SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Carol L. Buck

Last decided SacramentoSep 2021
Decisions 1,842since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent data windows. The 66% approval rate for Carol L. Buck is based on 1,842 decisions on record since 2016. When viewed alongside the broader bench at the Sacramento hearing office, where judges range from 39% to 80% in their since-2016 records, this figure provides a clear view of past activity. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 66%
Decisions on record 1,842

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Buck. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 24, 2021. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

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

Judge Buck
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY21
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

The approval rate for Carol L. Buck has remained relatively steady throughout the data window starting in 2016. After beginning at 62% in 2016, the rate saw minor fluctuations before reaching 75% in 2021. With 1,842 total decisions on record, the volume of cases provides a stable view of the judge's historical pattern. The recent data reflects a continuation of this consistent approach to your disability claim.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Buck'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 Sacramento hearing office

The Sacramento hearing office serves you and other claimants across the region. With 20 judges whose most recent office on record is this location, the office manages a significant volume of disability hearings. You can expect a formal process where the quality of your medical documentation is the primary factor in your decision. You can see the Sacramento Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Sacramento

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you draw is essentially random. There are 20 judges whose most recent office on record is the Sacramento hearing office, with approval rates ranging from 39% to 80% since 2016. Because of this variance, it is important to focus on the strength of your own medical evidence. For your preparation, the guidance remains consistent regardless of which judge you are assigned.

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