Robert L. Bartelt Jr. is an ALJ at the Milwaukee Hearing Office. Over his 1 year on the bench, he has issued 906 lifetime decisions with a 34% approval rate. This sits below the national average of 58%. Because case assignment is random, understanding these patterns is vital. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific bench.
This page presents publicly available SSA Office of Hearings Operations disposition data, with no editorial rating or evaluation. ALJs are independent decisionmakers; aggregate statistics describe past patterns, not predictions of how any individual case will be decided. Information here is provided for hearing preparation, not as legal advice.
Approval rates
When evaluating your case, it is helpful to look at how your judge's approval rate compares to broader benchmarks. While the national average approval rate stands at 58%, Judge Bartelt has maintained a 34% lifetime approval rate. These figures are derived from 906 lifetime decisions, providing a look at past trends. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.
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 Bartelt Jr.'s docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.
Decision pattern
Over his 1 year on the bench, Judge Bartelt has processed 906 lifetime decisions. The data shows an approval rate of 34%, reflecting his approach to case evaluation during his tenure. Because this rate remains stable, it provides a baseline for understanding how he has historically approached disability claims. The evidence presented in your file remains the primary factor in your hearing outcome.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Bartelt Jr.'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?
About the Milwaukee hearing office
The Milwaukee Hearing Office serves a large population across Wisconsin, managing a volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an office-wide latest approval rate of 50%. You can expect a formal process focused on detailed medical documentation and vocational testimony. You can visit the Milwaukee Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The SSA utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your judge is selected randomly. Within the Milwaukee Hearing Office, the 6 judges range from 34% to 52% in their lifetime approval rates. This variance highlights why it is important to be fully prepared regardless of who is assigned to your file. For preparation purposes, the guidance remains consistent regardless of which judge you are assigned.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.
