Brent C. Bedwell is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Milwaukee Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 47% across 23,750 lifetime decisions. This sits below the national average of 58%. Because case assignment is random, understanding your judge's history is a vital step in your preparation. 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
Comparing a judge's history to current office and national standards provides context for your upcoming hearing. While the national average approval rate currently sits at 58%, Judge Bedwell's recent performance shows an approval rate of 46%. This data is drawn from a significant docket of 23,750 lifetime decisions, offering a stable view of past trends. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings.
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 Bedwell'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 a 10-year tenure, Judge Bedwell has maintained a steady decision-making pattern. Yearly approval rates have fluctuated between 42% and 54%, reflecting the varied nature of disability claims. The most recent period shows a 46% approval rate, which aligns closely with the long-term lifetime average. This consistency suggests a predictable approach to evaluating medical evidence and vocational factors.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Bedwell'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 residents across Wisconsin, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office handles a diverse caseload that requires careful navigation of federal regulations. The office currently reports an approval rate of 50%, which provides a baseline for local hearings. You can see the Milwaukee Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the Milwaukee Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 27% to 52%. While these differences exist, the core requirements for proving disability remain the same for every judge. You can find more information on the Milwaukee Hearing Office page.
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.
