SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Stanley K. Chin

On record 3,105 decisions since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rate for Stanley K. Chin is calculated based on 3,105 lifetime decisions, providing a clear view of his history at the NHC Baltimore office. When evaluating this figure, note that the office-wide lifetime approval-rate range for all judges on record spans from 40% to 90%. These figures reflect historical data rather than a guarantee of future outcomes. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 56%
Decisions on record 3,105

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Chin. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 26, 2025. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Chin's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Chin
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY25
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, the approval rate for Stanley K. Chin has experienced various shifts, moving from a high of 70% in 2017 to a low of 42% in 2024, before seeing a rise to 61% in 2025. This fluctuation across 3,105 lifetime decisions suggests that his approach to evidence and case requirements may adapt over time. The latest period reflects a departure from the previous year's trend, highlighting the importance of presenting a well-documented case regardless of historical patterns.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Chin'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 NHC Baltimore hearing office

The NHC Baltimore hearing office serves claimants throughout the Maryland region. With a bench of 14 judges on record, this office manages a high volume of disability hearings. You can expect a formal process where evidence quality and medical documentation remain the primary drivers of a favorable decision. See the /disability-benefits/hearing-offices/baltimore-MD Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 14 judges on record at this office since 2016. With an office-wide lifetime approval-rate range of 40% to 90%, the specific judge assigned can influence your hearing experience. 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