Laura Chess is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the MT Pleasant MI hearing office. Over 10 years on the bench, you have seen them issue 25,804 lifetime decisions with a 63% approval rate. This sits 5 percentage points above the national average of 58%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific bench.
This page presents publicly available SSA Office of Hearings Operations disposition data, with no editorial rating or evaluation. ALJs are independent decisionmakers; aggregate statistics describe past patterns, not predictions of how any individual case will be decided. Information here is provided for hearing preparation, not as legal advice.
Approval rates
Comparing a judge's performance requires looking at both their long-term history and recent trends. Judge Chess maintains a 63% lifetime approval rate, which remains competitive against the latest national average of 58%. In the most recent reporting period, the judge recorded a 67% approval rate. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings.
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.
Decision pattern
Over a 10-year tenure, the approval pattern for Judge Chess has shown a notable upward trend. After hovering near 60% for much of the previous decade, the rate climbed to 70% in 2024 and remains at 69% in 2025. This shift indicates a recent period of higher allowance frequency compared to the earlier years of the judge's career.
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 with Judge Chess? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Mt Pleasant MI hearing office
The MT Pleasant MI Hearing Office serves a broad population across Michigan, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains a consistent workflow to address the regional backlog of cases. The office currently reports a 66% latest-period approval rate, reflecting the local environment for disability adjudication.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the MT Pleasant MI Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 55% to 63%. Because you cannot choose your judge, focusing on the strength of your medical documentation is the most effective way to prepare.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.
