SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Eva Chan

Last decided StocktonJul 2026
Decisions 1,243since 2023

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing a judge's performance requires looking at consistent timeframes. The 53% approval rate for Eva Chan reflects all decisions on record since 2023, which provides a sample size of 1,243 cases. When evaluating this against the Stockton bench, where judges range from 23% to 82% in their approval rates, consider both the long-term record and recent trends. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2023
Approval rate 53%
Decisions on record 1,243
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Chan Stockton National
Approval rate 50% 44% 58%
Fully favorable 29% — —
Denials 50% — —

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

Judge Chan
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY23FY26
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 Eva Chan has shifted since 2023. Starting at 65% in 2023, the rate moved to 57% in 2024, 51% in 2025, and 49% through the partial 2026 fiscal year. This trend indicates a steady adjustment over the 1,243 decisions on record. The latest-period approval rate of 50% remains consistent with this recent pattern, suggesting that the current approach is a continuation of the trend observed over the last few years.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Chan'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 Stockton hearing office

Eva Chan's most recent office on record is the Stockton hearing office, which serves you in California. This office is part of a regional network that handles a high volume of disability claims. With 11 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, the bench provides a diverse range of decision patterns. You can see the Stockton hearing office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Stockton

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 11 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, and 4 of them decided cases here in the latest file through July 2026. These judges show a wide range of approval rates, from 23% to 82%. 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