SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Earl C. Cates Jr.

Last decided Phoenix NorthSep 2020
Decisions 1,088since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rate for Earl C. Cates Jr. is 48% based on 1,088 decisions recorded between January 2016 and September 2020. When compared to the broader bench at the Phoenix North office, where judges range from 28% to 72% in their approval rates, this figure provides a baseline for understanding past judicial patterns. These statistics are derived from Social Security Administration records to provide transparency for your claim.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 48%
Decisions on record 1,088

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Cates Jr.. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 25, 2020. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

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

Judge Cates Jr.
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY20
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 Earl C. Cates Jr. fluctuated throughout the data window starting in 2016. After an initial period of relative stability, the rate shifted in 2018 before declining in 2019 and rising in 2020. With 1,088 total decisions on record, the data reflects a varied approach to case adjudication over the four-year period. These yearly changes may reflect shifts in the complexity of cases or the quality of evidence presented in specific years.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Cates 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?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Phoenix North hearing office

The Phoenix North hearing office serves claimants in Arizona and is part of a regional network of offices handling SSDI claims. As of the most recent record in September 2020, the office bench included 12 judges who have contributed to the local docket. You can expect a formal proceeding where your medical and vocational evidence is reviewed in detail.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Phoenix North

The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. At the Phoenix North office, there are 12 judges whose most recent office on record is this location, with individual approval rates ranging from 28% to 72%. This variance highlights the importance of thorough case preparation regardless of which judge is assigned to your hearing.

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