SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Michelle D. Cavadi

On record 3,902 decisions since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing a judge's record requires looking at both lifetime performance and recent trends. Michelle D. Cavadi has a lifetime approval rate of 59%, which sits within the 50% to 89% range observed across the Greensboro bench. In the most recent reporting period, your approval rate was 53%, compared to the office-wide latest-period rate of 65%. These figures are based on a substantial volume of 3,902 lifetime decisions. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 59%
Decisions on record 3,902
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Cavadi Greensboro National
Approval rate 53% 65% 58%
Fully favorable 38%
Denials 47%

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 Cavadi's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Cavadi
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY26
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 record for Michelle D. Cavadi, spanning from 2016 to 2026, shows a varied approval trend. After reaching a peak of 69% in 2019, the approval rate has fluctuated, settling at 53% in the most recent period. This pattern is derived from 3,902 lifetime decisions. While the recent rate is lower than the lifetime average, it reflects the ongoing evolution of case outcomes at this office.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Cavadi'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 Greensboro hearing office

The Greensboro hearing office serves you throughout the region, operating as a key hub for North Carolina disability hearings. With 16 judges on record, the office maintains a latest-period approval rate of 65%. You can expect a formal process focused on the medical and vocational evidence presented in your file. You can see the Greensboro Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The SSA assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 16 judges on record at this office since 2016, 8 of whom reported in the latest period. Approval rates among these peers vary significantly, with lifetime records ranging from 50% to 89%. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
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