Shirley M Michaelson, Evanston , Nhc chicago , Orland park , Illinois , Illinois , Illinois Odar Office, Administrative Law Judge
For the 2010 *fiscal year, Judge Shirley M Michaelson has disposed 410 cases at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) in CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. Out of those 410 dispostions, 82 were dismissed, 271 were approved and 57 were denied. This means that the percentage of depositions that Judge Shirley M Michaelson has approved in CHICAGO for the 2010 fiscal year is 8%. The information below for Judge Shirley M Michaelson was last updated on 04/28/2023.
AVERAGE STATISTICS
| Office | *Fiscal Year | Total Depositions | Total Decisions | Total Denials | Total Awards | Cases Dismissed | Cases Approved | Cases Denied |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHICAGO | 2010 | 410 | 328 | 57 | 271 | 20% | 66% | 14% |
| ORLAND PARK | 2010 | 122 | 109 | 43 | 66 | 11% | 54% | 35% |
| NHC CHICAGO | 2012 | 527 | 411 | 134 | 277 | 22% | 53% | 25% |
| EVANSTON | 2015 | 339 | 291 | 74 | 217 | 14% | 64% | 22% |
| EVANSTON | 2014 | 443 | 369 | 100 | 269 | 17% | 61% | 23% |
| EVANSTON | 2013 | 228 | 176 | 42 | 134 | 23% | 59% | 18% |
| NHC CHICAGO | 2013 | 218 | 174 | 80 | 94 | 20% | 43% | 37% |
| NHC CHICAGO | 2011 | 528 | 428 | 116 | 312 | 19% | 59% | 22% |
| EVANSTON | 2016 | 365 | 291 | 76 | 215 | 20% | 59% | 21% |
| EVANSTON | 2017 | 36 | 33 | 10 | 23 | 8% | 64% | 28% |
AVERAGE TIME
| Dismissed | Approved | Denied | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shirley M Michaelson | No Stats for FY2017 | ||
| All ALJs in CHICAGO | 19% | 43% | 38% |
| All ALJs in ILLINOIS | 17% | 43% | 40% |
| All ALJs in the Nation | 18% | 45% | 38% |
8 Comments
I Had a hearing with this judge Shirly Michaelson and the first thing she did was call my attorney by his first name and told him to sit down and shut up because she said I’ve heard your opening statements before and i don’t wanna hear it. Then my attorney sat down and never said a word during my hearing. Then she laughed at me and said i deserve all my problems and that all my doctors including my primary care doctor, 3 of surgeons and 4 psychiatrist she said they all just wrote down what i wanted them to say Then She Also asked the vocational expert if there was any jobs i could do an again can he work or not and he replied Absolutely not, then a little later she asked him again can he work or not and he replied again even louder Absolutely NOT, Than she asked him for the fourth time can he work or not, again he replied even louder ABSOLUTLY NOT. I didn’t know That was a win and that she could not over rule his decision But she did and i was denied, i reapplied and in my second hearing the judge asked the vocational expert if i could work or not and ne said one little NO AND I WON. the first judge violated my rights and broke the law, i don’t know how she got away with that she is the biggest f****** Cu**
I had a hearing in front of this judge, very nice judge. She listened to my testimony and appears to be very knowledgeable of the case. Besides she took the time to offer suggestions to better improved my health. Very good judge. Keep up
a good work!
Keep in mind when I added this note she had a 45% approval rating??
Not a very nice judge. She is very argumentative with the attorney as soon as you go on the record. Hearings can last about 2 hours she requires the client to bring all medications they are on as well. She will quiz the client about ALL medications and exactly which medication they take for what impairment. In addition she will need a simple outline of each treating doctor the client is seeing and for what condition they are seeing that particular doctor for (again it just doesn’t seem she reads the records or the brief before hearing)but again she will argue why a family doctor is treating for specific impairments.
She is very argumentative and tends to give medical opinion about your case while citing incorrectly or mischaracetrizing the evidence. It is apparent she does NOT read briefs and for that fact she reads very little of the medical records that is how she mischaraterizes so much of the medical records.
Example: in my case she argued (yep) that my client only had one back impairment when several were listed and really counselor it’s all the same (when no they are not) she will argue and try to get you to stipulate to her reasoning.
VE: she uses a VE but wants to skip over listing out the jobs the national numbers and the local numbers. She will again ask the attorney to stipulate that there are jobs without listing them out.
No doubt her hearings are ripe for appeal but need to take very detailed notes stay on your toes and if you do go to AC with an appeal GET THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING.
Hearings last about 2 hours
Judge wants to inspect medications bring them to hearing
Pretty argumentative judge she tends to give a medical opinion about the case and cites to the record incorrectly.. Listen close you will need to correct her characterization of the medical evidence. Submitted a brief in the case and she did not read it before the hearing but still asked for a theory of the case wanting the attorney to repeat everything in the brief? Huh …she has a pretty good approval rating so I am hopeful the decision will be favorable. If you are an attorney just be on your toes about how she characterizes the medical evidence. Will quiz your client about medications even though you have submitted med list she still expects the client to have them memorized even when they are a few pages long.
I reviewed the comments about all Chicago Judges; I had a hearing before her and she seems knowledgeable and listened, she allowed the hearing to last over an hour. Other comments about the Chicago judges seem to be sour grapes by Obama supporters. They got the President and the Administration they asked for, now live with it.
You are an idiot
I reviewed the comments about all Chicago Judges; I had a hearing before her and she seems knowledgeable and listened, she allowed the hearing to last over an hour. Other comments about the Chicago judges seem to be sour grapes by Obama supporters. They got the President and the Administration they asked for, now live with it.