO,ND |
08 |
2.30 |
| 88 |
PHILADELPHIA (E), PA |
03 |
2.30 |
| 88 |
NEWARK, NJ |
02 |
2.30 |
| 88 |
NASHVILLE, TN |
04 |
2.30 |
| 93 |
SANTA BARBARA, CA |
09 |
2.29 |
| 94 |
CHARLESTON, SC |
04 |
2.28 |
| 94 |
SYRACUSE, NY |
02 |
2.28 |
| 94 |
WASHINGTON, DC |
03 |
2.28 |
| 97 |
OAK BROOK, IL |
05 |
2.27 |
| 98 |
SAVANNAH, GA |
04 |
2.26 |
| 99 |
BOSTON, MA |
01 |
2.25 |
| 99 |
SAN JOSE, CA |
09 |
2.25 |
| 101 |
BILLINGS, MT |
08 |
2.24 |
| 101 |
DALLAS (N), TX |
06 |
2.24 |
| 103 |
SEATTLE, WA |
10 |
2.23 |
| 104 |
SACRAMENTO, CA |
09 |
2.22 |
| 104 |
PEORIA, IL |
05 |
2.22 |
| 106 |
BRONX, NY |
02 |
2.21 |
| 106 |
SALT LAKE CITY, UT |
08 |
2.21 |
| 108 |
SAN RAFAEL, CA |
09 |
2.20 |
| 109 |
CLEVELAND, OH |
05 |
2.17 |
| 110 |
SOUTH JERSEY, NJ |
02 |
2.16 |
| 111 |
TAMPA, FL |
04 |
2.15 |
| 111 |
LOUISVILLE, KY |
04 |
2.15 |
| 111 |
FRESNO, CA |
09 |
2.15 |
| 114 |
DENVER, CO |
08 |
2.14 |
| 114 |
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK |
06 |
2.14 |
| 114 |
ROANOKE, VA |
03 |
2.14 |
| 117 |
ELKINS PARK, PA |
03 |
2.12 |
| 117 |
OAK PARK, MI |
05 |
2.12 |
| 119 |
DOVER, DE |
03 |
2.11 |
| 120 |
PASADENA, CA |
09 |
2.10 |
| 120 |
PORTLAND, OR |
10 |
2.10 |
| 122 |
ATLANTA N., GA |
04 |
2.09 |
| 123 |
EVANSTON, IL |
05 |
2.08 |
| 123 |
WHITE PLAINS, NY |
02 |
2.08 |
| 123 |
EUGENE, OR |
10 |
2.08 |
| 126 |
DETROIT, MI |
05 |
2.05 |
| 127 |
DAYTON, OH |
05 |
2.01 |
| 128 |
DOWNEY, CA |
09 |
2.00 |
| 129 |
SAN DIEGO, CA |
09 |
1.99 |
| 130 |
LAS VEGAS, NV |
09 |
1.97 |
| 130 |
MILWAUKEE, WI |
05 |
1.97 |
| 130 |
BALTIMORE, MD |
03 |
1.97 |
| 133 |
PHILADELPHIA, PA |
03 |
1.94 |
| 134 |
CHICAGO, IL |
05 |
1.93 |
| 135 |
CINCINNATI, OH |
05 |
1.90 |
| 136 |
PHOENIX NORTH, AZ |
09 |
1.89 |
| 137 |
INDIANAPOLIS, IN |
05 |
1.87 |
| 138 |
SPRINGFIELD, MO |
07 |
1.85 |
| 139 |
FLORENCE, AL |
04 |
1.83 |
| 140 |
KANSAS CITY, MO |
07 |
1.82 |
| 141 |
QUEENS, NY |
02 |
1.73 |
| 142 |
COLUMBUS, OH |
05 |
1.72 |
| 143 |
MADISON, WI |
05 |
1.68 |
| 144 |
OAKLAND, CA |
09 |
1.65 |
| 145 |
BUFFALO, NY |
02 |
1.60 |
| 146 |
MIAMI, FL |
04 |
1.47 |
| 147 |
TOPEKA, KS |
07 |
1.28 |
| 148 |
LIVONIA, MI |
05 |
1.23 |
| 149 |
ST. PETERSBURG, FL |
04 |
0.50 |
Disclaimer: These data are being made publicly available for research purposes. Any findings and conclusions derived from analyses of these data are attributable to the researcher(s) and do not reflect those of the Social Security Administration.
|