SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. William P. Diggs

On record 3,604 decisions since 2017

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rates for William P. Diggs reflect a significant volume of work, providing a statistical baseline for his decision-making history. When compared to the broader Charleston SC bench, which features a lifetime approval range of 17% to 87%, his record provides context for your hearing. These figures are based on 3,604 lifetime decisions. Aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predictions for your individual hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2017
Approval rate 68%
Decisions on record 3,604
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Diggs Charleston SC National
Approval rate 65% 48% 58%
Fully favorable 61%
Denials 35%

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

Judge Diggs
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17FY26
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 decision pattern for William P. Diggs shows a history of approvals with a peak in activity between 2022 and 2023. Since 2017, the annual approval rate has fluctuated, moving from 61% in the early years to a high of 81% in 2023, before settling at 65% in the most recent reporting period. This latest figure remains 17 percentage points higher than the current Charleston SC office average of 48%.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Diggs'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 Charleston SC hearing office

The Charleston SC hearing office serves you throughout the region, maintaining a role in the South Carolina disability adjudication process. With 15 judges on record, the office manages a high volume of cases with a latest-period approval rate of 48%. You can expect a formal environment where evidence quality and medical documentation are the primary drivers of your hearing outcome. You can see the Charleston SC Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. There are 15 judges on record at this office since 2016, with lifetime approval rates spanning from 17% to 87%. Because the bench is diverse, understanding the office environment is as vital as knowing your specific judge.

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