SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Michelle D. Cavadi

Last decided GreensboroJul 2026
Decisions 3,902since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Evaluating a judge's history requires looking at the broader context of their hearing office. While Michelle D. Cavadi has a 59% approval rate on record since 2016, the bench at the Greensboro hearing office shows a range of 50% to 89% for the same period. In the most recent reporting period, Michelle D. Cavadi's approval rate was 53%, compared to the office-wide rate of 65%. These figures are based on a significant volume of decisions, providing statistical context for your case.

All decisions on record 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

Since 2016, Michelle D. Cavadi has issued 3,902 decisions. The yearly approval trend shows fluctuations, starting at 50% in 2016, peaking at 69% in 2019, and settling at 53% in the most recent partial year of 2026. This pattern indicates that while approval rates have varied over the last decade, your recent activity shows a shift from the higher approval levels seen in the middle of this period.

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 claimants across North Carolina. There are 16 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, and the office-wide approval rate in the latest reporting period was 65%. You can expect a formal hearing process where evidence quality is the primary factor in your outcome. You can see the Greensboro Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Greensboro

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 16 judges whose most recent office on record is the Greensboro hearing office, and 8 of them decided cases here in SSA's latest file through July 2026. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 50% to 89% since 2016. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same 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