SSDI Administrative Law Judge

Hon. William Andersen

SSDI Administrative Law Judge at the Raleigh Hearing Office · 10 years on the bench · 20,683 lifetime decisions

Check My Benefits →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Judge Andersen maintains a lifetime approval rate of 75% based on 20,683 lifetime decisions. In the most recent reporting period, his approval rate reached 80%, which stands 17 percentage points above the current national average of 58%. These figures provide a look at his historical decision-making tendencies. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Metric Judge Andersen Raleigh National
Approval rate 75% 62% 58%
Fully favorable 75%
Denials 20%

Office- and national-level breakdowns of fully favorable vs denial rates aren't currently published by SSA in the per-office disposition data. The judge's own breakdown is the detail we have today.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Andersen's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Andersen
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY25
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Over his 10 years on the bench, Judge Andersen has shown a variable but generally high approval trend. While his rate dipped to 61% in 2021, recent data shows an upward trajectory, reaching 80% in 2025. This recent performance marks a shift from the 2023 rate of 62%. These fluctuations often reflect changes in the complexity of cases or the quality of evidence presented in the courtroom.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Andersen's bench. Judge-specific preparation guidance requires a corpus of public Appeals Council decisions involving each judge, which we haven't built yet.

  • Bring a clean treating-physician record. Longitudinal primary-care or specialist notes spanning the disability period, with consistent symptom documentation, are typically the strongest evidence at hearing. A single month's records usually aren't enough.
  • Don't rely on consultative exams alone. If your medical evidence is built primarily around a one-time CE finding, expect detailed questioning. Supplement with treating-source statements where possible.
  • Prepare for daily-activity questions. Have honest, specific answers about a typical day. Answers that conflict with the medical record (in either direction) tend to hurt credibility.
  • Expect transferable-skills probing. A vocational expert will usually testify about jobs available to someone with your limitations. Your representative should be prepared to cross-examine.

Hearing with Judge Andersen? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.

Check My Benefits
Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Raleigh hearing office

The Raleigh Hearing Office serves a large population across North Carolina. With 6 judges on the bench, the office maintains a latest approval rate of 62%. When you appear here, expect a professional environment focused on the specific medical and vocational evidence of your claim. You can view the full ALJ roster on the Raleigh Hearing Office page.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to Judge Andersen is essentially random. Approval rates across the 6 judges at the Raleigh Hearing Office vary, ranging from 40% to 75% over their respective careers. Understanding that your judge is assigned by chance underscores the importance of a well-prepared case. You can find more information on the Raleigh Hearing Office page.

Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer

SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own

WITHOUT A LAWYER
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants
Check My Benefits

Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.

Frequently asked questions