Carol A. Eckersen is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Sacramento Hearing Office. Over 9 years on the bench and 17,671 lifetime decisions, you will find a 59% approval rate. This sits slightly 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 and ensure your medical evidence is complete.
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
Judge Carol A. Eckersen maintains a lifetime approval rate of 59%, which matches the 59% state average and sits 1 point above the national average of 58%. While the Sacramento Hearing Office currently reports a latest approval rate of 65%, these figures are based on a large volume of cases handled over her 9 years on the bench. 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 Eckersen'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 her tenure, your judge has shown an upward trend in approval rates. Starting at 48% in 2016, her annual approval rate reached 70% in 2023 and 68% in 2024. These patterns reflect the evolving nature of case evidence and legal standards, providing a baseline for what to expect during your hearing.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Eckersen'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 Eckersen? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Sacramento hearing office
The Sacramento Hearing Office serves a diverse population across California, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an active docket that requires consistent adherence to 20 CFR Part 404 regulations. You can expect a professional environment focused on the thorough review of your medical records and vocational testimony.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning you cannot request a specific judge. At the Sacramento Hearing Office, the bench of 6 judges ranges from 57% to 75% in lifetime approval rates. Because your assignment is random, your focus should remain on the strength of your medical evidence.
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.
