Stanley K. Chin maintains a 56% lifetime approval rate across 20,261 decisions. This sits slightly below the national average of 58%, though recent data shows a 61% approval rate. Because the SSA assigns cases randomly, your specific hearing outcome depends more on your medical evidence than judicial history. 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 to broader benchmarks provides context for your upcoming hearing. While the national average approval rate stands at 58%, Judge Chin has maintained a 56% lifetime approval rate over a decade of service. These figures are derived from 20,261 lifetime decisions, offering a statistically significant look at past trends. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.
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 Chin'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 10 years on the bench, Judge Chin has seen fluctuations in approval rates, ranging from a high of 68% in 2017 to a low of 42% in 2024. The most recent reporting period shows a 61% approval rate, which is 7 percentage points higher than the current office average. These trends reflect the evolving nature of disability claims rather than a fixed judicial philosophy.
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 with Judge Chin? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Nhc Baltimore hearing office
The NHC Baltimore Hearing Office serves you throughout Maryland and the surrounding region. It is a busy office with 6 judges managing a high volume of SSDI cases. The office currently reports an average approval rate of 49%, which provides a baseline for the local legal environment. You can see the NHC Baltimore 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 you cannot choose your judge. At the NHC Baltimore Hearing Office, the bench consists of 6 judges with lifetime approval rates ranging from 46% to 81%. Because assignment is essentially random, you may be scheduled before any of these jurists. You can view the full roster on the hearing office page.
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.
