James R McHenry III, Nhc baltimore , Maryland Odar Office, Administrative Law Judge
For the 2015 *fiscal year, Judge James R McHenry III has disposed 258 cases at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) in GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA. Out of those 258 dispostions, 41 were dismissed, 104 were approved and 113 were denied. This means that the percentage of depositions that Judge James R McHenry III has approved in GREENVILLE for the 2015 fiscal year is 0%. The information below for Judge James R McHenry III 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GREENVILLE | 2015 | 258 | 217 | 113 | 104 | 16% | 40% | 44% |
| GREENVILLE | 2016 | 162 | 138 | 76 | 62 | 15% | 38% | 47% |
| NHC BALTIMORE | 2016 | 220 | 180 | 93 | 87 | 18% | 40% | 42% |
| NHC BALTIMORE | 2017 | 59 | 59 | 45 | 14 | 0% | 24% | 76% |
AVERAGE TIME
| Dismissed | Approved | Denied | |
|---|---|---|---|
| James R McHenry III | No Stats for FY2017 | ||
| All ALJs in GREENVILLE | 14% | 44% | 42% |
| All ALJs in SOUTH CAROLINA | 15% | 47% | 38% |
| All ALJs in the Nation | 18% | 45% | 38% |
2 Comments
The Appeals Council must be getting sick and tired of reversing this judge’s decisions. His analysis of the evidence on such things as a claimant’s past work is seriously flawed. He seems to lack the basic ability to understand what constitutes a “severe impairment” (slight abnormality standard) and he consistently fails to consider impairments in combination. Instead, he deals with each alleged impairment as a separate and distinct issue. This is stuff that, twenty years ago, most ALJs understood and applied in their decisions, but this judge loves boilerplate which he puts in his decisions to disguise his lack of understanding of the facts.
This man is looking to deny your claim or to force you into giving up any entitlement to retroactive benefits. His determinations on credibility are inconsistent with the Rulings. His decisions are full of boilerplate but not a great deal of substance. State agency doctors are given more weight that your treating doctor. Read his decisions carefully as much that is in there doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.