Trevor Skarda, San jose , San rafael , Stockton , California , California , California Odar Office, Administrative Law Judge
For the 2011 *fiscal year, Judge Trevor Skarda has disposed 492 cases at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) in SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. Out of those 492 dispostions, 34 were dismissed, 115 were approved and 343 were denied. This means that the percentage of depositions that Judge Trevor Skarda has approved in SAN FRANCISCO for the 2011 fiscal year is 36%. The information below for Judge Trevor Skarda 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STOCKTON | 2012 | 619 | 543 | 285 | 258 | 12% | 42% | 46% |
| STOCKTON | 2015 | 503 | 432 | 224 | 208 | 14% | 41% | 45% |
| STOCKTON | 2014 | 561 | 504 | 228 | 276 | 10% | 49% | 41% |
| STOCKTON | 2013 | 683 | 605 | 305 | 300 | 11% | 44% | 45% |
| SAN JOSE | 2011 | 492 | 458 | 343 | 115 | 7% | 23% | 70% |
| STOCKTON | 2011 | 230 | 195 | 98 | 97 | 15% | 42% | 43% |
| STOCKTON | 2016 | 582 | 490 | 205 | 285 | 16% | 49% | 35% |
| STOCKTON | 2017 | 466 | 387 | 182 | 205 | 17% | 44% | 39% |
| STOCKTON | 2018 | 204 | 172 | 92 | 80 | 16% | 39% | 45% |
| SAN FRANCISCO | 2019 | 15 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 27% | 0% | 73% |
| SAN RAFAEL | 2019 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 33% | 22% | 44% |
| STOCKTON | 2019 | 395 | 355 | 170 | 185 | 10% | 47% | 43% |
| SAN FRANCISCO | 2020 | 138 | 101 | 50 | 51 | 27% | 37% | 36% |
| SAN RAFAEL | 2020 | 104 | 78 | 37 | 41 | 25% | 39% | 36% |
| STOCKTON | 2020 | 28 | 18 | 12 | 6 | 36% | 21% | 43% |
AVERAGE TIME
| Dismissed | Approved | Denied | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trevor Skarda | No Stats for FY2020 | ||
| All ALJs in SAN FRANCISCO | 20% | 50% | 30% |
| All ALJs in CALIFORNIA | 19% | 45% | 35% |
| All ALJs in the Nation | 18% | 45% | 38% |
13 Comments
He is the WORST!!!! I had private doctors do my evals as well as there retarded doctors and he only went with the retarded doctors opinion. I am not mentally disabled, I am physically disabled and all he wanted to focus on was my mental. Therefore DENIED!!! I personally thought they picked up a bumb off the streets of Stockton and told him to play judge when he walked in. Shorts, robe, long greasy straggly long hair. I felt like asking him to please take a shower when he came in. Not impressed at all. Maybe he really does need to go to law school again. At least personal hygiene and professional training.
His remark in my denial letter “claimant was well dressed and put together so she can take care of herself”. HELLO I am going to court, I thought I should get out of my jammies. Maybe he should take some of his own criticism.
Professional judge with solid statistics. He is not the worse judge in this office or Northern California. Yes, he’s very laid-back and no, he’s not coddling you. He has to decide how to use the taxpayer’s money and he takes that seriously so he will question you about smoking, weight, etc… If obesity aggravates your condition or smoking, why should taxpayers pay for that? I’m not asking that but that is the question the judge will want to know. Or why should we pay this claim for a diabetic who refuses to take his insulin. So judges will ask tough questions. Judge Skarda, like most judges will go with the state’s RFC if there are no opinions from treating providers OR opinion evidence from treating provider’s based solely on subjective complaints or not consistent with record as a whole. Claimants will view him hardly because they’ve only seen him once. As an attorney, I can say he’s fair and professional, and quite thorough in how he handles his cases.
ALJ Skarda apparently believes that it is his patriotic duty to save the country money by denying disability claims. I represent claimants in the Sacramento, San Raphael, Stockton, Fresno, and Redding hearing offices, and Skarda is the most conservative ALJ in Northern California. For instance, in one case my client went to hearing in a necessarily prescribed walker. Her medical records were voluminous, with many opinions from her specialists. Despite conflicting medical source statements from my clients specialists regarding her RFC, Skarda gave the VE ridiculous hypotheticals, which were answered by the VE with equally ridiculous representative jobs. In the written decision, Skarda gave controlling weight to the state agency examiner’s opinions, despite overwhelming contrary evidence from the claimant’s doctors. This ALJ needs to be brought to the attention of The Division of Quality Service and disciplined or removed from the bench.
Christopher Trevor Skarda has let his license to practice law expire from what I saw online, so he must think he has this job for life. He does act snobby and prejudiced. He made sure to ask if I smoke. He also made a big deal of my weight, I felt shamed, then did not consider it a disabling factor or symptom of the disability. Yes, I saw that look of contempt on his face several times during the hearing. A good piece of my disability, mentally and physically, was from physically violent domestic abuse, which was never considered or discussed in my decision letter. I seriously question his ability to decided anything fairly because he seemed more interested in his own biases in the decision letter.
Judge Skarda was very insightful and compassionate when hearing my mother’s case today. We appreciate the time he took with our case. Thank you
This judge is fair and balanced and shows good stewardship of the tax payer dollar!!
Skarda took the opportunity to insult client during hearing. Not much better with his decision than manners.
This judge’s decisions should be looked at closely.
just my opinion he acts like a know it all brat & dont expect fair decision
Even though his approval ratings have improved since he worked in San Jose(70% denied), this is not a judge you want to appear before. Most of his opinion is based on the Social Security doctor’s evaluations and not the overall medical record. The problem I see with this is that the Social Security doctors only see the patient once and their opinions are obviously swayed to the benefit of their employer and not the patient.