SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Brent T. Asseff

Last decided CharlotteJul 2026
Decisions 3,041since 2017

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The following table compares the approval rate of Brent T. Asseff to the performance metrics at the Charlotte hearing office, the state of North Carolina, and the national average. These figures are calculated over the 12-month window ending July 31, 2026. Comparing these rates provides context for how his recent decisions align with broader trends.

Last 12 months July 26, 2025 – July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Asseff Charlotte National
Approval rate 89% 71% 58%
Fully favorable 84% — —
Denials 11% — —
Decisions 509 — —
All decisions on record SSA records since 2017
Approval rate 83%
Decisions on record 3,041

SSA publishes no office- or national-level breakdown of fully favorable and denial rates. The 12 months are SSA's figures for this fiscal year to date plus the rest of the previous fiscal year; how we calculate them.

Approval rate over time

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

Judge Asseff
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY18FY26
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate (SSA's term: allowance rate) = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total decisions, which exclude dismissals.

Decision pattern

Since December 2017, Brent T. Asseff has issued 3,041 decisions. His approval rate has fluctuated over this period, moving from 79% in 2018 to 91% in 2025, and settling at 89% over the 12 months to July 31, 2026. This data reflects the total volume of decisions recorded since 2017.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Asseff'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 scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Charlotte hearing office

The Charlotte hearing office is the most recent office on record for 18 judges as of July 2026. Over the 12-month window ending July 31, 2026, the office maintained an approval rate of 71%.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Charlotte

The Social Security Administration assigns cases randomly, meaning you do not choose your judge. Among the 18 judges whose most recent office on record is Charlotte, 9 decided cases here in SSA's latest file. These 9 judges range from 37% to 89% in their approval rates over the 12 months to July 31, 2026.

Judges with similar approval rates

These active judges' approval rates over the same 12 months (July 26, 2025 – July 31, 2026) are closest to Judge Asseff's 89%. Three of them last decided cases in North Carolina. With too few close matches there, the rest come from SSA's Atlanta region.

Rates within 5 points of each other are hard to tell apart at a typical caseload, so treat these as judges with comparable records, not a ranking. See Judge Asseff and the three closest side by side →

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
1×
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants

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