Edward F Sweeney, Paducah , Kentucky Odar Office, Administrative Law Judge
For the 2012 *fiscal year, Judge Edward F Sweeney has disposed 54 cases at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) in HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT. Out of those 54 dispostions, 3 were dismissed, 29 were approved and 22 were denied. This means that the percentage of depositions that Judge Edward F Sweeney has approved in HARTFORD for the 2012 fiscal year is 23%. The information below for Judge Edward F Sweeney was last updated on 12/01/2022.
AVERAGE STATISTICS
| Office | *Fiscal Year | Total Depositions | Total Decisions | Total Denials | Total Awards | Cases Dismissed | Cases Approved | Cases Denied |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PADUCAH | 2012 | 54 | 51 | 22 | 29 | 6% | 54% | 41% |
| HARTFORD | 2015 | 400 | 309 | 150 | 159 | 23% | 40% | 38% |
| HARTFORD | 2014 | 507 | 430 | 223 | 207 | 15% | 41% | 44% |
| HARTFORD | 2013 | 340 | 296 | 150 | 146 | 13% | 43% | 44% |
| PADUCAH | 2013 | 176 | 159 | 76 | 83 | 10% | 47% | 43% |
| HARTFORD | 2016 | 426 | 348 | 191 | 157 | 18% | 37% | 45% |
| HARTFORD | 2017 | 454 | 374 | 183 | 191 | 18% | 42% | 40% |
| HARTFORD | 2018 | 166 | 122 | 52 | 70 | 27% | 42% | 31% |
| HARTFORD | 2019 | 311 | 230 | 135 | 95 | 26% | 31% | 43% |
| HARTFORD | 2020 | 284 | 219 | 109 | 110 | 23% | 39% | 38% |
AVERAGE TIME
| Dismissed | Approved | Denied | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Edward F Sweeney | No Stats for FY2020 | ||
| All ALJs in HARTFORD | 18% | 42% | 39% |
| All ALJs in CONNECTICUT | 18% | 43% | 39% |
| All ALJs in the Nation | 18% | 45% | 38% |
4 Comments
A jerk prejudice and stare down competition.redneck,hate minorities,thinks we are worthless
This judge is very unfear!!! I had serious health problems and he just said my conditions are mild, he should get FIRE!!! unfear!!!
hope no one has to meet him.
Judge Sweeney was very compassionate and fair. I could not have asked for a better judge and I’m very happy he officiated over my case.
Had 3 video-teleconference hearings in a row with Judge Sweeney. Thorough, professional, courteous and compassionate. The only problem was the remote location. The local SSA office hosting the hearings didn’t open until 9:00, yet the first hearing was scheduled to start at 9:00. Nothing that the judge can control. He was patient and tolerant about our getting started late because of SSA’s new office hours.