SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Laura Chess

Position Administrative Law Judge
On record SSA records since 2016
Decisions 4,531 lifetime

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes to ensure accuracy. While Laura Chess maintains a 62% lifetime approval rate, her latest-period performance shows a 68% approval rate, which sits 3 points above the MT Pleasant MI office average of 65%. These figures are based on 4,531 lifetime decisions. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 62%
Decisions on record 4,531
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Chess Mt Pleasant MI National
Approval rate 68% 65% 58%
Fully favorable 52%
Denials 32%

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

Judge Chess
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY26
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Since 2016, the approval trend for Laura Chess has shown an upward trajectory. While the rate remained steady in the early part of the record, the latest period reflects a continuation of this higher approval pattern. This shift may reflect changes in case mix or evidence quality presented at hearings. The data shows a stable approach to evaluating your disability claim over the last decade.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Chess'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 Mt Pleasant MI hearing office

The MT Pleasant MI hearing office serves you and other claimants across the region, maintaining a bench of 8 judges on record. The office-wide latest-period approval rate is 65%, reflecting the local administrative environment. You can expect a standard hearing process focused on your medical evidence and vocational testimony. You can see the MT Pleasant MI Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The SSA uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you draw is essentially random. There are 8 judges on record at this office since 2016, 6 of whom reported in the latest period. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 30% to 63% on lifetime records. Your preparation remains consistent 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